With temperatures increasing and ice melting in the Arctic, drilling in Alaska will be way easier than it is now, in less harsh conditions. I am sure the current administration is thinking to reconsider their position on Global warming. Not only it exists, but it may be a good thing!!!!
"It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL), according to Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation that created and oversees the Linux license.
"If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL," Moglen told CNET News.com Thursday. Section 7 of the GPL "requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission."
Article from CNET:
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html
I am not an Apple fan, but those numbers have no meaning for me. As you would learn in any statistics class, any statistical number you get should be reported with some 'error bar'. What if the samplig was done so that the actual Mac usage was 4.35+-0.1? What if the error is 0.01? The same number would have two different meanings...
Google (as an example) uses a customized version of Ubuntu as their internal desktops. Rumors of moving the server farm to Ubuntu server were also in the air...
Wheater or not we will ever see "Goobuntu", why Google seems to be chosing Ubuntu instead of Red Hat?
Yes, correct, I was a bit too extreme sayng that Apple does not release any piece of code. However, as it wwas very nicely explained above in other posts, If you had to recompile the OSX yourself with the bits of source that actually are available, you would not go further than the login screen.
Thanks for the clarification. However, being able to recompile Darwin, although possible (up to now at least) is a minimal part in the open-source effort. Would you still consider linux really open-source if the kernel were to be the only open source part of the OS, the rest being proprietary? What is the point of recompile a kernel, which anyway is locked into an hardware platform and has a proprietary desktop environment on top? Really I still think it's just a marketing scheme. Apple knows that using "open-source" brand is cool. But they are acting to keep their code as close as they can. Opening it would mean open the road for white box running OSX.
Well, I don't really get how much "open source" there is in Apple's effort. To me it looks more like "open-source compatible". In other words, with tools provided you can compile your open-source software (read: linux code) for Darwin. However I don't really see a full open-source effort. To me open-source means that you have to release the source one way or another, and Apple doesn't release any piece of source code. It's not enough to be based on FreeBSD to acquire the status of "Open-Source".
Sorry, this is another of those marketing schemes of Apple's. In fact it's one of the main reason I am staying away from it.
Perfectly correct. However I wouldn't consider either linux or www startups. Why aren't you using Linux instead of Apple? Why you "google" instead of using something else? Why you use Yahoo or MSN or AOL messengers?
In other words, creativity of countries other than the US are not at stake here. Pleanty of ideas came from out the US. However most of the time these ideas were translated into action (with profit) in the US.
There is no way you can say Reagan was liberal when talking about the role of science in life. It's almost like saying that GW Bush is as liberal as Clinton.
Reagan was the first president to specifically present (or should I say represent?) creationism as a "scientifically sound theory". More deeply he started the campaign of "scientifically sound science", which is exactly what Bloomberg is correctly criticizing in his speech.
As a reference, have a look at "the republican war on science" by Chris Mooney.
How many of the people that tried Boot Camp used a legal copy of Windows? And by legal I don't mean using the OEM CD that came with your Windows box (which you can't use in other than that box).
You cannot install windowsXP from your copy that came with your dell PC. It is not allowed. If you want to install it in your Mac, you need to purchase it. I wonder how many will actually buy a full (legal) version of Windows to put it on the Mac, or just reuse an illegal version. The fact that Apple doesn't provide it, frees them from legal problems, which are passed over to the user.
In the meantime, I'll enjoy my full version of Ubuntu, along with my Legal version of Windows.
You are right, it's a definite win for you, as you are already a Mac user. I think this is where this initiative will succeed.
However, I am skeptical this will win over current windows user. It appear as a waste to me to buy a Mac and run windows on it. You buy good hardware, but the average windows user is more price-conscious than quality-conscious. If one wanted to switch, I think he/she sould have done it even without this dual boot initiative.
If Apple consider itself so greatly better than anything else in the universe, what is the need to get their hands (and products) dirty with a full install of Windows? It's like a BMW saying: "you are driving the finest cars of ours. But just in case you can run old, obsolete, Chevy engines in it now". Nothing wrong with it, really, I understand the purpose of making their machines more attractive to windows users. But that's where the problem is. Macs and MacOSX, per se, are not enough to lure windows users, which will keep buying cheap boxes, with Windows in it. The rest of the "we are great, we are god" kind of Apple's attitude starts to be a bit tiring. Apple is just another PC maker, one of the many. It's not the holy grail. If it were, they wouldn't need windows to show it.
... with the 100USD laptop initiative, Intel should develop a bicycle powered PC. Here's how it works. You have to paddle to run the computer, so you do also physical exercise and it does not use any power outlet (so you don't waste electric resources). As to be used only outdoor, so you get to breath fresh air.
Put OSX (not the proletarian Windows), so you appear as a pure enthusiast. Make it minimalistic, no keyboard, no mouse, just a pen and a touch screen. Market it to the same users of hybrid vehicles.
mmm. I am skeptic about the price though. Maybe price it in the 3000USD range, sell it only in the green states. It'd be a sellout!
Why you say that Linux will be the next target? I think a Linux user (mind, I am saying user, not Linux box) is inherently more security-conscious that a regular Mac user. So linux itself could be as insecure as anything, but their administrator should be more prepared to face threats than regular OSX user, specifically those who are affected by the "invincibility" virus.
I don't want to start a flaimbait. However here it is: There is no safe software. OSX is inherently safer than windows, but it's not 100% safe, by default (no software is). This is to say that I hope many mac user will finally get conscious about this: Mac OSX is not de facto immune by any exploit, flaw or whatever. Not because you are using OSX you should not be careful, and use the proper software.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this redefine the concept of Intellectual property? I mean do I get sued from anybody because I own a brain and the creative use of it?
With temperatures increasing and ice melting in the Arctic, drilling in Alaska will be way easier than it is now, in less harsh conditions. I am sure the current administration is thinking to reconsider their position on Global warming. Not only it exists, but it may be a good thing!!!!
It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL).
"It's possible" or "could" are expression used to indicated a possibility, not a certainty.
"It's possible that Thursday's deal between Microsoft and Novell could conflict with a provision in the General Public License (GPL), according to Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation that created and oversees the Linux license. "If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL," Moglen told CNET News.com Thursday. Section 7 of the GPL "requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission." Article from CNET: http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html
You can get multiple signatures with "signature switch", a free extension for Thunderbird: https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/611/
I am not an Apple fan, but those numbers have no meaning for me. As you would learn in any statistics class, any statistical number you get should be reported with some 'error bar'. What if the samplig was done so that the actual Mac usage was 4.35+-0.1? What if the error is 0.01? The same number would have two different meanings...
... webmail!
Google (as an example) uses a customized version of Ubuntu as their internal desktops. Rumors of moving the server farm to Ubuntu server were also in the air... Wheater or not we will ever see "Goobuntu", why Google seems to be chosing Ubuntu instead of Red Hat?
Yes, correct, I was a bit too extreme sayng that Apple does not release any piece of code. However, as it wwas very nicely explained above in other posts, If you had to recompile the OSX yourself with the bits of source that actually are available, you would not go further than the login screen.
Thanks for the clarification. However, being able to recompile Darwin, although possible (up to now at least) is a minimal part in the open-source effort. Would you still consider linux really open-source if the kernel were to be the only open source part of the OS, the rest being proprietary? What is the point of recompile a kernel, which anyway is locked into an hardware platform and has a proprietary desktop environment on top? Really I still think it's just a marketing scheme. Apple knows that using "open-source" brand is cool. But they are acting to keep their code as close as they can. Opening it would mean open the road for white box running OSX.
Well, I don't really get how much "open source" there is in Apple's effort. To me it looks more like "open-source compatible". In other words, with tools provided you can compile your open-source software (read: linux code) for Darwin. However I don't really see a full open-source effort. To me open-source means that you have to release the source one way or another, and Apple doesn't release any piece of source code. It's not enough to be based on FreeBSD to acquire the status of "Open-Source".
Sorry, this is another of those marketing schemes of Apple's. In fact it's one of the main reason I am staying away from it.
P.S. What is Microsoft did the same?
Perfectly correct. However I wouldn't consider either linux or www startups. Why aren't you using Linux instead of Apple? Why you "google" instead of using something else? Why you use Yahoo or MSN or AOL messengers? In other words, creativity of countries other than the US are not at stake here. Pleanty of ideas came from out the US. However most of the time these ideas were translated into action (with profit) in the US.
There is no way you can say Reagan was liberal when talking about the role of science in life. It's almost like saying that GW Bush is as liberal as Clinton. Reagan was the first president to specifically present (or should I say represent?) creationism as a "scientifically sound theory". More deeply he started the campaign of "scientifically sound science", which is exactly what Bloomberg is correctly criticizing in his speech. As a reference, have a look at "the republican war on science" by Chris Mooney.
Have you ever actually tried any recent distribution? Evolution does a pretty good job (as compared to outlook) and most of the features are there.
I can't believe you are sticking to MS products because of some charts in MSN...
Good to know. I always thought that Mac geeks were always very "legal" in handling software. Oh well, not much different really...
How many of the people that tried Boot Camp used a legal copy of Windows? And by legal I don't mean using the OEM CD that came with your Windows box (which you can't use in other than that box).
Honesty in the answer is appreciated.
I thought it was a due reference...
In the meantime, I'll enjoy my full version of Ubuntu, along with my Legal version of Windows.
However, I am skeptical this will win over current windows user. It appear as a waste to me to buy a Mac and run windows on it. You buy good hardware, but the average windows user is more price-conscious than quality-conscious. If one wanted to switch, I think he/she sould have done it even without this dual boot initiative.
If Apple consider itself so greatly better than anything else in the universe, what is the need to get their hands (and products) dirty with a full install of Windows? It's like a BMW saying: "you are driving the finest cars of ours. But just in case you can run old, obsolete, Chevy engines in it now". Nothing wrong with it, really, I understand the purpose of making their machines more attractive to windows users. But that's where the problem is. Macs and MacOSX, per se, are not enough to lure windows users, which will keep buying cheap boxes, with Windows in it. The rest of the "we are great, we are god" kind of Apple's attitude starts to be a bit tiring. Apple is just another PC maker, one of the many. It's not the holy grail. If it were, they wouldn't need windows to show it.
... with the 100USD laptop initiative, Intel should develop a bicycle powered PC. Here's how it works. You have to paddle to run the computer, so you do also physical exercise and it does not use any power outlet (so you don't waste electric resources). As to be used only outdoor, so you get to breath fresh air. Put OSX (not the proletarian Windows), so you appear as a pure enthusiast. Make it minimalistic, no keyboard, no mouse, just a pen and a touch screen. Market it to the same users of hybrid vehicles. mmm. I am skeptic about the price though. Maybe price it in the 3000USD range, sell it only in the green states. It'd be a sellout!
Why you say that Linux will be the next target? I think a Linux user (mind, I am saying user, not Linux box) is inherently more security-conscious that a regular Mac user. So linux itself could be as insecure as anything, but their administrator should be more prepared to face threats than regular OSX user, specifically those who are affected by the "invincibility" virus.
I am envious, the exploit doesn't work on my windows box. If I try to run the proof of concept file, it says it's not a movie file. Damn it!
I don't want to start a flaimbait. However here it is: There is no safe software. OSX is inherently safer than windows, but it's not 100% safe, by default (no software is). This is to say that I hope many mac user will finally get conscious about this: Mac OSX is not de facto immune by any exploit, flaw or whatever. Not because you are using OSX you should not be careful, and use the proper software.
Maybe I am provocative... Anyway: when are we going to have similar initiatives for OSX or linux?