What were the big players back then? Paradise, Trident, and Tseng, right? Man. MCGA rocked.
Hmmm yeah, Trident and Tseng go way back. Oak Technology made a lot of cards... Diamond was hot for awhile, but in my memory, at least, they came in to the game pretty late, at least I didn't see them till the mid 90s.
Say I vote for X, and someone has compromised the system that wants Y to win. So my vote is registered for Y, both in the database and in the printout. How do I, the voter at home, know this has happened?
I don't, and your paper trail at the counting computer won't give anyone a clue either.
An even bigger concern I see with it is auditability. There's no paper trail, how can you verify that your vote was counted correctly? If someone cracks their database and changes the results, how would you even know? How could you possibly have any confidence in a poll without a paper trail?
I dunno. I think that's perfectly logical. If I want a wordprocessor, I shouldn't have to do more than request it. The idea of a "folder" where all my "applications" go is a little silly.
On the command line (*nix), if I want an editor, I can type vi. If I want my calculator, I can type bc, and that's it. It's all in a path.
This brings to mind why I find GUIs are often unecessary complications, getting in the way instead of making things easier. It's much faster for me to type 'emacs' or 'mozilla' or whatever than to hunt for it in a field of icons. On my windows machine I am constantly hitting CTRL-ESC R and typing in a program name. Even if the program is sitting on the desktop, I can do that a lot faster than I can identify the icon. On Linux and Mac, I keep a terminal window open, and append & at the end of the command lines, for the same affect. I can add a program to my path in about the same amount of time as I can add it to a desktop, and it saves a lot of time in the long run. Yet I here constantly that CLIs are somehow unfriendly, that they get in peoples way... I don't get it. Just the opposite is true for me, it's the GUI that's always getting in my way, and every way I find to circumvent it makes the system more friendly and efficient to me.
Do you have any idea how much time you saved me by posting this, and saving me the trouble? I'd guess with proofreading and revisions I'd have taken 45 minutes or more, and there's always pchance I would not have done as good a job. What a timesaver!
On the friends list you go! Heheh... foe of a friend, maybe one day when I'm bored I'll take a look at that too.
Did you bother tracking back that quote that I presented to you when you attempted to claim that WMD was only in people's "fevered imaginations"?
Your link didn't work but I believe it was Robert Gephart, right? And that proves what?
Should we go on to a list of the quotes and times that Clinton invoked WMD's and Iraq in his public speeches?
And again, that proves what? What makes you think Clinton has any credibility with me? Why would anyone believe anything the man said, he was (and is still, I would guess) a habitual liar and everyone with a TV knows it.
I thought Clinton was the worst president we'd ever had, until W got going. He talked a real good talk when he was campaigning, at least on foreign policy, too bad he changed to a completely different tune once he had the office.
You're quoting statements by politicians that contradict statements by professional weapons inspectors and intelligence experts including the CIA and you think you are establishing credibility thereby?
As far as only nuclear deserving to be classified as a WMD I would have to disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. While chemical weapons are devastating, they are at least usually limited to the area that you can disperse them in. The REAL WMD is biological.
Biological weapons have amazing potential, at some point in the future, but at the moment they're pretty sad as weapons go. How many people have been killed with them so far? How many died from the Anthrax mailings?
Don't get me wrong, they're horrible things that violate every standard of decency and law. But equating them, at their present state, with nuclear weapons is hyperbole of such scale that I'm at a loss to come up with a word that even comes close to describing it.
Iraq's biological weapons programs were ancient history long before the invasion anyway, so even if you believe that it's permissable to invade someone simply for having weapons you don't like (I disagree,) it would still be a red herring.
And let's not forget where the biological weapons they once had came from, and why they were given to them.
Consider that we intervened in Bosnia for so much less.
This is the second time you've trotted this out, and I must assume that you've somehow gotten the impression I approved of that. I did not and do not. You seem to have assumed I'm a Clinton fan - nothing could be further from the truth.
Try to look at the facts instead of just the partisan politics and the comforting lies. Our nation, more than ever before, needs us to have the courage to look the facts in the face.
So many misinformed statements, and so little time.
How about the increasing Ba'athification of Iraq since the '91 defeat? (Adding words from the Khoran to the flag, buiding giant mosques while his people starved...)
'Ba'athification? That was actually quite the opposite. The Ba'ath party was explicitly secularist, the moves you mention were backing off from Ba'athification to reduce the dangerous levels of popular discontent.
WMD are orders of magnitude more dangerous than conventional weapons. They kill indiscriminately and have the ability to render entire areas inhospitable for decades or centuries (if nuclear in nature).
WMD is a term designed to mislead. It lumps chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons together. Nuclear weapons, the one kind Iraq never had, merit the term. Chemical and biological weapons can wreak a lot of havok under the right conditions, but they typically do a lot less damage than conventional explosives.
BTW, do you happen to remember where Iraq got the 'WMDs' that it did once possess?
You should really check your facts, you allude multiple times to allegations that have been shown to have been spurious.
What more do you need to be convinced that Hussein wasn't a poor little misunderstood man?
Did I ever say he was that? No. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Saddam Hussein is and was a monster. America was once, but obviously is no longer, a nation possessed of enough wisdom that we did not 'go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'
Who trained Hussein? Who propped him up in power. Who gave him chemical weapons, and turned a blind eye when he used them?
There are plenty of monsters in this world, and Hussein was certainly not the worst of them. He did do some things I consider, and I would bet you consider, good things in Iraq. He was, after all, a secularist, and under his rule women went to college, got.phds, and held high ranking jobs. That's gone now.
But, as I said, he was on the whole a monster. That changes nothing. There are plenty of monsters in this world. An unprovoked invasion makes the invader into another one, if he wasn't already.
As much damage as Hussein did to Iraq, we have done worse. Destroying the village to save it was always, and still is, madness.
I suggest that you try to educate yourself some more on this topic.
Ahh the arrogance. It is you, my friend, who should try to educate yourself on the subject. I've been following it since long before it entered your brain, I'd wager. You're a wonderful illustration of why the big lie works. It's trotted out on the front pages, and the fact that it was an easily verified lie comes in a small retraction towards the back the next week. Then months or years later, you allude to it as if it proved something, and tell those of us that actually read the fine print we need to educate ourselves.
If you really want to know the truth, you can find it. Start at the link listed as my homepage.
If you prefer to keep believing the comforting lies, I can understand that to some degree, but don't expect me to waste any more time on you. I have work to do, I haven't given up yet.
Since you seem to have taken the time to write a serious reply...
Saying you're "anti-war" is just sticking your head in the ground and not confronting the realities of the world.
Quite the opposite. It's saying that I care about human life, liberty, the rule of law and a bunch of other things America once represented to the world.
Now if you want to say you're against the Iraq war you are at least starting at a point for discussion.
That one and all others.
I'm not a pacifist, mind you. I've no problem with defending oneself. But you don't start a war to defend oneself - you defend oneself against those who start the war.
This country has been in some pretty rotten doings in the past, but those who wanted war always before had to maneuver, to provoke or manufacture attacks, to find some way any way to make it look like it was defense. The american people, G-d bless us, would never go along otherwise and they knew it. But something very deep has changed in a very scary way here. In Iraq, the US for the first time in history invaded another country that never attacked us. As a patriot, that's something that shocked and discouraged me like nothing else in my life has done. I never would have believed it possible.
The next step would be to say why you're against the war and what should be done instead to solve the problem that Iraq presented.
What threat? The 'terrorist links' that the intelligence community said from the beginning never existed, which were never substantiated? Except of course for that one group somehow loosely associated with Al Qaeda, operating in the north of the country where the US and the Kurds, not Baghdad, were in control since the last war?
Or maybe those 'weapons of mass destruction' that are actually less dangerous than plenty of perfectly ordinary weapons, that the inspectors said weren't there, that the intelligence community worldwide said weren't there, that turned out to have not been there?
Or maybe that elusive nuclear program (those my friend, not poison gas, are real 'weapons of mass destruction' and several nations, including the US, Israel, and North Korea have them - places that don't get invaded you'll notice) that turns out to have not existed, outside the fevered fantasies of a few people that were desperate to find a reason, any reason, to start a war, and a very poorly done forgery that was reported to us as gospel truth long after it was detected as such?
Just what threat was it you think I 'can't pretend doesn't exist' here?
I was looking at the Inspiron 5150, which does have a faster processor still. The video on it, btw, is a 32MB nVidia Quadro FX Go5200 - the Apple ships with a 64MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9600. And yes, the Apples all come with Firewire which isn't an option on the Dells. I think for a fair comparison you have to also include some of the software options for the Dell, because they charge extra for things like video editing software, while the Mac includes that already. Admittedly some people won't need it, and if you're planning to wipe the drive and install Linux anyway it's not an issue, but otherwise you need to add over $100 to the Dell to reflect that.
Anyway, I think the point I was trying to make is perfectly valid - the premium on Apple gear is a lot smaller than people think, as evidenced by your remark that the prices were closer than you expected. Whether or not it's truly significant is a matter of personal judgement, I suppose, but for me it's certainly not. Running Linux on my laptop isn't an option because I use it for work and I'm still tied to a few proprietary apps. To get a Dell with the same capabilities as the Apple would have cost me within $100 or so at the time the decision was made, and it looks like the situation is about the same today. The difference in quality is obvious when you set the two side by side, and especially considering it's a machine I work with every day and need to be comfortable with, that price difference seems very insignificant to me.
[snort] I know Apple did a lot of ridiculous performance comparisons (nothing *false*, just designed to let you draw incorrect conclusions, like benchmarking a Photoshop plugin designed for PowerPC SIMD against a raw port to x86), but even they didn't go above the 2:1 claims.
If you compare that sort of thing it's way over 2:1 IIRC, but we both know that's not what I'm talking about.
increase your clock speed by 30% to get an equivalent P4 speed is more in line with reality
I think I see what's confusing you. It's +/-30% (a little more than that IIRC, but let's not quibble) in comparison to a P3. A P4 is slower than a P3 at the same clockspeed however, that's why it's closer to 2:1 when comparing the two. P4s are designed to run very high clock speeds, but they do less work per cycle than their predecessors to do it.
If you want to make a comparison, be my guest, I've done it. Dell has some nice stats for the price, but when you go through and add on all the stuff you need to get them roughly equal, the price difference gets pretty small. And having used them both, I'm more than willing to pay a few extra dollars for a machine with a nicer keyboard, more battery life, a clearer display that's easier on the eyes, and so forth.
I just tried to build comparable systems to compare, the TiBook was $2,198.00 and the Dell was $2,041, that's not what I would call a huge difference. The Dell has a faster processor, the Apple has twice the storage (60gb vs 30,) both with 512mb Ram installed (in real life I'd buy a SIMM a lot cheaper than Apple will sell it, but for this I took their price,) both have 15" display, CD-RW DVD-ROM drives, and wireless cards. The Dell does come with 6 months of earthlink dialup, but I don't exactly consider that a selling point.
The fact that you're quoting megahertz and not mentioning the cpu types tells me right off you're probably not doing a very accurate comparison. A 1ghz G4 is roughly comparable to a P4 at over 2ghz performance wise, and is easier on the battery. I looked at a lot of Intel based laptops before I bought my TiBook, and found a few that were roughly comparable hardware and price-wise, but nothing that was significantly better without being significantly more expensive.
Defend the mac, but please DON'T LIE. Tell me you like the OS. Tell me you think the hardware is pretty and durable, tell me the apps are good, tell me they are great for multimedia, but NEVER, NEVER tell me they are cheaper!!!
OK, the OS is great compared to Windows (I still like a proper *nix setup better, and you can run that too;) the hardware is very nice, durable, well designed; the apps are very nice for sure, and yes, they're great for multimedia. And no, they aren't, as a rule, cheaper. But they're about the same price, that's enough.
How many of those links go to sites maintained by volunteers who took over a project after the originators pulled out? How many are run by people that don't care about Free Software?
While I am not sure why someone would want to run Darwin instead of Linux-ppc if not because they have to run one or more proprietary apps (that's my excuse) this is just nonsense:
GNU-Darwin decided to support only x86, not PPC, some time ago in a fit of 'activisim'.
I know it's nonsense, because I have a lot of their packages installed on my TiBook at the moment. Look here. Packages for PPC and x86, no problem.
This has nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Plenty of left-wing warmongers out there (just look at the US Congress) and plenty of conservatives are anti-war.
Being against war isn't a right-left thing. It's a humanity thing.
Now, I'm probably mistaken, but if they took down their site, couldn't someone just immediately pop up a mirror site and carry on from there?
You are and you aren't.
Nothing legal to prevent it. On that you're right.
But it costs money and time to make something like that available and keep it updated. What makes you think that there are enough people out there who would spend that time and money to keep this thing alive that don't care about Freedom? What on earth would be their motivation?
I read your article and frankly I'd bet in a years time you'll be thanking RedHat for doing this, because once you get migrated to Debian you're going to be a lot happier.
If you read the link you'll see that it's currently only working on PPC, although the x86 version is being worked on. If they got that done, presumably they would be able to run the libraries, unmodified, but it would still be emulation. I think you're a little confused there. Running PPC binaries on an x86 processor would by definition involve emulation, which has nothing to do with modifying the libraries, rather probably a translation module that reinterprets the instructions on the fly.
The PPC is a far better designed chip, of course, and the performance hit of doing this will be tremendous. That's not because it's emulation (emulation can be faster than the original, in some cases, just not this one.)
Apple won't port OS X to i386 so we'll do it for them. That's the point. Even if we have to buy a copy of OS X and hack the install, we'd still be able to run it on i386. That's the point, and a damn good one if you ask me.
Knock yourself out, but I can tell you right now that it won't be nearly as impressive as it sounds. X86 cpus really look bad when they try to emulate PPC/SPARC/Alpha and the like. You'll be a hell of a lot better off just buying a PPC box.
Actually, if I'm reading this correctly, it would mean running their libraries, containing those APIs, in binary form. There's your OSX on x86. Of course, it'll be slow as mud on that kind of hardware, but for those that keep screaming for it, there you go.
Probably breaks your EULA with Apple, if you agreed to one. And their lawyers would probably come down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried redistributing them, but for however many folks have an OSX disk, want to run it on x86, and didn't agree to any EULA, it could be amusing I suppose.
What's more OS X can provide a very classic like user experience if you want it to.
Umm, no it can't.
If you've tried it, and think you succeeded, then you don't have a clue what the Classic 'user experience' is.
You can sort-of-kind-of make Aqua *look* like Classic, but there are still so many key elements of the GUI missing and/or different, it's not anything close.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm yeah, Trident and Tseng go way back. Oak Technology made a lot of cards... Diamond was hot for awhile, but in my memory, at least, they came in to the game pretty late, at least I didn't see them till the mid 90s.
Say I vote for X, and someone has compromised the system that wants Y to win. So my vote is registered for Y, both in the database and in the printout. How do I, the voter at home, know this has happened?
I don't, and your paper trail at the counting computer won't give anyone a clue either.
An even bigger concern I see with it is auditability. There's no paper trail, how can you verify that your vote was counted correctly? If someone cracks their database and changes the results, how would you even know? How could you possibly have any confidence in a poll without a paper trail?
Actually that's the best part. With lynx you don't have to worry about them, the good ones with actual content display, the tubgirl doesn't. :P
Actually some of the best porno sites work great in lynx. http://www.asstr.org/ for instance.
This brings to mind why I find GUIs are often unecessary complications, getting in the way instead of making things easier. It's much faster for me to type 'emacs' or 'mozilla' or whatever than to hunt for it in a field of icons. On my windows machine I am constantly hitting CTRL-ESC R and typing in a program name. Even if the program is sitting on the desktop, I can do that a lot faster than I can identify the icon. On Linux and Mac, I keep a terminal window open, and append & at the end of the command lines, for the same affect. I can add a program to my path in about the same amount of time as I can add it to a desktop, and it saves a lot of time in the long run. Yet I here constantly that CLIs are somehow unfriendly, that they get in peoples way... I don't get it. Just the opposite is true for me, it's the GUI that's always getting in my way, and every way I find to circumvent it makes the system more friendly and efficient to me.
Very well stated!
Do you have any idea how much time you saved me by posting this, and saving me the trouble? I'd guess with proofreading and revisions I'd have taken 45 minutes or more, and there's always pchance I would not have done as good a job. What a timesaver!
On the friends list you go! Heheh... foe of a friend, maybe one day when I'm bored I'll take a look at that too.
Your link didn't work but I believe it was Robert Gephart, right? And that proves what?
And again, that proves what? What makes you think Clinton has any credibility with me? Why would anyone believe anything the man said, he was (and is still, I would guess) a habitual liar and everyone with a TV knows it.
I thought Clinton was the worst president we'd ever had, until W got going. He talked a real good talk when he was campaigning, at least on foreign policy, too bad he changed to a completely different tune once he had the office.
You're quoting statements by politicians that contradict statements by professional weapons inspectors and intelligence experts including the CIA and you think you are establishing credibility thereby?
Biological weapons have amazing potential, at some point in the future, but at the moment they're pretty sad as weapons go. How many people have been killed with them so far? How many died from the Anthrax mailings?
Don't get me wrong, they're horrible things that violate every standard of decency and law. But equating them, at their present state, with nuclear weapons is hyperbole of such scale that I'm at a loss to come up with a word that even comes close to describing it.
Iraq's biological weapons programs were ancient history long before the invasion anyway, so even if you believe that it's permissable to invade someone simply for having weapons you don't like (I disagree,) it would still be a red herring.
And let's not forget where the biological weapons they once had came from, and why they were given to them.
This is the second time you've trotted this out, and I must assume that you've somehow gotten the impression I approved of that. I did not and do not. You seem to have assumed I'm a Clinton fan - nothing could be further from the truth.
Try to look at the facts instead of just the partisan politics and the comforting lies. Our nation, more than ever before, needs us to have the courage to look the facts in the face.
So many misinformed statements, and so little time.
'Ba'athification? That was actually quite the opposite. The Ba'ath party was explicitly secularist, the moves you mention were backing off from Ba'athification to reduce the dangerous levels of popular discontent.
WMD is a term designed to mislead. It lumps chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons together. Nuclear weapons, the one kind Iraq never had, merit the term. Chemical and biological weapons can wreak a lot of havok under the right conditions, but they typically do a lot less damage than conventional explosives.
BTW, do you happen to remember where Iraq got the 'WMDs' that it did once possess?
You should really check your facts, you allude multiple times to allegations that have been shown to have been spurious.
Did I ever say he was that? No. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Saddam Hussein is and was a monster. America was once, but obviously is no longer, a nation possessed of enough wisdom that we did not 'go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'
Who trained Hussein? Who propped him up in power. Who gave him chemical weapons, and turned a blind eye when he used them?
There are plenty of monsters in this world, and Hussein was certainly not the worst of them. He did do some things I consider, and I would bet you consider, good things in Iraq. He was, after all, a secularist, and under his rule women went to college, got .phds, and held high ranking jobs. That's gone now.
But, as I said, he was on the whole a monster. That changes nothing. There are plenty of monsters in this world. An unprovoked invasion makes the invader into another one, if he wasn't already.
As much damage as Hussein did to Iraq, we have done worse. Destroying the village to save it was always, and still is, madness.
Ahh the arrogance. It is you, my friend, who should try to educate yourself on the subject. I've been following it since long before it entered your brain, I'd wager. You're a wonderful illustration of why the big lie works. It's trotted out on the front pages, and the fact that it was an easily verified lie comes in a small retraction towards the back the next week. Then months or years later, you allude to it as if it proved something, and tell those of us that actually read the fine print we need to educate ourselves.
If you really want to know the truth, you can find it. Start at the link listed as my homepage.
If you prefer to keep believing the comforting lies, I can understand that to some degree, but don't expect me to waste any more time on you. I have work to do, I haven't given up yet.
Since you seem to have taken the time to write a serious reply...
Quite the opposite. It's saying that I care about human life, liberty, the rule of law and a bunch of other things America once represented to the world.
That one and all others.
I'm not a pacifist, mind you. I've no problem with defending oneself. But you don't start a war to defend oneself - you defend oneself against those who start the war.
This country has been in some pretty rotten doings in the past, but those who wanted war always before had to maneuver, to provoke or manufacture attacks, to find some way any way to make it look like it was defense. The american people, G-d bless us, would never go along otherwise and they knew it. But something very deep has changed in a very scary way here. In Iraq, the US for the first time in history invaded another country that never attacked us. As a patriot, that's something that shocked and discouraged me like nothing else in my life has done. I never would have believed it possible.
What threat? The 'terrorist links' that the intelligence community said from the beginning never existed, which were never substantiated? Except of course for that one group somehow loosely associated with Al Qaeda, operating in the north of the country where the US and the Kurds, not Baghdad, were in control since the last war?
Or maybe those 'weapons of mass destruction' that are actually less dangerous than plenty of perfectly ordinary weapons, that the inspectors said weren't there, that the intelligence community worldwide said weren't there, that turned out to have not been there?
Or maybe that elusive nuclear program (those my friend, not poison gas, are real 'weapons of mass destruction' and several nations, including the US, Israel, and North Korea have them - places that don't get invaded you'll notice) that turns out to have not existed, outside the fevered fantasies of a few people that were desperate to find a reason, any reason, to start a war, and a very poorly done forgery that was reported to us as gospel truth long after it was detected as such?
Just what threat was it you think I 'can't pretend doesn't exist' here?
I was looking at the Inspiron 5150, which does have a faster processor still. The video on it, btw, is a 32MB nVidia Quadro FX Go5200 - the Apple ships with a 64MB ATI Mobility Radeon 9600. And yes, the Apples all come with Firewire which isn't an option on the Dells. I think for a fair comparison you have to also include some of the software options for the Dell, because they charge extra for things like video editing software, while the Mac includes that already. Admittedly some people won't need it, and if you're planning to wipe the drive and install Linux anyway it's not an issue, but otherwise you need to add over $100 to the Dell to reflect that.
Anyway, I think the point I was trying to make is perfectly valid - the premium on Apple gear is a lot smaller than people think, as evidenced by your remark that the prices were closer than you expected. Whether or not it's truly significant is a matter of personal judgement, I suppose, but for me it's certainly not. Running Linux on my laptop isn't an option because I use it for work and I'm still tied to a few proprietary apps. To get a Dell with the same capabilities as the Apple would have cost me within $100 or so at the time the decision was made, and it looks like the situation is about the same today. The difference in quality is obvious when you set the two side by side, and especially considering it's a machine I work with every day and need to be comfortable with, that price difference seems very insignificant to me.
If you compare that sort of thing it's way over 2:1 IIRC, but we both know that's not what I'm talking about.
I think I see what's confusing you. It's +/-30% (a little more than that IIRC, but let's not quibble) in comparison to a P3. A P4 is slower than a P3 at the same clockspeed however, that's why it's closer to 2:1 when comparing the two. P4s are designed to run very high clock speeds, but they do less work per cycle than their predecessors to do it.
If you want to make a comparison, be my guest, I've done it. Dell has some nice stats for the price, but when you go through and add on all the stuff you need to get them roughly equal, the price difference gets pretty small. And having used them both, I'm more than willing to pay a few extra dollars for a machine with a nicer keyboard, more battery life, a clearer display that's easier on the eyes, and so forth.
I just tried to build comparable systems to compare, the TiBook was $2,198.00 and the Dell was $2,041, that's not what I would call a huge difference. The Dell has a faster processor, the Apple has twice the storage (60gb vs 30,) both with 512mb Ram installed (in real life I'd buy a SIMM a lot cheaper than Apple will sell it, but for this I took their price,) both have 15" display, CD-RW DVD-ROM drives, and wireless cards. The Dell does come with 6 months of earthlink dialup, but I don't exactly consider that a selling point.
I'd love to see the models you're comparing.
The fact that you're quoting megahertz and not mentioning the cpu types tells me right off you're probably not doing a very accurate comparison. A 1ghz G4 is roughly comparable to a P4 at over 2ghz performance wise, and is easier on the battery. I looked at a lot of Intel based laptops before I bought my TiBook, and found a few that were roughly comparable hardware and price-wise, but nothing that was significantly better without being significantly more expensive.
OK, the OS is great compared to Windows (I still like a proper *nix setup better, and you can run that too;) the hardware is very nice, durable, well designed; the apps are very nice for sure, and yes, they're great for multimedia. And no, they aren't, as a rule, cheaper. But they're about the same price, that's enough.
I think you have just proven my point.
How many of those links go to sites maintained by volunteers who took over a project after the originators pulled out? How many are run by people that don't care about Free Software?
While I am not sure why someone would want to run Darwin instead of Linux-ppc if not because they have to run one or more proprietary apps (that's my excuse) this is just nonsense:
I know it's nonsense, because I have a lot of their packages installed on my TiBook at the moment. Look here. Packages for PPC and x86, no problem.
This has nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Plenty of left-wing warmongers out there (just look at the US Congress) and plenty of conservatives are anti-war.
Being against war isn't a right-left thing. It's a humanity thing.
What kind of kool-aid are you drinking?
"The primary supported Darwin platform" - PPC, most assuredly is supported by this project.
Quit spreading fud, and moderators, please quit moderating this kind of nonsense up!
You are and you aren't.
Nothing legal to prevent it. On that you're right.
But it costs money and time to make something like that available and keep it updated. What makes you think that there are enough people out there who would spend that time and money to keep this thing alive that don't care about Freedom? What on earth would be their motivation?
I read your article and frankly I'd bet in a years time you'll be thanking RedHat for doing this, because once you get migrated to Debian you're going to be a lot happier.
See my other reply on this thread. If you read the links, you'll find out they are indeed working on this on NetBSD/i386.
If you read the link you'll see that it's currently only working on PPC, although the x86 version is being worked on. If they got that done, presumably they would be able to run the libraries, unmodified, but it would still be emulation. I think you're a little confused there. Running PPC binaries on an x86 processor would by definition involve emulation, which has nothing to do with modifying the libraries, rather probably a translation module that reinterprets the instructions on the fly.
The PPC is a far better designed chip, of course, and the performance hit of doing this will be tremendous. That's not because it's emulation (emulation can be faster than the original, in some cases, just not this one.)
Knock yourself out, but I can tell you right now that it won't be nearly as impressive as it sounds. X86 cpus really look bad when they try to emulate PPC/SPARC/Alpha and the like. You'll be a hell of a lot better off just buying a PPC box.
Actually, if I'm reading this correctly, it would mean running their libraries, containing those APIs, in binary form. There's your OSX on x86. Of course, it'll be slow as mud on that kind of hardware, but for those that keep screaming for it, there you go.
Probably breaks your EULA with Apple, if you agreed to one. And their lawyers would probably come down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried redistributing them, but for however many folks have an OSX disk, want to run it on x86, and didn't agree to any EULA, it could be amusing I suppose.
F-prot AV and Kerio Personal Firewall are what I use on my Win box, and they beat the piss out of Symantecs offerings anyway.
Umm, no it can't.
If you've tried it, and think you succeeded, then you don't have a clue what the Classic 'user experience' is.
You can sort-of-kind-of make Aqua *look* like Classic, but there are still so many key elements of the GUI missing and/or different, it's not anything close.