It has already been discussed many times on such sites as osx86project.org, and what came out of debates is that one reason why Mac OS X works so well and is less bloated than Windows is that it only has to run on Apple's machines and not exotic hardware as XP has to (not to mention legacy support) and that Apple would never do that because the extra hardware support would ruin the reliability and would be hard/expensive to maintain, also that only geeks are likely to put another OS than the one that was on their computer when they bought it, and that no computer maker would want to put OS X on it because they all (iirc) pay the Windows tax no matter what, so unless Apple gives its OS away for free no one will want it.
Also it would harm Apple's image which isn't either a hardware company or a software company but an experience company, and to sell OS X for PC's would ruin the intended experience. In other words, never gonna happen.
However, you still can run OS X natively on any x86 that has the SSE2 instruction set, it can be quite a hassle to get everything working right depending on your hardware (and your experience will be very hardware dependant, the way to make it work the best is to make everything Intel, mainly the video chip) but it works.
You got modded up on Slashdot for insulting Americans?
lol, which word made it an insult, "cliché", "clueless" or "american"?;-) I think that "pathetic, hateful little bastard" is more an insult than "cliché clueless american" anyways. My comment wasn't even any hateful, yet you're acting as if I had just said "lol americans suck!!"
I also love how you're saying that I insulted americans. However I'm at least as surprised as you are for getting modded that far up for my comment, I guess there was some truth in there (note that I did not only get modded insightful but also funny, and also troll)
I defy you to even get modded up more than modded down for saying "BUSH IS A FAG!" on Slashdot (without replying to any comment):-)
Let's see, let's see, I got modded up 3 times for that comment, how many times have you been modded up for your comment? Oh you've been modded down?:-)
Democracy got it's start in the US
lol what's wrong with you guys, they don't teach you about Pericles in american schools? They don't seem to teach you either the difference between "its" and "it's";-)
libertarians espouse liberty for individuals, NOT souless legal fictions.
We can't be talking about the same libertarians them. I'm talking about the ones that in Europe we call liberal.
Now that I think about it, I just think you got it wrong, your definition of libertarianism means liberalism (the american meaning of the term), libertarianism is all about pure liberty for people and companies. And please don't make me have to link to Wikipedia;-)
Well, far before Apple (by about a decade) making Unix available to the common man, there was Linux.
I'm sure that if a little girl could use Mac OS 7 (and you just had to go to a school in the 1990's to see that happening), she could use Apple's first Unix, A/UX, that was available 3 years before Linux.
Not all companies don't give a shit about people. The company I own treats it's employees well, respects it's clients, and blah blah blah
Yeah, and how large is your company, huh? Is it a Fortune 500 company? No? You see, the larger the company, the less they care, but they're not even supposed to care in the first place. That's the key to capitalism as defined by Adam Smith, the butcher doesn't butch for the good of the community, but for profit. And that's what companies are supposed to be driven by, profit.
It's not a bad thing, it doesn't make companies evil by nature as some hippie douchebags seem to think, it's ultra-libertarianism that's evil for not controlling companies which in their right mind would do anything for more profit. Because the misunderstood problem is that companies, particularly large ones, are the fruit of a profit-thirsty collective intelligence, and that the government decided not to interfere with their quest for more profit, leading to the terrible results we know about particularly in the pharmacy industry.
Only a strong, global government control over companies can prevent such terrible situations from happening, it's called a Keynesian economy and it's known to work, but when at the head of the government you put CEO's of important companies, you can't expect that to happen, because the government itselves becomes a kind of company, an out-of-control profit thristy one.
You are right on the mark. Deciding what is a 'flaw' is a cultural decision, a matter of opinion. There is no objective truth here. Is short stature a 'flaw' in Pygmies?
Spare me that bullcrap. Two-headed reptiles hardly can even get to live old enough to reproduce themselves, it's not a motherfucking cultural decision to say that it's a flaw, they just don't get to survive and carry their flaw on, one out of a few thousands of them mutates into having two heads and die without passing its flaw on. Now Pygmies do survive and successfully reproduce themselves, so it can't be compared.
Yes, and I agree with your whole post, however the GP obviously not meant it was a mis-step, more like a whole new better thing the whole species could move on to.
I completly agree, but the GP didn't just say it was evolution, it said it was a step of evolution, as if it was something a whole species could move to and that would help make the species survive in its given environment. My point was that it was not since these two-headed reptiles could hardly even survive to reproduce their new "feature".
And it doesn't matter what fishes would have thought, the only thing that matters is fitness, survival and reproduction.
As far as I can see, Two Heads are the same as having two hands. Its not a flaw, its a step in evolution.
I saw in an article about a two-headed snake that 1 of 10,000 snakes have that flaw and that they usually don't live long mainly because they got trouble eating. Please next time don't claim with so much confidence such a thing as "it's not a flaw but a step in evolution" when it couldn't be a step in evolution since two headed reptiles hardly can make it to reproduction. It's not about deciding whether it's a flaw or an evolutionary feature because it's objectively a flaw, for a reptile to have two heads leads to a premature death and doesn't in any way help surviving in the environment.
And to correct your bad six-finger analogy you might rather want to compare that to trisomy-21 or mucoviscidosis. When you see kids dying when they're 20 because of some "flaw" in their lungs do you still think it's an evolutionary step? People get modded up over some bullshit these days..
I know I'm a bit off-topic but why on Earth has Nintendo chosen such blank and unpersonal characters for Wii Sports as they, in my humble opinion, should have used their Nintendo characters just like in Mario Tennis? I mean, really, why? I just cannot think of a single reason.
Oh yeah that's right, well, didn't pay attention. If he really wants any option to see only -1's he'll log in no matter what.
By the way, I think your signature explains extremely well the nuance between the two licenses, makes me wonder why I've always chose the GPL license over the BSD/MIT one when submitting SourceForge projects.
Everybody knows that games use their console's full potential only a few years after the console came out, so of course no game yet might be using its full potential but saying that it will never happen is plain silly.
This whole Wiimote strap thing just made me wonder, why do Wiimotes fly as tennis rackets hardly ever fly? You've never seen a wrist strap on a tennis racket because that type of thing just doesn't happen.
So why does the Wiimote fly away from their owners' hands that easily, although they are way lighter than tennis rackets? Is it that the plastic they're covered with is too slippery?
Most astronomers think that the universe is infinite
No? I thought they didn't and rather thought that the universe was about 180 billion ly large and that we were somewhere in there, not being able to tell where exactly since we can only see about 13.8 billion ly away. And don't tell me that we/they are supposed to think that there's something (even if it's only vaccum) out of this huge 180 billion ly large ball because we couldn't get there even if we were on the edge of the universe (I wonder what we'd see tho)
And by the way, why do we care about the background microwave radiation to determine the shape of the universe? I mean what does it have to do with it, besides to give information about the early universe? I haven't read the whole article by the way, oh well, if you have, you need to ask yourself questions about the (mis)use of your free time.
Slashdot Mirror
It has already been discussed many times on such sites as osx86project.org, and what came out of debates is that one reason why Mac OS X works so well and is less bloated than Windows is that it only has to run on Apple's machines and not exotic hardware as XP has to (not to mention legacy support) and that Apple would never do that because the extra hardware support would ruin the reliability and would be hard/expensive to maintain, also that only geeks are likely to put another OS than the one that was on their computer when they bought it, and that no computer maker would want to put OS X on it because they all (iirc) pay the Windows tax no matter what, so unless Apple gives its OS away for free no one will want it.
Also it would harm Apple's image which isn't either a hardware company or a software company but an experience company, and to sell OS X for PC's would ruin the intended experience. In other words, never gonna happen.
However, you still can run OS X natively on any x86 that has the SSE2 instruction set, it can be quite a hassle to get everything working right depending on your hardware (and your experience will be very hardware dependant, the way to make it work the best is to make everything Intel, mainly the video chip) but it works.
You got modded up on Slashdot for insulting Americans?
lol, which word made it an insult, "cliché", "clueless" or "american"? ;-) I think that "pathetic, hateful little bastard" is more an insult than "cliché clueless american" anyways. My comment wasn't even any hateful, yet you're acting as if I had just said "lol americans suck!!"
I also love how you're saying that I insulted americans. However I'm at least as surprised as you are for getting modded that far up for my comment, I guess there was some truth in there (note that I did not only get modded insightful but also funny, and also troll)
I defy you to even get modded up more than modded down for saying "BUSH IS A FAG!" on Slashdot (without replying to any comment) :-)
blah blah blah...
I concur with your commentary, I can't believe I got modded up for that :-) three times!
And, no, I am NOT an American.
My bad, I too thought you were an american, I can see why you put that in your signature. Your spelling of "odour" was an obvious hint tho.
Let's see, let's see, I got modded up 3 times for that comment, how many times have you been modded up for your comment? Oh you've been modded down? :-)
Democracy got it's start in the US
lol what's wrong with you guys, they don't teach you about Pericles in american schools? They don't seem to teach you either the difference between "its" and "it's" ;-)
libertarians espouse liberty for individuals, NOT souless legal fictions.
We can't be talking about the same libertarians them. I'm talking about the ones that in Europe we call liberal.
Now that I think about it, I just think you got it wrong, your definition of libertarianism means liberalism (the american meaning of the term), libertarianism is all about pure liberty for people and companies. And please don't make me have to link to Wikipedia ;-)
Wow, just realized I was the third person to tell you about A/UX, my bad!
Well, far before Apple (by about a decade) making Unix available to the common man, there was Linux.
I'm sure that if a little girl could use Mac OS 7 (and you just had to go to a school in the 1990's to see that happening), she could use Apple's first Unix, A/UX, that was available 3 years before Linux.
In your face!! :-)
If you live in a democratic state, I'd say they are.
I smell a cliché clueless american.
Not all companies don't give a shit about people. The company I own treats it's employees well, respects it's clients, and blah blah blah
Yeah, and how large is your company, huh? Is it a Fortune 500 company? No? You see, the larger the company, the less they care, but they're not even supposed to care in the first place. That's the key to capitalism as defined by Adam Smith, the butcher doesn't butch for the good of the community, but for profit. And that's what companies are supposed to be driven by, profit.
It's not a bad thing, it doesn't make companies evil by nature as some hippie douchebags seem to think, it's ultra-libertarianism that's evil for not controlling companies which in their right mind would do anything for more profit. Because the misunderstood problem is that companies, particularly large ones, are the fruit of a profit-thirsty collective intelligence, and that the government decided not to interfere with their quest for more profit, leading to the terrible results we know about particularly in the pharmacy industry.
Only a strong, global government control over companies can prevent such terrible situations from happening, it's called a Keynesian economy and it's known to work, but when at the head of the government you put CEO's of important companies, you can't expect that to happen, because the government itselves becomes a kind of company, an out-of-control profit thristy one.
So apple finally tears a page out of Microsofts book and builds an OS for embedded devices. Lol. And this is news because....
..it's Apple.
You are right on the mark. Deciding what is a 'flaw' is a cultural decision, a matter of opinion. There is no objective truth here. Is short stature a 'flaw' in Pygmies?
Spare me that bullcrap. Two-headed reptiles hardly can even get to live old enough to reproduce themselves, it's not a motherfucking cultural decision to say that it's a flaw, they just don't get to survive and carry their flaw on, one out of a few thousands of them mutates into having two heads and die without passing its flaw on. Now Pygmies do survive and successfully reproduce themselves, so it can't be compared.
Actually, it is a step in evolution.
Yes, and I agree with your whole post, however the GP obviously not meant it was a mis-step, more like a whole new better thing the whole species could move on to.
I completly agree, but the GP didn't just say it was evolution, it said it was a step of evolution, as if it was something a whole species could move to and that would help make the species survive in its given environment. My point was that it was not since these two-headed reptiles could hardly even survive to reproduce their new "feature".
And it doesn't matter what fishes would have thought, the only thing that matters is fitness, survival and reproduction.
As far as I can see, Two Heads are the same as having two hands. Its not a flaw, its a step in evolution.
I saw in an article about a two-headed snake that 1 of 10,000 snakes have that flaw and that they usually don't live long mainly because they got trouble eating. Please next time don't claim with so much confidence such a thing as "it's not a flaw but a step in evolution" when it couldn't be a step in evolution since two headed reptiles hardly can make it to reproduction. It's not about deciding whether it's a flaw or an evolutionary feature because it's objectively a flaw, for a reptile to have two heads leads to a premature death and doesn't in any way help surviving in the environment.
And to correct your bad six-finger analogy you might rather want to compare that to trisomy-21 or mucoviscidosis. When you see kids dying when they're 20 because of some "flaw" in their lungs do you still think it's an evolutionary step? People get modded up over some bullshit these days..
Anyways damn, one really has to wait for a few hours to start not-so-on-topic discussions, mainly if it's in the two first posts :)
I know I'm a bit off-topic but why on Earth has Nintendo chosen such blank and unpersonal characters for Wii Sports as they, in my humble opinion, should have used their Nintendo characters just like in Mario Tennis? I mean, really, why? I just cannot think of a single reason.
Oh yeah that's right, well, didn't pay attention. If he really wants any option to see only -1's he'll log in no matter what.
By the way, I think your signature explains extremely well the nuance between the two licenses, makes me wonder why I've always chose the GPL license over the BSD/MIT one when submitting SourceForge projects.
Why isn't there an option to only read -1 posts? I can't take the censorship on this site anymore.
In Preferences>Comments set +6 to all the down-mods.
Oh by the way if anyone could make a summary of the summary, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Nobody usually reads the article, but now with such a summary, who's gonna read anything past the title?
Everybody knows that games use their console's full potential only a few years after the console came out, so of course no game yet might be using its full potential but saying that it will never happen is plain silly.
This whole Wiimote strap thing just made me wonder, why do Wiimotes fly as tennis rackets hardly ever fly? You've never seen a wrist strap on a tennis racket because that type of thing just doesn't happen.
So why does the Wiimote fly away from their owners' hands that easily, although they are way lighter than tennis rackets? Is it that the plastic they're covered with is too slippery?
Thanks for your reply, that was instructive.
Most astronomers think that the universe is infinite
No? I thought they didn't and rather thought that the universe was about 180 billion ly large and that we were somewhere in there, not being able to tell where exactly since we can only see about 13.8 billion ly away. And don't tell me that we/they are supposed to think that there's something (even if it's only vaccum) out of this huge 180 billion ly large ball because we couldn't get there even if we were on the edge of the universe (I wonder what we'd see tho)
And by the way, why do we care about the background microwave radiation to determine the shape of the universe? I mean what does it have to do with it, besides to give information about the early universe? I haven't read the whole article by the way, oh well, if you have, you need to ask yourself questions about the (mis)use of your free time.