The video tape in question was taken on a public street, why not hand it over
If you'd bothered reading the article before commenting, you'd know that he thinks the feds want video footage to identify activists not involved in the arson of the car.
He adamantly resists what he sees as the government's attempt to force him to identify various activists captured in his tapes. "It goes against every moral fiber in my body to sit back and out people for their political beliefs," he said, adding that if this interpretation stands, it could "kill politically contentious journalism in America."
So when Debian has one of their periodic incidents and they shut their servers down to clean them does that mean Debian ceases to be open source until the server comes back up?
If they released binaries with no corresponding source, then yes, yes they would.
*shakes*head* I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
If you distribute binaries, with no source, then you're not open source. God!
There're lots more blatant abuses in advertising to pick on.
I hold Apple to a higher standard than most companies. Don't you?
So Apple not releasing the source means that they've cancelled all efforts in that direction, but Apple releasing the source means that they've relented to user pressure?
Not too sure where you got that from - perhaps you accidentally replied to the wrong post?
The simplest explanation is that Apple didn't release the source because they were working on other stuff.
I am sure there reasons were... well reasonable - for them (and probably me, if I knew what they were).
My protests were at Apple calling the OS X open source when it wasn't (coz you couldn't download the source).
"Gavin noted that the flexibility of proprietary software in meeting specific business needs also means systems integrators and ISVs have to grapple with complexity costs. 'It's challenging for partners to build competencies to support Windows, because you never quite know what you're going to be supporting,' he added. 'Customers who run Windows could be operating in 98, XP SP1, SP2, Vista or even customized 2003 server environments with god alone knowing what browser version they're using' he explained. 'You don't get that repeatable [development] process to build your business over time.'"
Because, lets face it - what Gavin is saying here is that proprietary software vendors find it hard to develop for linux. *shrugs* Maybe, that is not the same as saying that developing for Open Source is complex.
MS - time to face it, almost noone apart from you is making alot of money selling proprietary sofware (alone). The real cash is in services, services, services.
Apple...won't release any code that tips their hand.
And more power to them, noone disuptes their right to do that.
What people do have a problem with, is Apple calling their products "Open Source", when you couldn't download the complete source.
don't jump to conclusions
No conclusions were jumped to. Apple were describing a product as open source, when you couldn't download the complete source.
Understand now? People were disgusted at Apple's hypocrisy, rather than being annoyed that they couldn't download some almost completely useless source.
Apple never stated a definite "no" to releasing the source for the Intel XNU, and pundits sort of went crazy over this issue.
It doesn't really matter what Apple say - if you can't download the complete source for a product, its not Open Source. Apple PR calling the OS X core open source was deceitful from that point on. (although corrected now)
That was not confirmation, that was a reiteration of the same jump to conclusions.
If you can't download the source to a released product, then its not open source.
No conclusions jumped to. Perhaps it wasn't a confirmation as in a statement from Apple, but a confirmation as in "yup, over a month and still no source. XNU is not open source."
All power to Apple really they can do whatever they like with their code, but describing a product as Open Source when the complete source is not available is a little dishonest.
It's a good thing that Apple have re-opened XNU, however, let me remind everyone what daveshroeder said about this when XNU was closed:
Darwin x86 *as an OS* is dead. The actual part of the Darwin strategy people cared about, i.e., the Darwin OS *components* being open, and all of the projects (like WebKit), etc., are all open, alive, and well on x86 and PPC. Apple releases parity Darwin source releases with each Mac OS X release.
So, do we still believe Darwin x86 is a dead/useless OS? and that noone is interested in the XNU source?
The photo linked here is a rendering of a collision in the accelerator and, while in-topic with the CERN has clearly nothing to do with the Web.
Thanks very much for that interesting & informative reply!
I had no idea what that pic was - I was going to simply ask, but knowing slashdot, I'd never get an answer - so I went for humour instead, knowing some pedant would correct me!
Don't forget that Aarpanet!=Internet & internet/s!=Internet.
I was mildly surprised a while ago to see cisco putting the date in the 90s (legislative birth), others put it at '83 when Aarpanet switched to TCP/IP everywhere & others put it earlier.
The Internet kinda evolved from a lower lifeform rather then being 'born'. I don't think its the sort of thing you can put an exact date on.
The really funny thing is that Apple copied ideas from the open source Beagle project when making Spotlight - Beagle was in fact Demoed over a year before Spotlight was announced
So again, rather than MS copying ideas from Apple, its Apple and MS copying ideas from Open Source.
Every college newspaper in America has job openings posted around election season offering to pay you to pretend to be a motivated volunteer cold-calling and canvassing for the Democrats or various 527 groups. How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?
Errr, let me get this straight.
1) You don't know the difference between Astroturfing & canvassing?
2) You don't think something bad is news if others are doing it too?
Hmmmmn, the tablet market now looks similar to the portable music market in 2000. Small, crowded with bit players, making... ugly, half finished products.
The world isn't crying out for a good tablet in much the same way the world wasn't crying out for a good portable music player - but if Apple can improve a standard tablet as much as the ipod was an improvement over other mp3 players (vastly [physically] smaller hdd, much simpler UI, not-ugly form-factor), then I suspect they could take the tablet space, then vastly inflate it - just like they did with the mp3 player market.
As someone else in the thread pointed out, its about doctors, lawyers, etc. Not your standard corporate types, so its space thats not (completely) ms dominated.
Heck, I'd love to see Apple sell a true 1080p HD portable projector, but if only five thousand people want it they'd lose money doing it.
C'mon - I had no idea who he was either, but just selecting "warren ellis", context clicking and choosing a google search gave me his homepage and his wikipedia entry.
While/. submissions could occasionally use a little more background, its not that hard to find out wtf the article's talking about (usually in less time than a post asking for said info).
He's an influential british comics writer - who's biggest work was transmetropolitan for DC's vertigo comics line.
The risk for investors isn't only the reputational damage and potential fines; it's that CEO Steve Jobs may be forced to resign if it is proved that he knowingly took an option grant at below market prices. The stock impact would be dramatic because Mr Jobs has been responsible for turning around Apple over the last few years.
Hard thing to prove I guess, but this is certainly a sad day for Apple.
Also, this isn't an isolated case, but part of a much wider phenomenon.
1) Everyone is NOT doing it. Even if another 200-300 companies come forward in the coming months as having committed some measure of backdating, that's but a small fraction of the overall public equity universe and hardly excuses the practice.
2) Anything that misaligns company interests with that of its outside shareholders IS a big deal. While backdating wasn't technically illegal (as long as it was disclosed to shareholders and properly accounted for), the irregularities we're seeing are, at best, misaligning the motivations of management with outside shareholders and, at worst, far more nefarious. As a public equity investor, there is an implicit fiduciary responsibility that public company executives maintain a fairness to all their constituencies, backdating does not - in any way - do that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd bothered reading the article before commenting, you'd know that he thinks the feds want video footage to identify activists not involved in the arson of the car.
it was just that the people involved in Core OS were too damned busy working on the WWDC build to deal with reviewing the code to release it.
You're kidding - they released the intel version of OS X without doing a code review? Sloppy.
So when Debian has one of their periodic incidents and they shut their servers down to clean them does that mean Debian ceases to be open source until the server comes back up?
If they released binaries with no corresponding source, then yes, yes they would.
*shakes*head* I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
If you distribute binaries, with no source, then you're not open source. God!
There're lots more blatant abuses in advertising to pick on.
I hold Apple to a higher standard than most companies. Don't you?
Oh - and it runs FNapps, so as well as being good for games, its suitable for FNapping.
My protests were at Apple calling the OS X open source
sed/OS X/Darwin/
So Apple not releasing the source means that they've cancelled all efforts in that direction, but Apple releasing the source means that they've relented to user pressure?
Not too sure where you got that from - perhaps you accidentally replied to the wrong post?
The simplest explanation is that Apple didn't release the source because they were working on other stuff.
I am sure there reasons were... well reasonable - for them (and probably me, if I knew what they were).
My protests were at Apple calling the OS X open source when it wasn't (coz you couldn't download the source).
I think Java would have been a better example - as the VM is more mature & ported to more platform (last time I checked anyway).
Because, lets face it - what Gavin is saying here is that proprietary software vendors find it hard to develop for linux. *shrugs* Maybe, that is not the same as saying that developing for Open Source is complex.
MS - time to face it, almost noone apart from you is making alot of money selling proprietary sofware (alone). The real cash is in services, services, services.
three pieces of ham on a ham sandwich. **snip** I can explain further using many, many more analogies if need be. Just let me know.
I'm not sure I'm following here - is that brown bread or white bread? Smoked ham or honey cured?
Apple...won't release any code that tips their hand.
And more power to them, noone disuptes their right to do that.
What people do have a problem with, is Apple calling their products "Open Source", when you couldn't download the complete source.
don't jump to conclusions
No conclusions were jumped to. Apple were describing a product as open source, when you couldn't download the complete source.
Understand now? People were disgusted at Apple's hypocrisy, rather than being annoyed that they couldn't download some almost completely useless source.
Apple never stated a definite "no" to releasing the source for the Intel XNU, and pundits sort of went crazy over this issue.
It doesn't really matter what Apple say - if you can't download the complete source for a product, its not Open Source. Apple PR calling the OS X core open source was deceitful from that point on. (although corrected now)
That was not confirmation, that was a reiteration of the same jump to conclusions.
If you can't download the source to a released product, then its not open source.
No conclusions jumped to. Perhaps it wasn't a confirmation as in a statement from Apple, but a confirmation as in "yup, over a month and still no source. XNU is not open source."
All power to Apple really they can do whatever they like with their code, but describing a product as Open Source when the complete source is not available is a little dishonest.
OK - let's see the rush of support for Apple that's roughly equal to the bashing they took when Intel XNU source went dark.
Your chronology is incorrect. Actual timeline:
Feburary - the rumour: Will MacIntel Kill Apple Open Source Efforts?: - Denial from the Fanboys - silence from the rest.
May - the confirmation: Mac OS X Kernel Source Now Closed: - Mixture of denial & shame from the fanboys, bashing from the rest.
And now, we have the announcemenet that its open again! (for now) - much celebration & support for Apple from everyone.
So, do we still believe Darwin x86 is a dead/useless OS? and that noone is interested in the XNU source?
The photo linked here is a rendering of a collision in the accelerator and, while in-topic with the CERN has clearly nothing to do with the Web.
Thanks very much for that interesting & informative reply!
I had no idea what that pic was - I was going to simply ask, but knowing slashdot, I'd never get an answer - so I went for humour instead, knowing some pedant would correct me!
When do you think the birth of tbe internet was?
Don't forget that Aarpanet!=Internet & internet/s!=Internet.
I was mildly surprised a while ago to see cisco putting the date in the 90s (legislative birth), others put it at '83 when Aarpanet switched to TCP/IP everywhere & others put it earlier.
The Internet kinda evolved from a lower lifeform rather then being 'born'. I don't think its the sort of thing you can put an exact date on.
Nuts to the "Flash Timeline". The first article has a picture of the web - captioned: From its origins at the Cern lab the web has become a phenomenon
:-)
Now thats impressive
The really funny thing is that Apple copied ideas from the open source Beagle project when making Spotlight - Beagle was in fact Demoed over a year before Spotlight was announced
So again, rather than MS copying ideas from Apple, its Apple and MS copying ideas from Open Source.
Every college newspaper in America has job openings posted around election season offering to pay you to pretend to be a motivated volunteer cold-calling and canvassing for the Democrats or various 527 groups. How is it news that the Republicans also astroturf?
Errr, let me get this straight.
1) You don't know the difference between Astroturfing & canvassing?
2) You don't think something bad is news if others are doing it too?
Interesting.
Hmmmmn, the tablet market now looks similar to the portable music market in 2000. Small, crowded with bit players, making... ugly, half finished products.
The world isn't crying out for a good tablet in much the same way the world wasn't crying out for a good portable music player - but if Apple can improve a standard tablet as much as the ipod was an improvement over other mp3 players (vastly [physically] smaller hdd, much simpler UI, not-ugly form-factor), then I suspect they could take the tablet space, then vastly inflate it - just like they did with the mp3 player market.
As someone else in the thread pointed out, its about doctors, lawyers, etc. Not your standard corporate types, so its space thats not (completely) ms dominated.
Heck, I'd love to see Apple sell a true 1080p HD portable projector, but if only five thousand people want it they'd lose money doing it.
Pretty different market, not a fair comparison.
C'mon - I had no idea who he was either, but just selecting "warren ellis", context clicking and choosing a google search gave me his homepage and his wikipedia entry.
/. submissions could occasionally use a little more background, its not that hard to find out wtf the article's talking about (usually in less time than a post asking for said info).
While
He's an influential british comics writer - who's biggest work was transmetropolitan for DC's vertigo comics line.
If Pro is the opposite of Con.... what'd Congress mean?
Just 'cause I was mildly interested (I've heard that wordplay before), I read the dictionary's entries for progress, congress and con.
And it appears con (when used in pros/cons of a decision) is different to con/com (the prefix).
The gress suffix is from indo-european ghredh (to go) and pro & con have root meanings of advance/forward & to meet respectively.
Progress = Forward Go.
Congress = Meet Go.
No, its not. There's plenty of speculation outside of
Hard thing to prove I guess, but this is certainly a sad day for Apple.
Also, this isn't an isolated case, but part of a much wider phenomenon.
Please read this article, particularly:
Wait, I'm confused. Can I or can I not still be a self-important narcissistic jackass?
:-)
Oh, never mind. I'll ask Whiney.
Nothing I've said in the past has ever prevented you from being a self-important narcissistic jackass - what's changed today?
I guess there actually is a flaw in the built-in drivers, but Apple asked the guy not to do the demo with AirPort
Ouch, pity you'd already proved my gp post correct by saying in your first reply.
Cool exploit, but it's basically a non-issue for Macs.