I meant that those free applications which the parent mentioned should have been open- sourced. Then anyone with a little time and motivation could Carbonize them.
Who said that the hardware wouldn't run Mac OS 9 in native mode? My impression was that Apple was simply declining to *install* Mac OS 9 as a native boot option. Am I wrong?
> they also have a legitimate argument that > a lot of smaller titles are[n't] making it > over to OSX. i know in the research community > that i work with there are key apps that > haven't been ported because they were written > by some researcher on their own time, for > free years ago.
Sounds like a great argument for open-source to me.
I think there's a racist subtext to all of this criticism of Prince's writing style. The mostly young, white Slashdot crew can't stand to be told what's what by a black man -- who has more to say than most of them and a bigger soapbox to say it from.
I'm going to get modded into oblivion for this, I'm pretty sure. Sigh.
I think you're full of hot air. Prince has a message to get out, and he gets it out in his way. Hundreds of thousands of people read it, because he's Prince, and it makes an impact. I think he makes some excellent points, and he does so briefly and intelligibly.
If U really can't get past the way he writes, check your head. It's his web page, not the pages of the New Yorker.
This was gone over endlessly on the darwin mailing list. I was somewhat resistant myself. In the end, though, the winning argument was that zsh has some bourne shell incompatibilities, even in sh emulation mode.
In response to the article about the Tim O'Reilly editorial the other day, I said that if the open- source community is afraid to lobby, we will only ensure that we are not heard in the halls of power. This is a lousy situation, but a great example of that phenomenon at work. Microsoft is not afraid to make government aware of their positions. Well, if we believe that open source software promotes openness and prevents vendor lock-in, and if we believe that those are good goals for government -- as many of us do -- then we should not hesitate to explain our reasoning to our elected representatives and appointed civil servants.
Spam is not "mail you don't want". Spam is unsolicited bulk (or, as Graham puts it, automated) email.
Mail from an obnoxious person whom you don't like can be mail you don't want, but it's not spam. UBE advertising a product or service that you want to buy can be mail you want, but still spam.
A theoretically perfect mail filter might distinguish between mail you want and mail you don't want, but that's hard. It's much harder than distinguishing between spam and non-spam.
Tim O'Reilly decries the "politicization" and "radicalization" of the open source community. It seems to be a libertarian axiom that freedom and politics don't mix. I don't agree.
When a person refuses to engage in politics, all he does is ensure that his voice is not heard in the halls of power. The government is our government as much as it is anyone else's, and there is no reason why we should not strive to have our values recognized and our concerns addressed.
Some people have questioned the technical wisdom of the California bill. They may have a point, but it is orthogonal to my point.
Nobody's shown that the relative performance of codecs at 64kpbs correlates with their relative performance at higher bit-rates. I'm not saying that there is no such correlation, only that it hasn't been shown, so I would hesitate to base any sort of decision on this study of relative performance at 64kpbs.
Or maybe that correlation has been shown, but I don't know about it.
I think you overestimate the amount of work that's done in a microkernel. The BSD part of the kernel does much more than the Mach part. It's not a set of stubs on top of Mach functionality, rather it provides filesystems, networking, security... aside from interfacing to the hardware, I don't think Mach does anything besides memory management and Mach IPC.
How does it foster competitiveness? Simple -- if free software puts a software company out of business, every dollar that was going to that software company can go to some other purpose. For example, let's say you have a $10,000 software budget and six things you want to do, each of which has a software cost of $2000. You have to pick five. If someone releases free software for one of those tasks, you can accomplish all six without increasing your budget. Presto, increased productivity.
Obviously, that's a totally simplistic example, but you get the point. Every transaction has two sides.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant that those free applications which
the parent mentioned should have been open-
sourced. Then anyone with a little time
and motivation could Carbonize them.
Who said that the hardware wouldn't run Mac OS 9
in native mode? My impression was that Apple was
simply declining to *install* Mac OS 9 as a native
boot option. Am I wrong?
How about modding you down for being ignorant?
They'll still be shipping Classic.
> they also have a legitimate argument that
> a lot of smaller titles are[n't] making it
> over to OSX. i know in the research community
> that i work with there are key apps that
> haven't been ported because they were written
> by some researcher on their own time, for
> free years ago.
Sounds like a great argument for open-source
to me.
I think there's a racist subtext to all of this
criticism of Prince's writing style. The mostly
young, white Slashdot crew can't stand to be told
what's what by a black man -- who has more to say
than most of them and a bigger soapbox to say it
from.
I'm going to get modded into oblivion for this,
I'm pretty sure. Sigh.
I think you're full of hot air. Prince has a
message to get out, and he gets it out in his
way. Hundreds of thousands of people read it,
because he's Prince, and it makes an impact.
I think he makes some excellent points, and he
does so briefly and intelligibly.
If U really can't get past the way he writes,
check your head. It's his web page, not the
pages of the New Yorker.
This was gone over endlessly on the darwin
mailing list. I was somewhat resistant myself.
In the end, though, the winning argument was that
zsh has some bourne shell incompatibilities, even
in sh emulation mode.
In response to the article about the Tim O'Reilly
editorial the other day, I said that if the open-
source community is afraid to lobby, we will only
ensure that we are not heard in the halls of
power. This is a lousy situation, but a great
example of that phenomenon at work. Microsoft is
not afraid to make government aware of their
positions. Well, if we believe that open source
software promotes openness and prevents vendor
lock-in, and if we believe that those are good
goals for government -- as many of us do -- then
we should not hesitate to explain our reasoning
to our elected representatives and appointed civil
servants.
Spam is not "mail you don't want". Spam is
unsolicited bulk (or, as Graham puts it, automated)
email.
Mail from an obnoxious person whom you don't like
can be mail you don't want, but it's not spam.
UBE advertising a product or service that you want
to buy can be mail you want, but still spam.
A theoretically perfect mail filter might
distinguish between mail you want and mail you
don't want, but that's hard. It's much harder
than distinguishing between spam and non-spam.
Tim O'Reilly decries the "politicization" and
"radicalization" of the open source community.
It seems to be a libertarian axiom that freedom
and politics don't mix. I don't agree.
When a person refuses to engage in politics, all
he does is ensure that his voice is not heard in
the halls of power. The government is our
government as much as it is anyone else's, and
there is no reason why we should not strive to
have our values recognized and our concerns
addressed.
Some people have questioned the technical wisdom
of the California bill. They may have a point,
but it is orthogonal to my point.
Just wait for the dollar to drop through the floor,
and then order your iPod from the U.S. It'll be cheap!
Nobody's shown that the relative performance of
codecs at 64kpbs correlates with their relative
performance at higher bit-rates. I'm not saying
that there is no such correlation, only that it
hasn't been shown, so I would hesitate to base
any sort of decision on this study of relative
performance at 64kpbs.
Or maybe that correlation has been shown, but I
don't know about it.
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
No, you're not alone. I used a FreeBSD
workstation for years, until Mac OS X came
out.
At work I use a diskless X terminal running
NetBSD.
If you never forgot anything, it would be awfully
hard to remember anything. At least, that's how
some theories of learning go.
"Peruvian Gold Edition"? Does it come with
a bag of cocaine?
I think Apple's share of the IBM PC market is
actually zero.
It's not really worth arguing about, but "major"
and "minor" are well-defined terms in the context
of FreeBSD release engineering.
4.6 isn't a major release, it's a minor release. 5.0 would be
a major release.
That's not correct. There is non-Aqua code in
Mac OS X that is not part of Darwin.
I think you overestimate the amount of work that's ... aside
done in a microkernel. The BSD part of the kernel
does much more than the Mach part. It's not a set
of stubs on top of Mach functionality, rather it
provides filesystems, networking, security
from interfacing to the hardware, I don't think Mach
does anything besides memory management and Mach IPC.
Compaq sells hardware to Yahoo, which is a
FreeBSD shop.
The Nokia Firewall-1 implementation is based on
a modified FreeBSD.
IBM's InterJet router-toaster is based on FreeBSD.
i.secure? Now there's an unfortunate expression.
/usr/share/dict/words
% grep 'i.secure'
insecure
insecurely
insecureness
But what percentage of capital gains do they get?
...
Oops
How does it foster competitiveness? Simple --
if free software puts a software company out of
business, every dollar that was going to that
software company can go to some other purpose.
For example, let's say you have a $10,000 software
budget and six things you want to do, each of which
has a software cost of $2000. You have to pick
five. If someone releases free software for one
of those tasks, you can accomplish all six without
increasing your budget. Presto, increased
productivity.
Obviously, that's a totally simplistic example,
but you get the point. Every transaction has two
sides.