Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    The GPL serves the FSF nothing more.
    Stop kidding Deanjo The GPL serves every GPL software user. The GPL prevents companies like Apple to take someones code and give nothing back.

    Every companies contribution to the linux kernel for example serves their product.
    And everyone can have benefit.

    Sorry freedom by definition does not have limits.
    Anarchy doesn't have limits. Real freedom must have rules.

    If I put out code into public domain my original code is still there untouched. If someone grabs that code and modifies it, improves, degrades it still does not effect my original code.
    You're missing the point here. If Linux were using BSD license MS, Apple, Sun (which are its rivals) can take all its benefits (kernel in example) add ZFS support and sell.

    @Apopas

    My freedom ends when I hurt someone else's freedom.
    Very well said friend.
    Last edited by kraftman; 08-29-2009, 03:01 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      Sorry freedom by definition does not have limits
      There is not a single totally acceptable definition, every philosopher and dictionary gives one, but despite their sayings there is something that only an insane could disagree with:
      <<Even if you can you don't have the right to hurt me>>
      and that alone puts restrictions on freedom and despite if it sounds bad, it is actually pretty nice.

      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      If your buddy cannot afford gas for his car, do you go and fill up his tank as well just because you paid for the gas in yours and not pay the gas station for his?
      No but if they don't let me use the gas I paid for in every way I like, then they hurt my freedom and at least in the world of software I can have more options than the irrelevant example you mentioned.

      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      If you have a copy of MS office and give it to someone your not a criminal. You are however if you retain use of it after transfer on your own systems.

      http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/11/8140.ars
      I'm sure you could understand the real meaning of my example...


      Originally posted by kraftman View Post
      Anarchy doesn't have limits. Real freedom must have rules.
      Exactly. Freedom must contain respect to be able to stay freedom.
      Last edited by Apopas; 08-29-2009, 03:04 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by qwerty View Post

        A must buy... USABLE ONLY WITH APPLE HARDWARE, that is EXACTLY the same of a normal Intel HW pc.

        ... A must buy...
        a must buy for apple users, period. The good man isn't attacking your buying decisions so you can relax .

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Stop kidding Deanjo The GPL serves every GPL software user. The GPL prevents companies like Apple to take someones code and give nothing back.
          Apple gives back as well to the projects it utilizes. If you can't see that then you really are blind.

          And everyone can have benefit.
          Hardly, the kernel is full of code that addresses one particular venders device and won't work for any other.

          You can write nefarious code under any license you wish. A license will not change that. Once again I have to use sqlite of a living example of how public domain can work. Chances are you use multiple devices with it in a day without even knowing about it but yet you benefit from it.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            Apple gives back as well to the projects it utilizes. If you can't see that then you really are blind.
            It can give but the matter is if they want they won't. That's the important thing. Everything works for their own benefit, not for me. If there is a period where their politics are beneficial for me, this doesn't change the general fact. And again to support Apple more than GPL is quite astonishing.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Apopas View Post

              No but if they don't let me use the gas I paid for in every way I like, then they hurt my freedom and at least in the world of software I can have more options than the irrelevant example you mentioned.
              The example I gave is a direct comparison to the situation you mentioned. You were going to give MS office to someone that couldn't afford that. So either you were transferring your license rights or you were pirating. One is perfectly legal the other isn't and is theft.

              I'm sure you could understand the real meaning of my example...
              If you rent a car does that give you the right to modify it?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                It can give but the matter is if they want they won't. That's the important thing. Everything works for their own benefit, not for me. If there is a period where their politics are beneficial for me, this doesn't change the general fact. And again to support Apple more than GPL is quite astonishing.
                This is the same of every vendor. You think intel for example doesn't put out code that only benefits their product? They choose too. These are corporations we are talking about and their end goals are to create profit by supporting their product.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  The example I gave is a direct comparison to the situation you mentioned. You were going to give MS office to someone that couldn't afford that. So either you were transferring your license rights or you were pirating. One is perfectly legal the other isn't and is theft.
                  That's exactly the matter. They decide what is legal and what is not in a way it is not beneficial for both me and my friend. If I have a house I can give it to my friend and to the other and to the other to do it whatever they want and simultaneously I can live in it if I want as well. With MS Office they say noooo you can't do whatever you want with it, is just for you or for just a single other. No in 2,3 or 100 computers simultaneously and while this sounds logical in some way, it is not because they don't allow me to help a lot of people. And that sucks.



                  If you rent a car does that give you the right to modify it?
                  No because it is not mine and I don't have the right to hurt the owner of this car with my actions. (The limits in freedom I mentioned before).

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                    This is the same of every vendor. You think intel for example doesn't put out code that only benefits their product? They choose too. These are corporations we are talking about and their end goals are to create profit by supporting their product.
                    Exactly, and that makes GPL AT LEAST a bit better than them.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                      That's exactly the matter. They decide what is legal and what is not in a way it is not beneficial for both me and my friend. If I have a house I can give it to my friend and to the other and to the other to do it whatever they want and simultaneously I can live in it if I want as well. With MS Office they say noooo you can't do whatever you want with it, is just for you or for just a single other. No in 2,3 or 100 computers simultaneously and while this sounds logical in some way, it is not because they don't allow me to help a lot of people. And that sucks.
                      Hey, if your friend wants to use office on the device it's installed on it's perfectly legal. Using your analogy of a house you would have to build your friend a house and somewhere somehow that material has to be paid for some way. The license applies to what device it's installed on not on how many people can use it.

                      No because it is not mine and I don't have the right to hurt the owner of this car with my actions. (The limits in freedom I mentioned before).
                      When code is in the public domain you cannot hurt the owner either. It will shall forever remain in it's original form for all to access and do with what they see fit. Putting something up on public domain does not mean some other entity can remove it from there.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                        Hardly, the kernel is full of code that addresses one particular venders device and won't work for any other.
                        It's full of code that addresses many vendors

                        You can write nefarious code under any license you wish. A license will not change that. Once again I have to use sqlite of a living example of how public domain can work. Chances are you use multiple devices with it in a day without even knowing about it but yet you benefit from it.
                        I'm talking about supporting others. I don't want to support my rivals, but who does? It seems BSD guys don't care or those are their intentions (however, TDR was pissed of BSD license some time ago, because you can take all and you don't have to give anything back :P). In my opinion the GPL is mainly here to not support rivalry.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by L33F3R View Post
                          a must buy for apple users, period.
                          It's not written "For Apple users" (It's written "if you are a Mac OSx user" that sounds like "if you are a Linux user, use Linux"). It's not written that to use this software you have to buy Apple brand Blob.

                          It's written that the new OSx is "A must buy". Moreover: it's also written that it costs *only* 25 $, but it's totally not clear that to use that OS the user is FORCED to buy Apple HW, that it's TOTALLY indentical to the normal Intel Pc HW.

                          And, as far i as i know, this site it's not Mac-Phoronix. Not yet, I think.

                          The good man isn't attacking your buying decisions so you can relax .
                          I'm very relaxed, I can assure you.

                          I'd like only to explain my criticism about this paradoxally Apple advertising on this site, site that, i repeat, normally I read and I like a lot.

                          Of course if this is the new editor line in this site to try to convert Phoronix to some new Super-cool-Mac-Marketing-Hype-Evangelist site to grow some traffic and make more cash, Michael only have to say it clearer.

                          Personally, and I think a lot of people that read Phoronix, I totally don't like to see this meta-advertising for Companys that has Lock-in and user restrictions on his Business DNA. And when i don't like something, i simply unsubscribe from and i stop to support it.

                          Freely.
                          Last edited by qwerty; 08-29-2009, 03:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            Hey, if your friend wants to use office on the device it's installed on it's perfectly legal. Using your analogy of a house you would have to build your friend a house and somewhere somehow that material has to be paid for some way. The license applies to what device it's installed on not on how many people can use it.
                            Don't play with the words and tricks deanjo. Do I have to say stupid details? For example if a friend lives in Indonesia and doesn't have access to my computer because doesn't have internet etc etc? Or do we always have to use examples as if we are children? You seem smart man and you understand I hope pretty well that my example don't have to do with MS Offic specifically.
                            Everyone that forbids you even a bit to help others, abuse your rights and thus your freedom and the rights and freedom of the rest that would benefit from you. That's the matter of the case. Proprietary code do exactly that. They say actually that few lines of maths belong to them and them only and accuse me as a criminal if I don't use the software in the way they want. That sucks

                            When code is in the public domain you cannot hurt the owner either. It will shall forever remain in it's original form for all to access and do with what they see fit. Putting something up on public domain does not mean some other entity can remove it from there.
                            And now we return again in my previous statement about what the others have the right to do with your code. But again I said I'm fine with it, public domain contains a large amount of freedom. But the owners of proprietary code don't release their code at all and yet you prefer them.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              I'm talking about supporting others. I don't want to support my rivals, but who does? It seems BSD guys don't care or those are their intentions (however, TDR was pissed of BSD license some time ago, because you can take all and you don't have to give anything back :P). In my opinion the GPL is mainly here to not support rivalry.
                              And there lies the heart of the issue. As long as projects view other projects as "rivals" growth and progress will be slow and will only target one particular group. GPL also doesn't guarantee that modified code will make it back into the main project (which a lot of the times is decided by political agendas and not on technical merit). Just like GPL doesn't want to support their rivals neither do other licenses. Same shit different pile.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                                Don't play with the words and tricks deanjo. Do I have to say stupid details? For example if a friend lives in Indonesia and doesn't have access to my computer because doesn't have internet etc etc? Or do we always have to use examples as if we are children? You seem smart man and you understand I hope pretty well that my example don't have to do with MS Offic specifically.
                                Everyone that forbids you even a bit to help others, abuse your rights and thus your freedom and the rights and freedom of the rest that would benefit from you. That's the matter of the case. Proprietary code do exactly that. They say actually that few lines of maths belong to them and them only and accuse me as a criminal if I don't use the software in the way they want. That sucks
                                It doesn't matter if your friend lives next door or on pluto. If you give your friend a copy without paying the owner's terms (monetary or otherwise) it's still theft. Just like if someone took GPL code and slapped it in their app and did not open it up. It's still theft. If your friend for example got a copy of open office from you, you are not the one granting that right. It's still the original developers that give that right to you and your friend.

                                And now we return again in my previous statement about what the others have the right to do with your code. But again I said I'm fine with it, public domain contains a large amount of freedom. But the owners of proprietary code don't release their code at all and yet you prefer them.
                                As a user of a 3rd parties product I prefer working solutions that fit my needs, nothing more, nothing less. Just like the vast majority of end users out there. I could give a rats ass if it's GPL, APL, MS, BSD, etc because the idea of licensing any intellectual property in my opinion hurts growth and adoption. As a developer however I will set the code that is mine free of any license and see what someone else maybe able to do with it. Eventually no matter what they do with that code it will be benefiting a end user somewhere who may not of had a good solution otherwise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X