Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

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

  • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Can you show me one example where PD has hurt anyone?
    Despite that everyone can take the code, make a proprietary closed source application under a very restrictive license that forbids me from using it freely? No I can't...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apopas View Post
      Despite that everyone can take the code, make a proprietary closed source application under a very restrictive license that forbids me from using it freely? No I can't...
      It hasn't effected the PD code in any such way that it can harm it. The original code stays PD. If someone goes and makes their mods and decides not to reveal those mods that is their right. Once in the PD code cannot take a step backwards, unlike licensed code. The only thing it can do it progress forward. If that derived code takes a open or closed path is up to the person that is doing the modifications. If a restriction on it's use is placed you have no guarantee that a person that would otherwise use the code won't simply look for an alternative solution anyways which still does not contribute to the original project. The person doing that patch should have the right to determine what his work is worth and how it is used just as much as the unmodified code.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        It hasn't effected the PD code in any such way that it can harm it. The original code stays PD. If someone goes and makes their mods and decides not to reveal those mods that is their right. Once in the PD code cannot take a step backwards, unlike licensed code. The only thing it can do it progress forward. If that derived code takes a open or closed path is up to the person that is doing the modifications. If a restriction on it's use is placed you have no guarantee that a person that would otherwise use the code won't simply look for an alternative solution anyways which still does not contribute to the original project. The person doing that patch should have the right to determine what his work is worth and how it is used just as much as the unmodified code.
        We just disagree what is someone's right and what's not and since we are both mature it won't change even if we discuss it till the end of the days.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apopas View Post
          As long as the conditions I set up respect the freedom and human rights, while the other's don't then I am correct. Whatever you do and how well you justify it is wrong if the result doesn't respect you as human being.
          What are those human rights you talk about? And who is not 'respecting you as a human being'?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
            What are those human rights you talk about? And who is not 'respecting you as a human being'?
            You insulted me in a previous thread and now you want to begin again a conversation? Thanks but no.
            If you want to know what I mean, just read carefully my posts in this current thread.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Apopas View Post
              You insulted me in a previous thread and now you want to begin again a conversation? Thanks but no.
              If you want to know what I mean, just read carefully my posts in this current thread.
              wha-what?

              .

              Comment


              • @michael

                @michael PTS and the benchmarks needs to recompile on macos10.6 for macos himself and need a chance CGLSetFullScreen ---> CGLSetFullScreenOnDisplay

                if not... OpenGL benchmarks are pointless--

                Pointless because macos do not shutdown the 3D-Desktop wile the ogl Benchmark run witout the modificantions.

                runs like runs in windows modus...
                Last edited by Qaridarium; 08-30-2009, 05:55 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                  It hasn't effected the PD code in any such way that it can harm it. The original code stays PD. If someone goes and makes their mods and decides not to reveal those mods that is their right. Once in the PD code cannot take a step backwards, unlike licensed code. The only thing it can do it progress forward.
                  At first glance, your argument has merit, but I think there are several benefits to copyleft licenses such as the GPL which PD does not offer.

                  A major issue with PD is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. If you develop a useful piece of software, what is to stop a large corporation from taking your code, creating an extended clone of your software, and using their greater marketing power to render your code effectively obsolete?
                  This is similar to what Microsoft tried to do with their implementation of Java (they developed their own code so this isn't directly analogous with PD licensing, but there are similarities so please bear with me ).
                  Sun sued Microsoft for $35 million in 1997, saying Microsoft breached its contract by trying to extend Java so it would work differently, and presumably better, on Windows computers.
                  ...
                  Sun executives said they were able to use Microsoft as a distribution tool to get Java into the hands of users when the software was in its infancy. Then Sun's lawsuit froze Microsoft's plans to modify Java for its own benefit, and Java became established in the meantime.
                  http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-251401.html

                  Recall that Java was explicitly designed to be "Architecture Neutral and Portable". Had Java been released under a more naive licence, then there would have been nothing stopping MS from using their enormous market power to crush Java's cross-platform interoperability - effectively taking over control of the technology by ensuring their 'version' was most widely used. Surely if Java apps were only usable on Windows, this is a "step backwards". (it's also no coincidence that C# and .NET appeared at about this time)

                  Thus I think that while PD is obviously the least restrictive license, that is not enought in the "real world": GPL and similar licenses do more to protect the freedom of users and developers.

                  Also note that Microsoft's proprietary JVM implementation ceased development in 2001 (after they lost the lawsuit and thus the right to use "Java Compatible" trademarks). Hence, due to their licensing, any improvements/modifications they made to Java are now lost forever and so any "steps forward" that were made are also lost.

                  Of course, it is your choice to license your code however you wish. So as long as you don't mind having someone embrace, extend and then place restrictions your code for their own benefit there's no problem. However I'd argue that society as a whole loses in this case.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by krazy View Post
                    A major issue with PD is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. If you develop a useful piece of software, what is to stop a large corporation from taking your code, creating an extended clone of your software, and using their greater marketing power to render your code effectively obsolete
                    If it's extended in an original way to become better than the original product, should be plenty justifiable... If it's just the same code wrapped up under a different name, I agree.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      Pointless because macos do not shutdown the 3D-Desktop wile the ogl Benchmark run witout the modificantions.
                      So you imply OSX would fare even better compared to Linux than nowadays if you disabled the compositing while doing the benchmarks? :3

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                        Same in reverse: why should the resources of other companies that you don't serve, serve you. Thus we end up in a situation where they keep theirs, we keep ours. It's all about Intellectual Property, no matter whether you're dealing with megacorporations or FSF.
                        They shouldn't and if I don't want to serve them I choose the GPL or proprietary, but I want to have my code useful by others and only GPL projects (of course it's clear theory, because I don't make good code :P and some projects can be just not interesting and useless).

                        @Deanjo

                        Hey, if you want to keep something to yourself then by all means do so. It is you code after all. This can be achieved though GPL or Proprietary licenses (again same shit different pile). If you want to benefit all however you use PD.
                        Oh yes, that's a point. I should mention I want to other GPL projects eventually benefit from my code not proprietary or others using different licenses. I've got your point now If I want everyone have benefit I would use PD as you mentioned.
                        Last edited by kraftman; 08-31-2009, 08:44 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                          So you imply OSX would fare even better compared to Linux than nowadays if you disabled the compositing while doing the benchmarks? :3
                          yes but i can't test this sorry i do not have a mac.

                          the 2D part low the benchmark result to only shutdown X and start the benchmark will bring full speed with macos10.6

                          Comment


                          • Well, most of the performance gains (and drops) of the benchmarks in the article are due to the difference of gcc. gcc in 10.6 creates 64-bit executables by default, but in 10.5 not. So I think the article is almost nonsense in terms of the comparison between 10.6 and 10.5. At least it should be revised to use the same (i386 or x86-64) executables.

                            Thanks
                            Last edited by nao.; 08-31-2009, 05:57 AM. Reason: spelling error

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              I've got your point now If I want everyone have benefit I would use PD as you mentioned.
                              That's the trick of the case. PD benefits everyone at the begining, from large companies to individuals and simple users. But since everyone can get the code, it's a matter of time to be extended in such a way that the original code to become obsolete since what matters will be the new technology that will be built on the original code. And since PD permits to a large corporation to close the later code, patent it and struggle education and science like this and sell it to the end user (who ofcourse can afford the money) with tons of restrictions then do really everyone benefits?
                              The idea of PD which leads to real benefits it's very utopian. I don't doubt that if we were elves it would work greatly, but we are humans and UNFORTUNATELY in the real world it produces much much more harm than good. Here if you don't protect your freedom you can easily lose it.
                              Last edited by Apopas; 08-31-2009, 07:03 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by krazy View Post
                                Thus I think that while PD is obviously the least restrictive license, that is not enought in the "real world": GPL and similar licenses do more to protect the freedom of users and developers.
                                I absolutely, agree with you, but deanjo simply believes freedom and anarchy is one and the same.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X