Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wayland/Weston 0.99 Is Out, 1.0 Next Monday

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

  • #41
    better hardware???

    better hardware???? are they fucking demented?


    tell me have you fucking appletards even opened your mac computers????


    let me tell you: cpu is exactly the same and interchangeable (yes you can pick that undervoltage i5 and replaced it with one from a pc and it's the exact same shit)

    ram same exact brands, same exact shit, ssd and hd drives SAME BRANDS SAME SHIT..

    graphics card models nvidia amd intel exactly the same shit used in pc's. audio etc ec

    motherboards made by foxconn (and yes you can't "buy" them same as you can't "buy" a asus zenbook motherboard)

    the only thing that can fuck you up when you try to fix a broken mac is if the motherboard is fried lolololol trying to buy a motherboard from apple is like trying to get a stripper to blow you if you don't have coke.

    apple = pc hardware + shiny boxes with beads and lights

    os x = bsd + shiny boxes with beads and lights

    apple consumer = gullible sheep with more money than inteligence.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Pallidus View Post
      how is it not called 'stealing' ???
      Well, since the authors of the code actively chose a licence which allows proprietary companies to take the code, modify it and not return those modificatons then it can hardly be called stealing as it's exactly what is allowed by the licence.

      Chances are that the code authors 'hope' that code enhancements be returned but they obviously don't require it. I personally think BSD/MIT-style licencing is generous to a fault, and for some code I find it to be a great licence, for others (mainly large collaborative projects involving lots of companies or full applications) not so much.

      But my personal opinion is of no consequence, it's the choice of licence made by the code author(s) that matters. Those choosing to licence their code as BSD/MIT or any other permissive licence are (most likely) well aware of the fact that they may never see any return of any code improvements made.

      It's their code, their choice, and using that code in accordance with the licence cannot be called 'stealing'. An exploiting douchebag...? perhaps

      Comment


      • #43
        @Pallidus

        Hope you didn't misunderstand, I neither have any Apple product nor do I find them better in any way.
        But I've found both on the internet and in real life that some people [wrongly] believe that Apple hardware has better quality/durability or something, even though it's the same model also used in PCs actually. And practically the same in everything.
        Often underclocked on Macs though ..
        Also I think they use rebranded ARM processors on their iPads. I mean they're ARM, but they're called Apple-something ..
        Please relax, don't get upset.

        Comment


        • #44
          I hope that tomorrow is a good day!


          Last edited by Mi7ch3a2el; 10-20-2012, 12:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #45
            "Well, since the authors of the code actively chose a licence which allows proprietary companies to take the code, modify it and not return those modificatons then it can hardly be called stealing as it's exactly what is allowed by the licence."


            hence why bsd is and will always remain a pile of fail.



            but what abou the oher stuff that apple has stolen like x11, etc... those are released with a gpl license right? so how come you never seen ANY commits from apple ?

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Pallidus View Post
              but what abou the oher stuff that apple has stolen like x11, etc... those are released with a gpl license right? so how come you never seen ANY commits from apple ?
              Apple has not stolen X11, X11 (or more precisely X.org) is not under GPL, and Apple is an active contributor to X.org since years (and XFree86 before that) – more than Canonical for example.

              Comment


              • #47
                that would explain a lot...


                mostly why x11 is such cancer.



                Someone tell that wayland guy to make sure wayland is gpl so apple won't be able to touch it

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Pallidus View Post
                  that would explain a lot...
                  mostly why x11 is such cancer.
                  Now 5% Apple contributions make X11 a cancer? LOL.
                  You really are an entertaining troll.

                  Originally posted by Pallidus View Post
                  Someone tell that wayland guy to make sure wayland is gpl so apple won't be able to touch it
                  Why don't you do it yourself?

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by asdx
                    Apple has contributed to Xorg? Are you kidding me?
                    Yes¸ Apple contributes to Xorg and does so steadily since years:
                    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ributors&num=3
                    https://vignatti.wordpress.com/2010/...ensus-for-1-9/
                    https://vignatti.wordpress.com/2011/...nsus-for-1-10/

                    Apple contributed and continues to contribute to lots of FOSS.
                    Everybody with some knowledge about FOSS and without religious hatred against Apple knows that, especially since it is frequently covered by Phoronix, e.g. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=ODUzNA

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X