Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Wayland/Weston 0.99 Is Out, 1.0 Next Monday

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    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.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote 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

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    245

    Default

    @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.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default

    I hope that tomorrow is a good day!


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

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    "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 ?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,193

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    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

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,193

    Cool

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •