Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

[kraftman]

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.

[qwerty]

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.

[Apopas]

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.

[deanjo]

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.

[deanjo]

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.

[kraftman]

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.

MS, Apple, Sun view Linux as a rival. Good code will get back There's always such option.

[deanjo]

MS, Apple, Sun view Linux as a rival. Good code will get back There's always such option.

And linux views them as a rival too. Again, same shit, different pile.

With public domain I have no rivals. It's simply out there for all to use if needed.

[kraftman]

And linux views them as a rival too. Again, same shit, different pile.

Exactly. That's why Linux is GPL not BSD and some others are proprietary.

With public domain I have no rivals. It's simply out there for all to use if needed.

Nothing such important like Linux or KDE. If there's no difference why not release everything under public domain? :>

[deanjo]

If there's no difference why not release everything under public domain? :>

Other then serving a political agenda there is no reason why not too.

[smitty3268]

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.

Sure, but you probably also use multiple devices every day with the linux kernel in them. So by your own logic that must make the GPL2 a great license, right? Or are you just cherry-picking examples that prove your point while ignoring the counter examples?

I have no problem at all with BSD licenses, or with public domain code. But i do think the authors of the code should have the right to make that choice for themselves. It sounds to me like you would take away that choice and force them to license their code just the way you prefer, which seems a little arrogant to me. (And definitely not fitting with your previous definition of freedom, which is more accurately described as anarchy).

However did this thread get pulled off on this tangent anyway? Does anyone have anything to say about OSX? Anyone else think that the huge speed improvements here prove that 10.5 was pretty horribly optimized?