Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R.I.P. Steve Jobs

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

  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    Ok, and please don't bother mentioning the fact that the only reason Apple picked BSD/Unix was becuase of the "Free" BSD-Licsence. yep, We all already, generally, know that' and yes, that was the primary reason. Otherwise Linux would have been equally good, in all respects.
    ... except for the little time-travel problem -- MacOS built on Nextstep, and development work on Nextstep started ~4 years before the first version of Linux existed.
    Last edited by bridgman; 10-11-2011, 01:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • scjet
    replied
    .... additionally Steve Jobs took a completely "freely avillabe OS",as we know it, BSD/Unix (specifically FreeBSD, bastardized it inti Darwin) and took it to great heights of stability and quality, why ?, becuase this is what happens when you "properly" mold hardware and drivers, together with the OS, - MacOSX.
    That was a tribute to all things Linux, as well as obviously BSD.
    Hang on, yes, he had the money and "suckered" Investors into seeing this to fruition, yes he did it for "profit", yes he did proprieterrorize/close it, ....and yes he, the greedy SoB, charged way tooo Much money for it

    Ok, and please don't bother mentioning the fact that the only reason Apple picked BSD/Unix was becuase of the "Free" BSD-Licsence. yep, We all already, generally, know that' and yes, that was the primary reason. Otherwise Linux would have been equally good, in all respects.

    But I see the glass as half-full, Steve Jobs' NeXT experiment, ultimately proved just how good Hardware built for a Linux, and a BSD can really be. ?! That is a huge "feather" in all out hats. That's a tribute.
    Steve Jobs proved that the "free" Unix's really is a better Model OS to build upon especially in this InterNETworking World.
    Most of us, linux/bsd advocates already knew this years ago.
    The point is, HE DID IT !!!
    Stallman, on the other hand, has NOT done that yet, -yet another reason we(linux/bsd/...) needs an OpenHardware model to build upon.

    So ya, R.I.P. Steve.
    Last edited by scjet; 10-11-2011, 12:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • urfe
    replied
    Originally posted by Panix View Post
    You're the one who's wrong. You're an apathetic idiot. But, don't worry, there's lots like you.
    We, thank you for having the decency to edit it out. But I will not address your or any of your points.

    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    its just about how much money do you have if you have much money you can crush everyone in every place and yes you can hurt and punish people just because you are a ruthless business man.
    Well good thing we're on a technology board, then, and not in business ethics.


    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    you just FAIL here because i only quote wikipedia stuff with 100% source mark
    Don't use memes in a conversation, they're brain-dead jokes.

    About Wikipedia: please read what I wrote about it in the following posts (if you don't want to search for it, here it is: you can't just post snippets out form someone's speech/book and use it as proof. People directly involved with Steve Jobs knew better than any of those anonymous Wiki editors, and if they respected him for what he did, it means damn more than a <quote> on a forum. Look up what Wozniak had to say about him, if you're so interested in his off-stage character).

    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    i consider what he did create and my result is he create nothing only Wozniak do something.
    Wozniak=100% true hacker with 100% true work and Steve Jobs only use Wozniak as a slave !
    Steve Jobs business model only was to exploit Wozniak.
    And the conductors role is to exploit the pianist... Please remember that Steve created more than Apple: Pixar and NeXT. Both successful and with great influence. No one will remember him as an engineer - this is out of the question.
    Also, once Steve was forced to leave, Apple went down - so, voila, your precious engineers are not always the only good investement. This is what he was great for. If you refuse to acknolewdge that, then you're dimissing how actually any project works.


    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    its my freedom of chose to be against the apple bullshit and brainwashing machines

    in our world there are not so many brainwashing resistant humans I'm one of them.

    I Don't care how rich there are and i know very poor people buy apple stuff just because they try to lift them up with expensive status symbols and apple know that they just suck these poor people out like vampires.
    You need to grow up. The consumer is not a victim, he's the one making the choice.
    You also shouldn't have 3600+ posts on an Internet forum if you're as 'brainwashing resistant' as you claim, because no one anchorded in reality would waste all that precious time arguing like a veritable news-consumer, without any real goals, on a Internet forum (and I will follow my advice, thank you).

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    I agree 100% with Richard; I'm not glad he's dead; I'm just glad he's gone.

    People make fun of Richard because he doesn't look like anyone else, or behaves like them. But people do not listen to what he actually says.

    While the MIT license is good to get people started with their business, it's dangerously unhealthy at the same time, because the license leads to an unfair advantage for closed source products that then compete with its software base.

    The GPL might restrict you, but it only restrict unhealthy progress. I can understand where the hate comes from; the GPL software can swallow MIT software without MIT software being able to take back the code. Well hello, that's what the MIT license is all about. If you hate GPL because of this, then you should (re)considder hating your own license, instead.

    The only real freedom that MIT License has is that it's compatible with every other license on the planet. Yet that's not the other way around, because of that advantage.
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 10-11-2011, 10:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by scjet View Post
    Of course Stallaman is right
    No he's not. He's just a sad little man attacking a dead guy that he demonized for daring to make money from his software.

    Leave a comment:


  • Panix
    replied
    Originally posted by urfe View Post
    Sorry, you're horrible wrong: he doesn't store it as cash, under a mattress. Banks have it and use it. The same goes for shares. Most of that fortune is actually more volatile than you think. Second, and more important: it's his right.
    You're the one who's wrong.

    If he did something unethical, immoral and was ruthless with his business (and ascent), then how is that excusable? So, people excuse how he progressed in business because the end product are user-friendly, versatile, fun gadgets? Not to mention, expensive, closed-source, exclusionary, and this is valued and heralded especially by Linux users?!? I, for one, don't understand it. Not when there's so many OSS fans here.

    I would think Jobs/Mac would be one where the attitude or philosophy is criticized even if the general functionality (if the closed nature is disregarded for argument) is thought as favorable.

    I think one can be positive and complimentary about the design and user-friendly usability (esp. the GUI/looks/appearance) but why can't you be critical/objective about the philosophy at the same time?

    Apple/Mac have the rare quality of being both functional (i.e. it works) and good quality/design/looks wise. The problem is that the business model of closed source and gouging on price cancels it out. It's not that it's expensive but that there is an obvious amount of greed in how the company operates. That's why it gets compared to MSoft, imho.

    Anyway, that's my two cents.........

    Leave a comment:


  • susikala
    replied
    Originally posted by urfe View Post
    We, more technical inclided, have alternatives (which doesn't mean that a third of my colleagues won't have Mac's). Everyone buys what they want - this is more of a freedom than the GPL one.
    I guess we sum down to the eternal bsd vs. gpl argument, which is really free. I believe gpl is really free because it enforces freedom, while you see in gpl's enforcement a limitation of 'real' freedom. Well, I don't mind differing, since I don't think common ground can reached in that respect.

    I don't agree with the rest, even though I didn't quote it.

    Leave a comment:


  • urfe
    replied
    Originally posted by susikala View Post
    I didn't call people like that. I defined what I believe capitalistic pigs are. Then I brought an example -- if you believe my definition is incorrect, please tell me why you think a person should have more than they'd ever need or could spend.
    Sorry, you're horrible wrong: he doesn't store it as cash, under a mattress. Banks have it and use it. The same goes for shares. Most of that fortune is actually more volatile than you think. Second, and more important: it's his right.


    apple didn't invent computing. I won't deny they have a history in it, but I also never met older people who 'grew up with apple'.
    Read about the impact of Lisa on the public.

    the fact I get myself a really cheap and reliable vps server is because linux -- and free software. Which is exactly why so many companies contribute back to the stack.
    And Apple's designs weren't influential? You keep talking about now, ignoring how we get here.

    We write here on cigarette packs that smoking may and probably will harm your health. Why shouldn't we write on apple computers or devices that they may or probably limit your freedom in using what you bought?
    Because Appple won't destroy your health. Or create addiction. Instead, Apple sells a tool which people buy when they need to solve something - arguing about OSS freedom in this case is like yelling to my mother that she won't be able to have a root account on her smarphone; she will not care. This is Apple's market. It provides everything that ordinary people want. And it works quite good.

    We, more technical inclided, have alternatives (which doesn't mean that a third of my colleagues won't have Mac's). Everyone buys what they want - this is more of a freedom than the GPL one.

    Leave a comment:


  • susikala
    replied
    Originally posted by urfe View Post
    Sorry, susikala, this is basically your post:

    1. calling people 'capitalistic pigs'

    2. somehow having this crazy idea that Apple was created in the year 2000. They used to sell the first complete, cheat PC almost 35 years ago! There was always free code. There were always free licenses (like BSD). There was always Unix. But there weren't any home computers. So drop Stallman and stop putting the license before the piece of hardware and code. Before arguing about networks, free-software and costs, think about the generation that helped create the complete, affordable personal computer.

    3. forcing your concept of openess on every computer/phone/table buyer, because you sure know better what they need.

    It's hard to take you seriously. Please stop focusing on the ideologic agruments instead of technical accomplishments - the computer is not an idea, it's a pyshical device.
    I didn't call people like that. I defined what I believe capitalistic pigs are. Then I brought an example -- if you believe my definition is incorrect, please tell me why you think a person should have more than they'd ever need or could spend. "Because they can" is not an argument; we live in a society, social means living together. This side of capitalism treats money making as a process distinct from society. You make money off society, you need it to spend it, it's a circle, it's not a one way street. You give it back anyway to society, whether you or the people who will come after you and spend it at some point. So hoarding it like a pig and working to increase it is a despicable way to act, sorry. Bill Gates is a good example of someone who understands this concept.

    apple didn't invent computing. I won't deny they have a history in it, but I also never met older people who 'grew up with apple'. They all grew up with amiga or atari, or something from ibm. You are right however in taking the approach that most of my criticism of apple concentrates on the last few years: it is true. Because especially in these years it has become a horrible evil, paranoid cooperation with megalomanic tendendies and too much power (example: they sue samsung and convince the courts samsung shouldn't sell one of its pads here; although almost all pads look almost the SAME). It's something I'd never say of microsoft, for example.

    The fact you ignore what I said about the gpl and the central use of free software in the systems on which we depend for almost everything speaks for itself. Are you running a website? A server? Does it run with windows? apple? BSD? no, it probably runs with Linux. There are exceptions, but they serve to prove the rule. Here's your "the computer is not an idea, it's a pyshical device". The fact I get myself a really cheap and reliable vps server is because linux -- and free software. Which is exactly why so many companies contribute back to the stack.

    I don't know better what anyone needs -- but neither does apple. We write here on cigarette packs that smoking may and probably will harm your health. Why shouldn't we write on apple computers or devices that they may or probably limit your freedom in using what you bought?

    That's why I wrote it's not my problem (it should have been 'fortunately', though). I see this development though and I'm concerned where it's going, since the outcome of the popularity of such companies is less choice for all and less freedom.

    Leave a comment:


  • urfe
    replied
    Sorry, susikala, this is basically your post:

    1. calling people 'capitalistic pigs'

    2. somehow having this crazy idea that Apple was created in the year 2000. They used to sell the first complete, cheat PC almost 35 years ago! There was always free code. There were always free licenses (like BSD). There was always Unix. But there weren't any home computers. So drop Stallman and stop putting the license before the piece of hardware and code. Before arguing about networks, free-software and costs, think about the generation that helped create the complete, affordable personal computer.

    3. forcing your concept of openess on every computer/phone/table buyer, because you sure know better what they need.

    It's hard to take you seriously. Please stop focusing on the ideologic agruments instead of technical accomplishments - the computer is not an idea, it's a pyshical device.
    Last edited by urfe; 10-11-2011, 08:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X