Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

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

  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    So you want to benefit the end user without adding restrictions. Nice and welcome. But the restrictions your code will have when someone uses it for its proprietary app don't matter? Are they for the genearl benefit? Like that you produce much more restrictions than you intented to do when you offered the code without any at all.
    I really don't care, I have an idea, if you can improve it, go ahead. I'm not going to restrict my knowledge to people with a like philosophy. End result is, again, the end user benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    And I have to disagree with you. If I put out code free of any restrictions my goal is to benefit the end user, not political agendas. If someone wants to use my code and want's to slap it in a proprietary app so be it. This philosphy has worked well for sqlite which is everywhere and the end result is everybody gains.
    So you want to benefit the end user without adding restrictions. Nice and welcome. But the restrictions your code will have when someone uses it for its proprietary app don't matter? Are they for the genearl benefit? Like that you produce much more restrictions than you intented to do when you offered the code without any at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Oh I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly what the proprietary software, that you defend, does. Because of that they got an X bigger than OSX's one from me.
    And I have to disagree with you. If I put out code free of any restrictions my goal is to benefit the end user, not political agendas. If someone wants to use my code and want's to slap it in a proprietary app so be it. This philosphy has worked well for sqlite which is everywhere and the end result is everybody gains.

    Leave a comment:


  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    With words is easy, your attitude though with the people/software/licenses which at least try to do that, says the opposite.
    It's a completely unrealistic goal anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • qwerty
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    So you mean that Michael's words should be something like:

    Well it doesn't change anything man.
    I totally disagree: it change A LOT.

    Benchmarks are welcome, but advertising and supporting Locked-in and restricted products on a site like this one, it's an absurd, IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    As someone who has worked under all of those licenses I have every right to be negative about them.
    It is, I just said you are not convincing by using your right. Especially you.

    If I had my way, everything would be public domain.
    With words is easy, your attitude though with the people/software/licenses which at least try to do that, says the opposite.

    Code is nothing but a form of math. Imagine what the world would be like if someone put restrictions on the ability to add 2+2.
    Oh I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly what the proprietary software, that you defend, does. Because of that they got an X bigger than OSX's one from me.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    How proper is for someone who accepts eagerly the so restricted licenses of Microsoft and Apple to judge GPL negative?
    As someone who has worked under all of those licenses I have every right to be negative about them. If I had my way, everything would be public domain.

    Code is nothing but a form of math. Imagine what the world would be like if someone put restrictions on the ability to add 2+2.
    Last edited by deanjo; 29 August 2009, 12:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    The GPL serves the FSF nothing more. Every companies contribution to the linux kernel for example serves their product.
    Your habbit to begin flame-wars and to convert threads goes well deanjo but how convining can be someone who accepts eagerly the so restricted licenses of Microsoft and Apple when judge GPL negative?
    Last edited by Apopas; 29 August 2009, 12:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium
    i think macos 10.6 is optimizes to an FBO based rendering like "Xreal" not old-style rendering like "nexuiz".
    Again, you think, and your wrong. Read the developer papers on OS X before assuming because your assumptions have no basis in fact.

    http://developer.apple.com/mac/libra...TP40008898-SW1
    Last edited by deanjo; 29 August 2009, 12:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Btw. GPL restrictions serve community and Apples restrictions serve Apple.
    The GPL serves the FSF nothing more. Every companies contribution to the linux kernel for example serves their product.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X