Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

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

  • #81
    I think you're mixing topics here. I am not a big personal fan of software patents except as a purely defensive tool, and I agree that there are some things happening in that area which we should try as a society to minimize or eliminate.

    Proprietary licenses are a different story. I still believe they are a necessary evil. I'm a big fan of advocating for more open and more community development, but if you want public companies to invest in those projects there has to be a business benefit for them as well.

    The point of a proprietary license is not that the evil developers are preventing you from exercising "your" rights, it's that you never had those rights in the first place. The software is *not* yours and never will be - it belongs to the developers, just as it would if the software were GPL.

    The difference is that the developers of a GPL, BSD or PD program have said "we're OK with you copying it" while the developers of a proprietary program have not. You don't own the software, which is why it's not "yours" to install on other people's PCs. You don't own GPL software either, only the copyright holders own it -- the software just happens to come with a license that explicitly allows copying and sale.

    Your slavery analogy sounds good at first glance, but what you are implying is that people and companies should not have rights to the results of their own hard work. I think most of us would agree that as a world we haven't found the right balance between common and private ownership, but what you are suggesting with MS Office has more in common with nationalizing a company without compensation than it does with the elimination of slavery.

    Forcing a company to turn over its assets to the public "for the common good" is fine, but you can only do it once. You can't expect ongoing investment in software development after you take away their ability to make money on the resulting software. If you're saying "MS Office in its current form is so wonderful that nothing better will ever be required", then sure go ahead and demand that Microsoft be nationalized and all their products turned over to the public domain. Just don't expect them (or other major software companies) to keep paying programmers after you do that, and make sure you know where the programming jobs *will* come from.
    Last edited by bridgman; 08-29-2009, 11:21 PM.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Apopas View Post
      100 years ago slavery was legal. Men were property of men. Was that right? Ofcourse not, but it was legal to have a slave and illegal to use someone else's slave. Slavery was a profitable business. But yet it had to change. Even wars needed for that to be achieved, but it should. So the matter is what is really legal and not what we say it is.
      The same with software. Proprietary software licenses packets few lines of mathematics and claim them as their own, thing that is unacceptable. Can you imagine if Pythagoras had done the same with his work? How much he would have struggled science? But that's exactly what proprietary software does and hell on top of that they even force me to use the software I've paid for in the way they want. They even consider a crime to help people who can not afford the money by installing the software in their pcs. I find more illegal to forbid the help to someone rather than the use of their software in a differnet way they want.
      So if you wrote some code, you wouldn't be upset if Apple just came along and took it? Or are you the only one who gets to decide to help someone by using someone else's code?

      I think copyright laws are absolutely a good thing, the only problem is the way they keep expanding. It's no coincidence that Congress keeps extending them every time Disney's are about to expire...

      Now, EULA's and software patents are another matter entirely. Those are just inexcusable IMO.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        I think you're mixing topics here. I am not a big personal fan of software patents except as a purely defensive tool, and I agree that there are some things happening in that area which we should try as a society to minimize or eliminate.

        Proprietary licenses are a different story IMO. The whole point is that the software is *not* yours in the first place. It belongs to the developers, just as it does if the software were GPL.

        The only difference is that the developers of a GPL program have said "we're OK with you copying it, in fact we demand that you pass on the right to copy it" while the developers of a proprietary program have said "you are buying a license to use this software, not to copy it".

        You don't own the software, which is why it's not "yours" to install on other people's PCs. You don't own GPL software either, it just happens to come with a license that allows copying.
        Since the conditions they give their software restrict me from beneficial use, then we should think twice if indeed their ways are legal and fair. For example Toyota sells me a car which I can share with anyone without restrictions. Ofcourse I am not able to copy it and thus Toyota don't lose money. On the other hand software companies lose money because digital copy is easy so they had to invent ways to prevent that. Keep in mind the word "invent". While that's beneficial for their financial terms doesn't mean that their inventions are good in general. Hell whatever brings money doesn't mean it's good for the people. Imagine one day someone to create a machine that can copy meat. Then the cow breaders will say, that if you buy that piece of meat you agree to not copy and give it to the hungry one because I want to sell to him as well. While this sounds economically correct, the result is people to stay hungry.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          So if you wrote some code, you wouldn't be upset if Apple just came along and took it? Or are you the only one who gets to decide to help someone by using someone else's code?
          Ofcourse I will be upset if Apple just take it and for that I don't agree with BSD licenses and I supporrt GPL which will let Apple use my code for their own benefit, but I will be able as well to use their code after that for my own benefit. Fair is fair, everyone wins, but more important, equally.
          Last edited by Apopas; 08-29-2009, 11:21 PM.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Apopas View Post
            Imagine one day someone to create a machine that can copy meat. Then the cow breaders will say, that if you buy that piece of meat you agree to not copy and give it to the hungry one because I want to sell to him as well. While this sounds economically correct, the result is people to stay hungry.
            A better analogy would be that you are allowed to copy "normal beef" but you can't copy the special brand of extra-tender extra-juicy Kobe beef I spent 20 years and $100M developing. Nobody goes hungry, but you pay extra for the premium stuff.

            Just curious, why not download and install OpenOffice on your friends PCs instead ?
            Last edited by bridgman; 08-29-2009, 11:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by Apopas View Post
              Ofcourse I will be upset if Apple just take it and for that I don't agree with BSD licenses and I supporrt GPL which will let Apple use my code for their own benefit, but I will be able as well to use their code after that for my own benefit. Fair is fair, everyone wins, but more important, equally.
              So what you're saying is that it's fine to copy others work as long as they follow the conditions you've set up, but not if they try to set conditions of their own. Frankly, that sounds a little hypocritical to me.

              As for your meat example, I would argue that there's a pretty big difference between someone starving to death and someone being forced to visit the library or a friends house in order to view a document. If you really want to help them out that much, why don't you buy another copy of the software for them? Instead, it seems like you put the onus on the company that developed the code rather than taking responsibility yourself for helping your friend.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Other then serving a political agenda there is no reason why not too.
                MS, Apple, Sun do this.

                No the GPL prohibits me from using the code as I see fit if it is not my own. I don't have this issue with PD. Good code is good code and there is no sane reason why everybody shouldn't benefit from it.
                Proprietary prohibits me from the same or there's just no good code? :P The point is why my (in example) good code should serve other people, companies which don't serve me?

                However, some other people replied before and I probably know what you meant.

                @Qwerty

                But, IMHO, the question about "if and how" this site should review deeply proprietary and locked-in products (like EVERY Apple product is), it's not so trivial, and i don't see any Michael reply about this topic.
                They just advertise Apples products in my opinion. Title says a lot and like someone mentioned previous OS X could be just a mess and that's why current release seems to be faster. Real world benchmarks would show the truth ; D
                Last edited by kraftman; 08-30-2009, 05:12 AM.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium
                  Yes Phoronix is an very nice place to be :-)

                  macos10.6 realy 25€ if that was a full version working on my AMD workstation i realy care baut it to buy and play a little wit it.

                  but it isn't a full version and do not work on my pc.

                  you see? Phoronix has a lot of people and they care abaut all the stuff ..
                  but phoronix users also love the true and the choice and peace.
                  I agree 100%.

                  And NOT A SINGLE WORD on the article explained that FUNDAMENTAL stuff, pity

                  Really incoherent, IMHO. If you read the about page on PhoronixMedia:

                  Phoronix Media has become the leading provider of Linux hardware reviews and other free software news.
                  It's clear that now Phoronix become leading provider also for PROPRIETARY Locked-in OSs (like OsX is) reviews.

                  Originally posted by Bridgman
                  This might sound odd coming from a corporate guy, but I think Stallman will go down in history as one of the more important philosophers of the 20th century, and I think FSF has done a fantastic job of building an environment where developers can volunteer their efforts and feel confident that the results will be used in a way that pleases them.
                  I agree with you.

                  And beyond the License war flame, smart people today understand that the *perfect* license, simply, do not exist. *Every* license has a restriction or limitation, so it's important to only choose the *right* license for their needs, period.

                  Originally posted by Kraftman
                  They just advertise Apples products in my opinion. Title says a lot and like someone mentioned previous OS X could be just a mess and that's why current release seems to be faster. Real world benchmarks would show the truth ; D
                  If this was a payed advertising for Apple, rather then a impartial review, i think it's really really bad.

                  I don't know others, but I don't like to read lies.
                  Last edited by qwerty; 08-30-2009, 06:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    Proprietary prohibits me from the same or there's just no good code? :P The point is why my (in example) good code should serve other people, companies which don't serve me?
                    Same in reverse: why should the resources of other companies that you don't serve, serve you. Thus we end up in a situation where they keep theirs, we keep ours. It's all about Intellectual Property, no matter whether you're dealing with megacorporations or FSF.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by qwerty View Post
                      And NOT A SINGLE WORD on the article explained that FUNDAMENTAL stuff, pity

                      If this was a payed advertising for Apple, rather then a impartial review, i think it's really really bad.
                      Could you be a bit more precise? Your claims sounded interesting.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X