Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

[nanonyme]

Hey, if you want to keep something to yourself then by all means do so. It is you code after all. This can be achieved though GPL or Proprietary licenses (again same shit different pile). If you want to benefit all however you use PD.

I just got a funny vision while travelling in a bus. What if all software would be judged on originality and if a required degree of originality isn't achieved, it would automatically go to Public Domain since copyrights are only applicable to original pieces of work anyway? (yeah, I was a bit bored)
End conclusions: most GUI's including Gnome's, KDE's, Apple's and Microsoft's would automatically become Public Domain since they're not really that original.

[deanjo]

MS, Apple, Sun do this.

As do pretty much any projects that are not PD, GPL included.

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?

Hey, if you want to keep something to yourself then by all means do so. It is you code after all. This can be achieved though GPL or Proprietary licenses (again same shit different pile). If you want to benefit all however you use PD.

[deanjo]

your side is for 10.5 not for 10.6

"OpenGL

The AGL framework in Mac OS X v10.5 adds support for the following features:

*

Support for multiple OpenGL threads, which increases performance by offloading CPU-based processing onto separate threads where they can be processed by available processor cores.
*

Attaching an AGL context to WindowRef and HIView objects, thus eliminating the need to use a QuickDraw port
*

Pixel buffer objects
*

Color managed texture images in the sRGB color space
*

Improvements in the shader programming API
*

Support for 64-bit addressing

In addition to the improvements to the OpenGL support itself, Mac OS X v10.5 includes updates to the OpenGL profiling tools to help you analyze your OpenGL programs and gather performance statistics.

For information about the AGL support, see AGL Reference. "

Why are you opening up 10.5 release notes? The link takes you to the 10.6 notes.

[Apopas]

It's not like you could use OSX in a non-Mac anyway.

As far as I've understand one of qwerty's biggest objection is that Michael should mention that. I don't consider it thus important since the users of this forum are over the casual computer user and now these things nevertheless.

[nanonyme]

AFte working 18 hours on a benchmark and writing pages of reviews you can easily forget some details. While I agree that the article advertises Apple beyond that is acceptable, I can also understand someone to use some phrases he maybe shouldn't after he have done a ahrd work.

The most it did was advertise OSX to Apple users. I don't see that being especially discriminating. It's not like you could use OSX in a non-Mac anyway.

[Apopas]

I don't know if you guys like to read faulty and absurd statement like this one "Osx it's an only 25$ MUST BUY".

AFte working 18 hours on a benchmark and writing pages of reviews you can easily forget some details. While I agree that the article advertises Apple beyond that is acceptable, I can also understand someone to use some phrases he maybe shouldn't after he have done a ahrd work.

[nanonyme]

This whole conversation has culminated into a kind of an operating system racism? As in, does Phoronix also have the right to have articles about proprietary systems. Personally don't see anything wrong with that if opensource systems will remain in a focus. Bring in RHEL and Sun's Solaris!

[Apopas]

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 long as the conditions I set up respect the freedom and human rights, while the other's don't then I am correct. Whatever you do and how well you justify it is wrong if the result doesn't respect you as human being.

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.

The Chinese say if you see someone starving you can give him a fish. But real good you do only if you give him a fishing rod.
In other words it's good to buy the software for your friends as well but this is half the solution. The matter is no one to have to rely on his friend for help because he can't afford money.
Also who says that I can afford the money as well to buy the software for a friend? That way of thinking created the third world you know, because they can't afford money for nothing.

[Apopas]

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.

That's exactly what the companies say to judge the fact that they patent their software. This kind of thinking leads to unacceptable actions, so something is going wrong don't you think?

Just curious, why not download and install OpenOffice on your friends PCs instead ?

Of course I install OpenOffice in my friend's PCs. OpenOffice respects my rights much more than the proprietary programs. That example with MS Office was just an... example. I used the first proprietary software that came to mind. Why everyone here looks each word of any example instead of the meaning that really matters? If I had said that my friend John did this and that then you would say but not everyone has a friend with the name John???

[nanonyme]

Michael itself can be more precise than me on this topic.

I don't know if you guys like to read faulty and absurd statement like this one "Osx it's an only 25$ MUST BUY".

On a Linux and FOSS addicted site like this one should be, IMHO it sounds a little bit *strange*.

Ah, might be just me skipping review conclusion pages because they're generally just speculation anyway. :3
ps. Your quote is invalid and the context was that if you already have OSX, it's a good idea to upgrade because the newer one will be faster. Not that you should be buying OSX in the first place.