Heh, true that but the second one's been tested.

Not to mention your use of the word "your".

You said the kernel sources weren't available and well, you were mistaken.

I cited an article that suggested it was closed. So, I repeat the question: is that article completely wrong? Or something changed since its publication?

The other stuff really IS closed, always has been and it makes sense. Apple is a software/hardware BUSINESS in direct competition with MS. The bits that are closed really are very innovative and impressive and they don't want to give it away. That's their choice.

Yeah, that's great, doesn't work for me though.

And BTW, Red Hat is a "BUSINESS" too, yet I can get the source to their stuff. Funny.

They don't want your contributions to it, which I doubt you would make anyway (most open source users do NOT contribute, they just whine and expect free support) and they don't want to give it to you for free. Wah, go cry about it or simply don't use it. Just because they don't follow the GNU Freetard business model doesn't mean they are screwing you. They really do screw iPhone users AND developers though. Those guys have a legitimate beef.

I'm not whining. You should read the thread you're posting in.

I'm explaining why the mere availability of GCC and other OSS applications in OS X mentioned earlier in the thread by 3vi1 means very little in regards to overall openness, and why that a few parts turn out to have source available still don't fulfill my needs. I'm interested in the ability of debugging the entire system from top to bottom (and yep, I actually do that and not just talk about it), and the ability to open bash in a terminal window doesn't do that much for that.

If your license and OS are so great, why are you even whining about Apple not being open?

I'm not. I'm perfectly happily using Linux on all my computers. Really I'm not really very interested in even a 100% OSS Apple system, as what I currently have works fine for me.

Because you want their goodies for free. Just use Linux and STFU.

Meh. I could probably have their goodies for free from BitTorrent if I really wanted, and I could easily pay for them as well. No, payment isn't the issue. It simply doesn't do what I want it to do, and I was explaining why. In its current state it they could pay me to take it, and I'd still not be interested.

I would much rather have an ARM netbook than that POS Atom and its power-sucking chipset anyway. Especially if it ran real OS X and not a stripped iPhone-like OS tied to that obnoxious app store.

I'd happily run Linux or BSD on ARM as well though. I don't believe in x86-everywhere. x86 sucks, it's just had enough R&D dollars thrown at it to make it fairly quick and cheap to produce. Hell, I'd much rather Apple had stuck with PPC.

The law already says that you can't patent anything already obvious to those familiar with the art, or technology, in the area to which your patent applies (I paraphrase).

One should already be able to overturn any obvious patent.

The problem is that some patent examiners are good, some are less so - I know this from firsthand experience.

One opinion on the matter here:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html

The reason, I think, is the population density. Japan, Korea and most developed European countries have huge populations in relatively small areas. Australia resembles the US model much more closely.

rich coder's place

Fuck you and fuck Microsoft. This is about stupidity of the USPTO.

On the other hand, maybe it isn't stupidity. Lots of dough at Redmond to throw around.

The only difference between RHEL and CentOS is that the CentOS developers aren't selling support for their particular Linux derivative.

Actually, they do and CentOS isn't their Linux derivative - it is RHEL source repackaged to exclude RH branding.

The difference is that you can't obtain/use RHEL installation media or get RHEL software updates without paying for RH Network license. Well, you can - RHEL source RPMs are available for free, you're welcome to build binaries at your will (that's what CentOS does). CentOS also provides install media and patches to public for free. It is up to the users to decide whether they want paid support (not to be confused with software patches) by CentOS, someone else or do support themselves.

Informative, +1

Who cares, even if they do. PostgreSQL is better.

No. CentOS is a rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise. RHE is not only server distribution.

Oh, fuck off already with this. It is much more accurate than MicroWEREALLABOUTUSERSoft.

It would be prudent to note that the proposal came from the previous (Labour) government, who were out of touch with reality on most other issues, too.

I'd swap with this man if job is somewhere in South Pacific. Present location is a bit too cool.