On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 12:34 PM, George Mogiljansky wrote: > Just to pour oil on the fire - 10.2.2 is really what X > should have been way back.
Eh, yeah, but you can always say that about anything, nothing is ever what it really should be in its first revision or so. > Funny no-one mentioned Java > - still not included in X, and the judge in the M$ > case is considering Sun's request to 'force' M$ to > include Java in Windows (imagine that!). Uhm, JAVA is included in Mac OS X, has since the Public Beta, in fact 10.0 used JAVA 2.0, the first OEM OS to do so ... Jaguar uses the most current JAVA version. I swear you and I talked about this before, don't you develop JAVA? If I recall your past complaint was that Apple was not maintaining up-to-date JAVA on Mac OS X v.10.1.x, and that is a completely valid contention. > Letting snippets of X be OpenSource - what next? A GNU > licence for Jaguar (since Quartz Extreme already > existed 6 months prior to Jag's release - you pay > shareware $10). Ah, who told you that Quartz Extreme was OpenSource? Or is this just a made up example? Quartz and Quartz Extreme are not part of Darwin [Apple's OpenSource release of Mac OS X's underlying UNIX OS] and while Apple is allowing some things from OS X, namely Rendezvous to go OpenSource, this is a good thing. Something like Quartz Extreme is a feature technology, its a reason to buy a Mac, Rendezvous will only succeed through others using it, it needs to be available for use in other products if Apple wants people to see it as a reason to buy a Mac. And when it comes to licensing, you don't pay for all the parts of an OpenSource distribution separately when you buy a distribution, you pay for the distribution and that covers any included software licenses. [Someone correct me if I am way off here but I have never heard of someone buying RedHat Linux and then buying all the stuff that was including in the distribution]. > And Red Hat's stock has taken off recently - finally > the chickens come home to roost. I think you need to revise you theory a little, but RedHat's success is good for Apple and Macintosh as a platform, Linux and UNIX [Mac OS X included] work well together, share standards together, and can easily be made cross-platform together, these are all things MS avoids and fights. If MS did not maintain Windows as so anti-everyone/everything else people would have much less to complain about. Windows did not become strong by being compatible with anything but itself, an early lead given to MS by IBM meant that forever after MS could say "Use DOS? Windows 3.1 works with DOS, Use Win3.1? Win95 is compatible with it!" And onward through today. MS was never compatible with other software, only hardware and only to maintain domination of marketshare. YAY for Linux, YAY for UNIX, YAY for Mac OS X. David -- G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
