> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>> > Darwin 6.0.2 is available as a bootable ISO CD image.
>> >
>> > * x86 ISO image (315 M
>>
>> But that's just Darwin - and the already existing open source stuff
>> that Apple has adopted.
>>
>> The question is - where is the FInder source? QuickTime? The Dock?
>> Until you can answer that, you are just blowing smoke - again.
>>
>> OS X is NOT open source. It contains some open source components (so
>> does Windows), but OS X is NOT open source.
>
> And I never said it was. It's 80% more opensource than Windows, and sure
> 20% less open than Linux. But considering it's a quite a bit better OS
> than Linux or Windows, it's a fair compromise.
It it were a better OS, that might be a true statement.
>
> OSX is built on pure, established standards like no other OS built
> today,
Except for Linux, the various BSDs, and other *nix derivatives.
> so opensource advocates love it since you don't get locked in
> like you do with Windows...
That's an out and out lie and you know it. There are plenty of OSS
advocates that don't like it at all.
> Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>
> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> up with the mess that is called Linux.
Linux is not a mess, you lying ass. You might want it to be, you might
pray for it, but it is not a mess.
> Apple was smart to keep the front end consistent for everyone.
Smart enough? It doesn't take a lot of smarts to build on OSS projects
and lay proprietary layers on top.
>
> If you want to change the Finder any way you like, you just need to know
> this access key.
>
> Go into System/Library/CoreServices/Finder - then hold down the Ctrl
> Key, click and hold on the Finder Icon... choose Show Package Contents.
>
> Then go into "Contents" and you have full access to the Finder.
>
> You're welcome.
>
.... then how do you go about redistributing your changes to the source
you can't get?
> > > The question is - where is the FInder source? QuickTime? The Dock?
> > > Until you can answer that, you are just blowing smoke - again.
> > >
> > > OS X is NOT open source. It contains some open source components (so
> > > does Windows), but OS X is NOT open source.
> >
> > And I never said it was.
>
> Ah, that sound you hear is Oxford, furiously back pedaling!
Nope! I stick with raw facts. OSX is opensource, that fact doesn't
change... It is OPEN at the SOURCE... which is all that matters to any
developer.
Someday you'll catch up with OSX and begin to learn how opensource was
intended to work...
Read and Learn Bob ----->
As the first major computer company to make Open Source development a
key part of its ongoing software strategy, Apple remains committed to
the Open Source development model. Major components of Mac OS X,
including the UNIX-based core, are made available under Applečs Open
Source license, allowing developers and students to view source code,
learn from it and submit suggestions and modifications. In addition,
Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the
HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the
community.
Apple believes that using Open Source methodology makes Mac OS X a more
robust, secure operating system, as its core components have been
subjected to the crucible of peer review for decades. Any problems found
with this software can be immediately identified and fixed by Apple and
the Open Source community.
If youčre a developer, we invite you to inspect Mac OS X under the hood,
free of charge, by joining the Darwin development process or just see a
sampling of the Open Source projects used and created by Apple.
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:06:42 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>>
>>>> Darwin 6.0.2 is available as a bootable ISO CD image.
>>>>
>>>> * x86 ISO image (315 M
>>>
>>> But that's just Darwin - and the already existing open source stuff
>>> that Apple has adopted.
>>>
>>> The question is - where is the FInder source? QuickTime? The Dock?
>>> Until you can answer that, you are just blowing smoke - again.
>>>
>>> OS X is NOT open source. It contains some open source components (so
>>> does Windows), but OS X is NOT open source.
>>
>> And I never said it was. It's 80% more opensource than Windows, and sure
>> 20% less open than Linux. But considering it's a quite a bit better OS
>> than Linux or Windows, it's a fair compromise.
>
> It it were a better OS, that might be a true statement.
"Better" is, of course, subjective - it depends on what purpose you are in
reference to. OS X, likely, allows the general user to do more than any
other OS: so for the "masses" OS X is "better" in that way. It also allows
others to to things easily and well - but it is not the best solution for
all needs.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
> > Go into System/Library/CoreServices/Finder - then hold down the Ctrl
> > Key, click and hold on the Finder Icon... choose Show Package Contents.
> >
> > Then go into "Contents" and you have full access to the Finder.
> >
> > You're welcome.
>
> You fucking jackass. Opening the folder that contains Finder's
> executables and resources isn't the same as getting to its source
> code. How dare you imply it's even remotely similar.
It still allows you to do what you need and keep user consistency.
Someday you'll understand the bigger picture Jesus, until then, we'll
all laugh at you.
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:43:15 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>>
>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
>> up with the mess that is called Linux.
>
> Linux is not a mess, you lying ass. You might want it to be, you might
> pray for it, but it is not a mess.
Depends on perspective: for the person who likes to tinker Linux might be
perfect... and for someone with very basic needs who has a computer set up
for them it also works well... but for the masses it is simply too
fractured: you cannot talk about how well "Linux" works for people you have
to look at it as how well does Ubuntu (or whatever distro) work for people.
As it stands, now, even with Linux being free and having massive amounts of
free software for its "standards" it is still not exactly taking the market
by storm.
>
>> Apple was smart to keep the front end consistent for everyone.
>
> Smart enough? It doesn't take a lot of smarts to build on OSS projects
> and lay proprietary layers on top.
Who else is doing that - and who does it as well as Apple? Both OS X and
Safari are like that, and they are both excellent products.
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman
Oxford wrote:
> You mean how many N95's did they sell. All we know is far less than
> 2,300. Nokia is toast at the high end. Then when Apple comes online with
> all their smaller phones, Nokia goes bye bye...
CRAP! It will take Apple years to achieve any market share. You are
just SPAMMING as many newsgroups as you can about the iFlop. Nokia will
continue to sell more phones than Apple ever wile.
--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.
73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>
> >>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
> >>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
> >>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
> >>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
> >>
> >> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> >> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
> >> end consistent for everyone.
> >
> > WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
> > Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
> > wouldn't).
>
> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
On Nov 11, 12:41 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1194802249.476012.139...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om on 11/11/07 10:30 AM:
>
> > On Nov 11, 11:43 am, Oxford <colaloves...@verysmart.com> wrote:
> >> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
> >>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
> >>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
> >>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>
> >> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> >> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
> >> end consistent for everyone.
>
> > WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
> > Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
> > wouldn't).
>
> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>
> --
> Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
> conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
>>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
>>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
>>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
>>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
>>>> end consistent for everyone.
>>>
>>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
>>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
>>> wouldn't).
>>
>> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
>> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
>> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
>> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
>> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>
> Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
> people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
>
> Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
> touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
>
> Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
and more important than most people understand.
I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
do so on that point.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
On Nov 11, 1:22 pm, Oxford <colaloves...@verysmart.com> wrote:
> Jesus <rustybucket...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Go into System/Library/CoreServices/Finder - then hold down the Ctrl
> > > Key, click and hold on the Finder Icon... choose Show Package Contents.
>
> > > Then go into "Contents" and you have full access to the Finder.
>
> > > You're welcome.
>
> > You fucking jackass. Opening the folder that contains Finder's
> > executables and resources isn't the same as getting to its source
> > code. How dare you imply it's even remotely similar.
>
> It still allows you to do what you need and keep user consistency.
>
> Someday you'll understand the bigger picture Jesus, until then, we'll
> all laugh at you.
>
> -
Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?
> On Nov 11, 12:41 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> 1194802249.476012.139...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om on 11/11/07 10:30 AM:
>>
>>> On Nov 11, 11:43 am, Oxford <colaloves...@verysmart.com> wrote:
>>>> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
>>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
>>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
>>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>>
>>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
>>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
>>>> end consistent for everyone.
>>
>>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
>>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
>>> wouldn't).
>>
>> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
>> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
>> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
>> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
>> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>
> It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
> with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
> party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
> part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
> source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
Firefox is an exception to the norm (I even used it as en example recently).
If the Finder were open source then well meaning people would use "advanced"
versions that would fracture OS X - making it seem like multiple OSs to the
general user. This would hurt Apple's branding and, often, hurt people's
experience with the OS. I will say there are also some people and some
situations where this would benefit people - but for those people PathFinder
and other projects are available.
Apple has no obligation to make Finder open source and I think they are wise
to keep it closed - it is better for them and better for many users.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
In news:colalovesosx-6972E3.01283011112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesosx@verysmart.com>spewed forth:
> Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> wrote:
>
> Poor Mark has to really dig around to find bad news on the highly
> successful launch of iPhone in the UK, and Germany.
>
<snipped BS>
Poor oxford, has to keep morphin so that he will be seen.
WTF your problem, shit for brains?
Please keep your shit out of NGs that have nothing to do with iphone.
We all know you think its the best thing since sliced bread, but there is a
majoirty of people that just don't give a fuck.
So please STFU
On Nov 11, 1:29 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Oxford" <colaloves...@verysmart.com> stated in post
> colalovesosx-03F13E.11254711112...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net on 11/11/07
> 11:25 AM:
>
>
>
> > Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
> >>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
> >>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
> >>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>
> >>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> >>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
> >>>> end consistent for everyone.
>
> >>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
> >>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
> >>> wouldn't).
>
> >> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
> >> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
> >> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
> >> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
> >> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>
> > Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
> > people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
>
> > Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
> > touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
>
> > Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
>
> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
> and more important than most people understand.
>
> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
> do so on that point.
>
> --
> God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Oxford most certainly does not make things like that clear. Instead,
he makes broad, incorrect generalizations with the intent of making
Apple sound perfect while actually making Apple seem worse and and
making himself look like an idiotic ass.
On Nov 11, 1:33 pm, "ChairMan" <w...@fu.com> wrote:
> Innews:colalovesosx-6972E3.01283011112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colaloves...@verysmart.com>spewed forth:> Mark Crispin <M...@Panda.COM> wrote:
>
> > Poor Mark has to really dig around to find bad news on the highly
> > successful launch of iPhone in the UK, and Germany.
>
> <snipped BS>
>
> Poor oxford, has to keep morphin so that he will be seen.
> WTF your problem, shit for brains?
> Please keep your shit out of NGs that have nothing to do with iphone.
> We all know you think its the best thing since sliced bread, but there is a
> majoirty of people that just don't give a fuck.
> So please STFU
We don't want him either! Any way we can get him permanently booted
from Usenet? :-P
On Nov 11, 1:33 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1194805743.435698.217...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om on 11/11/07 11:29 AM:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:41 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> >> 1194802249.476012.139...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om on 11/11/07 10:30 AM:
>
> >>> On Nov 11, 11:43 am, Oxford <colaloves...@verysmart.com> wrote:
> >>>> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
> >>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
> >>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
> >>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>
> >>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> >>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
> >>>> end consistent for everyone.
>
> >>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
> >>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
> >>> wouldn't).
>
> >> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
> >> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
> >> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
> >> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
> >> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>
> > It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
> > with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
> > party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
> > part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
> > source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
>
> Firefox is an exception to the norm (I even used it as en example recently).
> If the Finder were open source then well meaning people would use "advanced"
> versions that would fracture OS X - making it seem like multiple OSs to the
> general user.
Of course, it goes without saying that the "general user" is not very
bright. Damn those "general users" making my computing experience
less flexible! :-)
> This would hurt Apple's branding and, often, hurt people's
> experience with the OS.
Perhaps, though as you point out, things like Path Finder already
exist.
> I will say there are also some people and some
> situations where this would benefit people - but for those people PathFinder
> and other projects are available.
>
> Apple has no obligation to make Finder open source and I think they are wise
> to keep it closed
They are wise to keep it closed-source. If nothing else, opening the
source would get people one step closer to duplicating the Mac OS GUI
on another OS without the threat of a lawsuit. :-)
> it is better for them and better for many users.
I'm not sure about the "better for many users" part, but OK.
On Nov 11, 1:39 pm, Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> In article
> <colalovesosx-DB3D2A.11125311112...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colaloves...@verysmart.com> wrote:
>
> > Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> > > > > The question is - where is the FInder source? QuickTime? The Dock?
> > > > > Until you can answer that, you are just blowing smoke - again.
>
> > > > > OS X is NOT open source. It contains some open source components (so
> > > > > does Windows), but OS X is NOT open source.
>
> > > > And I never said it was.
>
> > > Ah, that sound you hear is Oxford, furiously back pedaling!
>
> > Nope! I stick with raw facts. OSX is opensource, that fact doesn't
> > change... It is OPEN at the SOURCE...
>
> Nope, sorry. OS X is not open source. Where is the freely
> downloadable Finder source code again?
>
> Bob Campbell
Maybe if you stopped forcing him to use big words such as "open" and
"source," you wouldn't be having this argument right now. You can't
expect too much from Oxtard, you know!
> On Nov 11, 1:29 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Oxford" <colaloves...@verysmart.com> stated in post
>> colalovesosx-03F13E.11254711112...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net on 11/11/07
>> 11:25 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
>>>>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
>>>>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
>>>>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
>>>>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
>>>>>> end consistent for everyone.
>>
>>>>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
>>>>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
>>>>> wouldn't).
>>
>>>> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
>>>> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
>>>> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
>>>> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
>>>> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>>
>>> Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
>>> people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
>>
>>> Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
>>> touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
>>
>>> Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
>>
>> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
>> and more important than most people understand.
>>
>> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
>> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
>> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
>> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
>> do so on that point.
>
> Oxford most certainly does not make things like that clear. Instead,
> he makes broad, incorrect generalizations with the intent of making
> Apple sound perfect while actually making Apple seem worse and and
> making himself look like an idiotic ass.
If he makes a statement such as "OS X is open source" he should, certainly,
acknowledge that that statement, without qualifiers, is not accurate and
needs clarification: OS X is largely open source or has open source
underpinnings or something of that nature. If and when he makes it clear he
understands the whole OS (and related package known as Leopard) is not open
source then the topic should be dropped.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
> In article
> <colalovesosx-03F13E.11254711112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalovesosx@verysmart.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
>> touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
>
> Sure, Oxford, sure. Since I forced you to admit that OS X is NOT open
> source, that makes ME the fool!
How was this "admission" worded? Was it merely a clarification of a past
point?
>
> Uh huh, OK, sure. Whatever you say! How DOES that crow taste?
Like chicken... or so I hear.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
> It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
> with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
> party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
> part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
> source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
all the great companies of the world are based on ONE thing. and that is
"Consistency". Coke, McDonalds, Tiffany, Rolex, etc, etc.
what the Linux and Windows crowd don't understand is that
"inconsistency" is the root of all business disasters, Vista, Linux,
JetBlue, DeLL, etc.
the Finder is the crown jewel of all OSes. It provides a simple but very
deep interface that matches well with 4 year old... all the way to an
advanced Unix programmer. No other piece of UI software is as developed,
flexible and tested as the Finder.
yes, there are 1000's of Finder "enhancements", and that shouldn't
change.
but when you go from machine to machine anywhere in the world the Finder
should work EXACTLY the same from location to location, even if you
don't know the localized language it is in... it's the STANDARD of what
makes Apple so strong. The iPhone is the same way. If an iPhone is in
German or French, I can still use it. It is the SAME. The iPod also
plays on this technique... it can be in any of 18 languages, but I can
still operate it. That's the power of controlling the hardware and
SOFTWARE. It's GOOD for the USER!
FireFox is a "port" of a PC browser and is a mess, Smart Mac users use
Camino since it upholds the values of being "consistent"...
> Who are you to tell me what I need? I want to port Finder to Win64.
> How does opening the Finder.app package let me do that?
First of all, legally you can't do it. Apple has 100's of patents on the
Finder so there is no way you could port it even if you had $75 billion
in your pocket.
2nd is why? The Finder is just a consistent portal into consistent
hardware.
The PC and Linux worlds have no strengths in this area, so a Finder on
poorly crafted hardware wouldn't work.
Only an end to end solution makes sense for a computing system. IF...
you want the best... it's like the old Ma Bell Telephone System. It
"just worked" since Bell controlled all aspects.
>>> It wouldn't make OS X gain or lose anything. Apple would continue
>>> with their own source tree for Finder and could take any popular third-
>>> party patches they wished. It'd work great for Apple, except for the
>>> part where anybody could put Finder on any OS. :-) Firefox is open-
>>> source and it hasn't degraded, has it?
>>
>> Firefox is an exception to the norm (I even used it as en example recently).
>> If the Finder were open source then well meaning people would use "advanced"
>> versions that would fracture OS X - making it seem like multiple OSs to the
>> general user.
>
> Of course, it goes without saying that the "general user" is not very
> bright. Damn those "general users" making my computing experience
> less flexible! :-)
I note your smiley, but there do seem to be a lot of folks (often Linux
users) who seem to focus on flexibility and configurability instead of ease
of use and focus. Apple tends to focus on the latter - and I think that
serves most people better.
>> This would hurt Apple's branding and, often, hurt people's
>> experience with the OS.
>
> Perhaps, though as you point out, things like Path Finder already
> exist.
But as a third party tool it is not used nearly as much. I am happy there
are alternatives for those who want them, but I suspect most people who use
it get little actual benefit in terms of doing work better of faster -
though there are, surely, some who do.
>> I will say there are also some people and some
>> situations where this would benefit people - but for those people PathFinder
>> and other projects are available.
>>
>> Apple has no obligation to make Finder open source and I think they are wise
>> to keep it closed
>
> They are wise to keep it closed-source. If nothing else, opening the
> source would get people one step closer to duplicating the Mac OS GUI
> on another OS without the threat of a lawsuit. :-)
Very true. That would also be bad for Apple.
>> it is better for them and better for many users.
>
> I'm not sure about the "better for many users" part, but OK.
And note, I say "many" - *not* all.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
> "Oxford" <colalovesosx@verysmart.com> stated in post
> colalovesosx-03F13E.11254711112007@m...inet.qwest.net on 11/11/07
> 11:25 AM:
>
> > Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
> >>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
> >>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
> >>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
> >>>>
> >>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
> >>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
> >>>> end consistent for everyone.
> >>>
> >>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
> >>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
> >>> wouldn't).
> >>
> >> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
> >> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
> >> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
> >> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
> >> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
> >
> > Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
> > people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
> >
> > Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
> > touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
> >
> > Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
>
> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
> and more important than most people understand.
>
> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
> do so on that point.
> In article <C35C980C.98B06%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
>> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
>> with no qualifiers.
>
> OS X is not *largely* open source. It has some open source components,
> but the vast majority of the code is NOT open source.
Darwin is an OS in its own right - and it is open source and what OS X
"sits" on. Clearly a lot of what makes OS X be OS X *is* open source, but I
cannot say what percent.
>> I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
>> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
>> do so on that point.
>
> He was VERY clear. He pronounced OS X open source on numerous
> occasions. He has been corrected.
If he has not he should acknowledge that OS X is not fully open source.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
"Peter Hayes" <notinuse2@btinternet.com> stated in post
1i7ffzt.1jwdpymmpblstN%notinuse2@btinternet.com on 11/11/07 11:52 AM:
>> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
>> and more important than most people understand.
>>
>> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
>> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
>> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
>> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
>> do so on that point.
>
> Message-ID:
> <colalovesmacs-A71612.16223808112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
>
> Oxford> "At least OSX works on Linux or Apple Hardware and is fully
> opensource."
>
> That's the problem with entering threads without reading all the posts
> first... :-)
OK: to say "fully opensource" is clearly incorrect. No doubt.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
> Snit wrote:
>> If he makes a statement such as "OS X is open source" he should
> <SNIP>Rest of the CRAP removed</SNIP>
>
> WTF has this got to do with NOKIA and all the other irrelevant
> newsgroups this is being SPAMMED in.
>
> FUCK OFF with your Apple SHIT and stop cross-posting!
>
None of the referenced groups are about religion of any sort: please stop
talking about crosses.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Re: iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video! 
