Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains

While our focus at Phoronix is on testing hardware under Linux, we remain friendly and interested in other BSD and UNIX operating systems too, including Mac OS X . With the launch of Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" we have been particularly interested in it considering the technological advancements that have been made in this update thanks to their large focus on improving the performance of Mac OS X. With that said, we have spent all week working on a grand Mac OS X benchmarking showdown by comparing the performance of the retail build of Mac OS X 10.6.0 to the earlier Mac OS X 10.5.8 through a number of different quantitative tests. We firmly believe that as of right now these are the most detailed desktop performance numbers available concerning Snow Leopard, but we already have more figures on the way. We have performance numbers from not just one Mac computer, but two different setups. Here's to the first 60+ tests we ran!

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14155

[Qaridarium]

Nice to read good work.

this litle mac with the nvidia VGA will be very nice to test linux to :-)

[deanjo]

Great write up Micheal, FYI the OGL regessions are a "Doh" flub (grrr damn nda's). 10.6.1 should fix it.

[kraftman]

I hope other systems will also be 64 bit? Btw. isn't there a mistake in OpenSSL test? My result is ten times better (Arch Linux) XD

[Qaridarium]

Great write up Micheal, FYI the OGL regessions are a "Doh" flub (grrr damn nda's). 10.6.1 should fix it.

"FYI the OGL regessions are a "Doh" flub (grrr damn nda's). 10.6.1 should fix it. "

LOL..... NDA?... LOL

realy there is no need to explain and 10.6.1 will have other regessions with or witout the OGL fix.

the regession is simpel OpenGL3.1 do not work on the same time on the same VGA with OpenCL!
future OpenGL versions mybe OpenGL 3,3 or 3,4 will fix this.

the Old OpenGL spezification do not cooperat with OpenCL on the same hartware.

Today if you want full OGL speed and full OpenCL speed you need 2 VGA carts. '

http://imgur.com/yLf4g.png

[Erikina]

Makes me want to try a Mac.

"We were quite appalled with multiple tests exhibiting nearly 50% performance boosts over Mac OS X 10.5.8"

I don't think appalled means what you think it does

[Qaridarium]

Makes me want to try a Mac.

"We were quite appalled with multiple tests exhibiting nearly 50% performance boosts over Mac OS X 10.5.8"

I don't think appalled means what you think it does

i wait for the test macos vs ubuntu9.10 on an nvidia VGA.

i think ubuntu will win most of the benchmarks.

[kraftman]

i wait for the test macos vs ubuntu9.10 on an nvidia VGA.

i think ubuntu will win most of the benchmarks.

Probably except some SQL benchmarsk due to some change.

[thefirstm]

I have to agree. The performance improvement looks nice, but 64-bit Ubuntu should still kick its butt.

[nanonyme]

I don't think appalled means what you think it doesMaybe, maybe not. Who know what Michael meant to write, dictionary meaning is anyway http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appalled

[Michael]

Maybe, maybe not. Who know what Michael meant to write, dictionary meaning is anyway http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appalled

Eh, that sentence didn't come out how I intended it to, but that's just what happened after working on this article the past ~18 hours straight. Anyways, made a simple change to fix it up.

[deanjo]

"FYI the OGL regessions are a "Doh" flub (grrr damn nda's). 10.6.1 should fix it. "

LOL..... NDA?... LOL

realy there is no need to explain and 10.6.1 will have other regessions with or witout the OGL fix.

the regession is simpel OpenGL3.1 do not work on the same time on the same VGA with OpenCL!


Wow! You really are a complete DUMB ASS that knows NOTHING about openCL. Really you have NO CLUE. Not one test utilized openCL. If there is no openCL code to be ran then there is NO loss of openGL rendering due to the shaders being used for openCL. Please Qaridarium, try to keep your comments on subjects that you might actually have a clue about. Clearly GPU computing is not one of them. Applications don't "automagically" use openCL.

[deanjo]

BTW Michael, did you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup when benching the mac mini 2? Otherwise it will default to 32-bit mode. Only Xserves default to 64-bit.

Alternatively you can use a nice little applet to do this to boot in 64-bit mode:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Download-Mac-OS-X-10-6-32-64-bit-Kernel-Startup-Mode-Selector-1-2-1-120399.shtml

[qwerty]

we remain friendly and interested in other BSD and UNIX operating systems too, including Mac OS X

I totally disagree.

I'm not friendly with Apple, not at all.

I really do not like any Apple locked-in products review here on Phoronix. I was thinking about support Phoronix with donation and subscribe service, but if you continue with this advertising for Apple Locked-in stealed opensource software, i will unsubscribe from this site and i think a lot of people who think about REAL opensource software and company business.

I really like your site and your great work, but i think it's also right to talk about what's it's not good on your site, IMHO. Just my 2 cents, Michael.

[deanjo]

I totally disagree.

I'm not friendly with Apple, not at all.

I really do not like any Apple locked-in products review here on Phoronix. I was thinking about support Phoronix with donation and subscribe service, but if you continue with this advertising for Apple Locked-in stealed opensource software, i will unsubscribe from this site and i think a lot of people who think about REAL opensource software and company business.

I really like your site and your great work, but i think it's also right to talk about what's it's not good on your site, IMHO. Just my 2 cents, Michael.

FYI, the opensource that Apple uses remains opensource. It also abides by their respective licences. Apple also sponsors or owns opensource projects such as openCL, CUPS, LLVM, Clang, webkit, etc.. Sounds like your more pissed off that Apple is not completely open source to which I would love to point out that the biggest linux contributors also have their completely closed projects.

[Apopas]

I totally disagree.

I'm not friendly with Apple, not at all.

I really do not like any Apple locked-in products review here on Phoronix. I was thinking about support Phoronix with donation and subscribe service, but if you continue with this advertising for Apple Locked-in stealed opensource software, i will unsubscribe from this site and i think a lot of people who think about REAL opensource software and company business.

I really like your site and your great work, but i think it's also right to talk about what's it's not good on your site, IMHO. Just my 2 cents, Michael.
Well, I dislike also Apple and Maco$X much more than window$ even and hell noone can feel how MUCH I dislike window$ :D But the best way to see the achievements and performance of free software is to benchmark them all together. While is nice to compare Ubuntu vs Fedora and see the possible boosts and regressions with the newer kernels and xorg, the biggest deal is to see the progress that Linux, OpenSolaris etc have made so far against the commercial competitors if we want one day to see a larger adoption of Linux around the world. Don't tell me that you didn't like that last article when Ubuntu 64 screwed Maco$X :D

[deanjo]

Well, I dislike also Apple and Maco$X much more than window$ even and hell noone can feel how MUCH I dislike window$ :D But the best way to see the achievements and performance of free software is to benchmark them all together. While is nice to compare Ubuntu vs Fedora and see the possible boosts and regressions with the newer kernels and xorg, the biggest deal is to see the progress that Linux, OpenSolaris etc have made so far against the commercial competitors if we want one day to see a larger adoption of Linux around the world. Don't tell me that you didn't like that last article when Ubuntu 64 screwed Maco$X :D

Nothing would ever improve if you didn't compare your solution to the alternatives. Competition breed innovation.

[Apopas]

Nothing would ever improve if you didn't compare your solution to the alternatives. Competition breed innovation.
Did I say something different?

[deanjo]

Did I say something different?

Nope, just agreeing with ya.

[Apopas]

Nope, just agreeing with ya.
That's really weird :confused:
Usually you put words in my keyboard.

[Qaridarium]

Wow! You really are a complete DUMB ASS that knows NOTHING about openCL. Really you have NO CLUE. Not one test utilized openCL. If there is no openCL code to be ran then there is NO loss of openGL rendering due to the shaders being used for openCL. Please Qaridarium, try to keep your comments on subjects that you might actually have a clue about. Clearly GPU computing is not one of them. Applications don't "automagically" use openCL.

If something in macos10.6 using OpenCL the OpenGL speed lose is simpel the VGA switches from OpenCL to OpenGL and back everytime.

Futur OpenGL versions will fix this problem and the openCL and OpenGL can run in the same hartware at the same time.

[Qaridarium]

I totally disagree.

I'm not friendly with Apple, not at all.

I really do not like any Apple locked-in products review here on Phoronix. I was thinking about support Phoronix with donation and subscribe service, but if you continue with this advertising for Apple Locked-in stealed opensource software, i will unsubscribe from this site and i think a lot of people who think about REAL opensource software and company business.

I really like your site and your great work, but i think it's also right to talk about what's it's not good on your site, IMHO. Just my 2 cents, Michael.

be cool michael only test macos because he know linux will win every benchmark :-)

[Qaridarium]

Well, I dislike also Apple and Maco$X much more than window$ even and hell noone can feel how MUCH I dislike window$ :D But the best way to see the achievements and performance of free software is to benchmark them all together. While is nice to compare Ubuntu vs Fedora and see the possible boosts and regressions with the newer kernels and xorg, the biggest deal is to see the progress that Linux, OpenSolaris etc have made so far against the commercial competitors if we want one day to see a larger adoption of Linux around the world. Don't tell me that you didn't like that last article when Ubuntu 64 screwed Maco$X :D

"Don't tell me that you didn't like that last article when Ubuntu 64 screwed Maco$X "

Helll we wana see this! :-) gogogogogogooooo :-)

[Apopas]

"Don't tell me that you didn't like that last article when Ubuntu 64 screwed Maco$X "

Helll we wana see this! :-) gogogogogogooooo :-)
The last I said not the next, but I doubt we will see any big surprises in the next as well, just be patient hihihihihi :D :D :D

[deanjo]

If something in macos10.6 using OpenCL the OpenGL speed lose is simpel the VGA switches from OpenCL to OpenGL and back everytime.

Futur OpenGL versions will fix this problem and the openCL and OpenGL can run in the same hartware at the same time.

Again you have NO clue on openCL. openCL has to be called upon dumbass by the code of the app. It is NOT a "automagic" situation where OS X says "Oh gee, lets see if I can run this with openCL first". Seriously, keep your comments to something you have a clue about.

[qwerty]

But the best way to see the achievements and performance of free software is to benchmark them all together.

I'm not against competitive benchmark with all OS, that's a good thing.

But this article sounds to me a little too happy about Osx Blob locked-in software, so more than a simple benchmark, that, IMHO, it's REALLY bad.

Sentences where Michael state "we remain friendly and interested in other BSD and UNIX operating systems too, including Mac OS X", it's not good, to me.
Of course it's only my opinion.

A little example: you CAN'T do any benchmark with OSX if do not buy his Intel PC hardware, that is a perfectly a clone of a normal PC. It's NOT legal to use Osx on normal PC. It's a stupid RESTRICTION.

IMHO, also only this basic motivation it's enough to ban Osx from any real benchmark. You know: the company behind Osx say that is ILLEGAL to use Osx also if the Hardware it's Exaclty the same, without his ridiculos fanatic snob brandname on it.

[deanjo]

A little example: you CAN'T do any benchmark with OSX if do not buy his Intel PC hardware, that is a perfectly a clone of a normal PC. It's NOT legal to use Osx on normal PC. It's a stupid RESTRICTION.

No more stupid then the restrictions in place by the GPL. You have to follow their terms and conditions as well.

[qwerty]

Nothing would ever improve if you didn't compare your solution to the alternatives. Competition breed innovation.

The basic problem is: Osx it's NOT an alternative to anything. It's a closed system, you cannot install it on the hardware that you want. You have to buy an Apple branded hardware with EXACTLY the same hardware on it. And i do not mention the stealing method used to close opensource software with BSD license.

This is an absurd restriction to the freedom, contrary to the FOSS that must be punished starting from Linux and FOSS aimed sites like this one.

Of course my 0,2 $

[qwerty]

No more stupid then the restrictions in place by the GPL. You have to follow their terms and conditions as well.

Do not mix problems here, please.

I say about HARDWARE branded that MUST be used to play OSx, otherwise it's ILLEGAL to do also any benchmark. BSD vs GPL flameswar it's not the problem here.

Anyway: IMHO, in the end, i stated here in this thread to Micheal because I think that Apple DO NOT need any free advertising here on Phoronix. They are already so good on hype and marketing, really the best in the world on this, FAR BETTER then their software and hardware manufacturer ability.

[Qaridarium]

Again you have NO clue on openCL. openCL has to be called upon dumbass by the code of the app. It is NOT a "automagic" situation where OS X says "Oh gee, lets see if I can run this with openCL first". Seriously, keep your comments to something you have a clue about.

2 thinks-- if MACOSX 10.6 not use openCL openCL will not make problems yes.

If macosX use openGL 3.0 or 3.1 or 3.2 features the Intel IGP will not render this fast becourse the intel driver "can not" render this features.

i think macos himself use openCL features and OpenGL 3.0+ features and the drivers do not support this fully.

Linux and the old macos do not use this features so there no drop down of the speed.

[bridgman]

And i do not mention the stealing method used to close opensource software with BSD license.

The intent of a BSD license is that you can do whatever you want with the code, as long as you don't sue the original developers or use their names in advertising. Building closed software on top of the BSD code is one of the expected uses. The X/DRI/Mesa stack mostly uses the BSD-like X11 license for the same reasons.

[Apopas]

No more stupid then the restrictions in place by the GPL. You have to follow their terms and conditions as well.
Oh plz really don't enter into this!!!

[qwerty]

The intent of a BSD license is that you can do whatever you want with the code, as long as you don't sue the original developers or use their names in advertising. Building closed software on top of the BSD code is one of the expected uses. The X/DRI/Mesa stack mostly uses the BSD-like X11 license for the same reasons.

I know about this.

The problem is to make a complete business model on this, where a community make and share their works, and there is some Company that arrives to close their work without any contribution. Also for this reason exist the GPL license, you know.

But it's note the topic here, please do not take my words to create another Bsd vs GPL flamewar.

I only say primary about the fact that Apple do not need here any advertising for free. Their Os can legally works ONLY on branded hardware, so there is a BIG restriction, *also* to make benchmarks.

In example: Michael, do you have an Apple branded hardware to make your benchmark on OsX?

Is a paradox, IMHO, to make free advertising to Apple product when their make this kind of basic restriction. Especially on a FOSS-Linux related site like this one.

[Apopas]

Anyway: IMHO, in the end, i stated here in this thread to Micheal because I think that Apple DO NOT need any free advertising here on Phoronix.
Hmm I can see your point here. But if the article includes both Linux and Maco$X benchmarks and some tests prove to run faster in Apple's system then it will be again an advertisement for them. So we can not avoid some advertisemnets unfortunately if we want to have real world benchmarks.

[deanjo]

i think macos himself use openCL features and OpenGL 3.0+ features and the drivers do not support this fully.

*sigh* you really don't have any idea what openCL does do you nor do you have any clue on OS X? Again Qaridarium, you offers reasons that are not even close to being the truth based on nothing but what ever your mind fantasizes about . You might as well say that the moon phase is what is slowing down openGL performance. If you had said GCD maybe the problem then you might have at least a educated guess as to what is happening. Unfortunately that would be wrong as well though as the OGL benches that were run are hardly (if any) multithreaded.

[qwerty]

But if the article includes both Linux and Maco$X benchmarks and some tests prove to run faster in Apple's system then it will be again an advertisement for them.

IMHO the problem is on HOW the article is written, in this case.

On the Michael work i see this kind of statement:

if you are a Mac OS X user and are at all concerned about the performance of your system -- whether that means being a benchmarking junkie like us or just looking to squeeze the most potential out of your system whether it be for audio encoding, ray-tracing, image editing, or other computational tasks -- Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is a must buy.

"A MUST BUY"...
" If you are interested in purchasing Mac OS X 10.6, it is available through Amazon.com for just $25 USD."

Please, make benchmarks, it's ok, we like it, but try to not make any mistake like this; because, IE, you forgot to mention that it's NOT legal to use Osx on non Apple branded PC.

Apple Hardware DO NOT cost like a normal Pc hardware...

You forgot to mention the most IMMENSE restriction about this software product: you have to buy Apple Hardware to work with.

[Qaridarium]

*sigh* you really don't have any idea what openCL does do you nor do you have any clue on OS X? Again Qaridarium, you offers reasons that are not even close to being the truth based on nothing but what ever your mind fantasizes about . You might as well say that the moon phase is what is slowing down openGL performance. If you had said GCD maybe the problem then you might have at least a educated guess as to what is happening. Unfortunately that would be wrong as well though as the OGL benches that were run are hardly (if any) multithreaded.

i think macos 10.6 is optimizes to an FBO based rendering like "Xreal" not old-style rendering like "nexuiz".

multi-threaded never the problem because modern engines like Xreal are only VGA limitet.

[kraftman]

Anyway: IMHO, in the end, i stated here in this thread to Micheal because I think that Apple DO NOT need any free advertising here on Phoronix. They are already so good on hype and marketing, really the best in the world on this, FAR BETTER then their software and hardware manufacturer ability.

Probably many people have similar feeling like yours (me included). However the most annoying things in my opinion are benchmarks which means usually nothing when comes to system to system comparison (maybe except graphic performance). Btw. GPL restrictions serve community and Apples restrictions serve Apple.

[Apopas]

IMHO the problem is on HOW the article is written, in this case.

On the Michael work i see this kind of statement:



"A MUST BUY"...
" If you are interested in purchasing Mac OS X 10.6, it is available through Amazon.com for just $25 USD."

Please, make benchmarks, it's ok, we like it, but try to not make any mistake like this; because, IE, you forgot to mention that it's NOT legal to use Osx on non Apple branded PC.

Apple Hardware DO NOT cost like a normal Pc hardware...

You forgot to mention the most IMMENSE restriction about this software product: you have to buy Apple Hardware to work with.

So you mean that Michael's words should be something like:
So if you don't care about spenading an enormous amount of money on restricted hardware and software and if you find proprietary software so attractive so to can't live without it (in other words if you are a Mac OS X user) and are at all concerned about the performance of your system blah blah blah...
Well it doesn't change anything man. There are reasons to exist both users who use free software and users who use window$ and Maco$X. To repeat them all the time is tiresome.

[Qaridarium]

IMHO the problem is on HOW the article is written, in this case.

On the Michael work i see this kind of statement:

"A MUST BUY"...
" If you are interested in purchasing Mac OS X 10.6, it is available through Amazon.com for just $25 USD."


A must buy--> you lose 30% of OpenGL speed on modern OpenGL apps like nexuiz.. a realy realy must buy ;)

[deanjo]

Btw. GPL restrictions serve community and Apples restrictions serve Apple.

The GPL serves the FSF nothing more. Every companies contribution to the linux kernel for example serves their product.

[deanjo]

i think macos 10.6 is optimizes to an FBO based rendering like "Xreal" not old-style rendering like "nexuiz".


Again, you think, and your wrong. Read the developer papers on OS X before assuming because your assumptions have no basis in fact.

http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/releasenotes/MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_6.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008898-SW1

[Qaridarium]

Again, you think, and your wrong. Read the developer papers on OS X before assuming because your assumptions have no basis in fact.

if you have basics you can't speak because of the NDA.

so in fakt no BASICS is much better, than NDA!

[Apopas]

The GPL serves the FSF nothing more. Every companies contribution to the linux kernel for example serves their product.
Your habbit to begin flame-wars and to convert threads goes well deanjo but how convining can be someone who accepts eagerly the so restricted licenses of Microsoft and Apple when judge GPL negative?

[deanjo]

How proper is for someone who accepts eagerly the so restricted licenses of Microsoft and Apple to judge GPL negative?

As someone who has worked under all of those licenses I have every right to be negative about them. If I had my way, everything would be public domain.

Code is nothing but a form of math. Imagine what the world would be like if someone put restrictions on the ability to add 2+2.

[Apopas]

As someone who has worked under all of those licenses I have every right to be negative about them.
It is, I just said you are not convincing by using your right. Especially you.

If I had my way, everything would be public domain.
With words is easy, your attitude though with the people/software/licenses which at least try to do that, says the opposite.

Code is nothing but a form of math. Imagine what the world would be like if someone put restrictions on the ability to add 2+2.
Oh I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly what the proprietary software, that you defend, does. Because of that they got an X bigger than OSX's one from me.

[qwerty]

So you mean that Michael's words should be something like:

Well it doesn't change anything man.

I totally disagree: it change A LOT.

Benchmarks are welcome, but advertising and supporting Locked-in and restricted products on a site like this one, it's an absurd, IMHO.

[nanonyme]

With words is easy, your attitude though with the people/software/licenses which at least try to do that, says the opposite.It's a completely unrealistic goal anyway.

[deanjo]

Oh I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly what the proprietary software, that you defend, does. Because of that they got an X bigger than OSX's one from me.

And I have to disagree with you. If I put out code free of any restrictions my goal is to benefit the end user, not political agendas. If someone wants to use my code and want's to slap it in a proprietary app so be it. This philosphy has worked well for sqlite which is everywhere and the end result is everybody gains.

[Apopas]

And I have to disagree with you. If I put out code free of any restrictions my goal is to benefit the end user, not political agendas. If someone wants to use my code and want's to slap it in a proprietary app so be it. This philosphy has worked well for sqlite which is everywhere and the end result is everybody gains.
So you want to benefit the end user without adding restrictions. Nice and welcome. But the restrictions your code will have when someone uses it for its proprietary app don't matter? Are they for the genearl benefit? Like that you produce much more restrictions than you intented to do when you offered the code without any at all.

[deanjo]

So you want to benefit the end user without adding restrictions. Nice and welcome. But the restrictions your code will have when someone uses it for its proprietary app don't matter? Are they for the genearl benefit? Like that you produce much more restrictions than you intented to do when you offered the code without any at all.

I really don't care, I have an idea, if you can improve it, go ahead. I'm not going to restrict my knowledge to people with a like philosophy. End result is, again, the end user benefits.

[deanjo]

I I see a person for example struggling with lifting a box, I'm not going to say "He can afford to pay someone to help him" over a person that can't. I am also not going to say "Well he is not part of my religion so I won't help him". If a person or entity needs help and I am able to give it I will. Trying to change everyone to the same POV so that they are all in agreement will never work and placing such restrictions limits the amount of people/entities that you can help and ultimately segregates and reduces the amount of benefits that a contribution can make.

[qwerty]

In example: Michael, do you have an Apple branded hardware to make your benchmarks on OsX?



I still don't see any replay about this.

Ok i found it, on page 2: 2 (old) macmini.

[Apopas]

I really don't care, I have an idea, if you can improve it, go ahead. I'm not going to restrict my knowledge to people with a like philosophy. End result is, again, the end user benefits.
You confuse one thing. Freedom has limits. If someone has not limits then he is not free, he is loose. I don't have the right to do whatever I want. My freedom ends when I hurt someone else's freedom. That's waht GPL tries to do. It puts the neccessary restrictions to protect the freedom in the software world. How much it achieves that goal or not is a different debate though. The matter is that for licenses witout any restriction on them is much easier to produce loose products than free. But again if someone prefers them I'm ok. But it's a differnet matter to prefer BSD licenses ove GPL and another one to prefer Apple's restricitons over GPL.

I see a person for example struggling with lifting a box, I'm not going to say "He can afford to pay someone to help him" over a person that can't. I am also not going to say "Well he is not part of my religion so I won't help him". If a person or entity needs help and I am able to give it I will.
If I have a copy of MS office and I want to give it to a friend who needs it but can't afford the money to buy it, I'm considered a criminal. Since when is a crime to help? Is that fair? By judging of your post I understand you agree with me as well. But yet you keep defend products that are totally different than your current statement. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

[dashcloud]

I still don't see any replay about this.

At the beginning of the article he mentions that he's using two Mac minis- an older Intel graphics one, and a newer Nvidia graphics one.

[lordmozilla]

Come on... That was some terrible marketing crap.

OS10.5 looses - look at that that is amazing...
OS10.6 looses - yeah but they'll fix that...

That sudokut benchmark was especially damning. Thats a CRAP showing from 10.6. And no they arent gonna fix it, they'll release 10.7 and make you pay some more dollars.

a quote from java2d microbenchmark
Like some of our other graphics tests though, the vector graphics rendering performance for the Java 2D pipeline had actually regressed under Snow Leopard. Again, hopefully this is something that will be worked out in the very near term.

but the OS10.6 tiny win in lame gets
LAME was running a few seconds faster, which will become beneficial and appreciated if you do a lot of audio encoding work.

Wait so they download the latest version of lame and make you pay for it. Now thats just VALUE for money!

Wait when OS10.6 draws in php compilation
While Apache built slightly faster on Mac OS X 10.6, PHP built slightly slower, but the difference was quite small for both systems.
Let's mention the previous benchmark that was really good...

I hope this proved my point. Change that title to MAC OSX Brings Improvements but also regressions and I'll be happy.

They cant even package working drivers! Those openGL benchmarks are damnright hilarious.

Although now since your in Steve jobs good books maybe they'll let you have a free mac pro.

[lordmozilla]

My freedom ends when I hurt someone else's freedom.

That is a really nice way of looking at freedom.

[Apopas]

That is a really nice way of looking at freedom.
Unfortunately isn't very popular :(

[deanjo]

You confuse one thing. Freedom has limits. If someone has not limits then he is not free, he is loose. I don't have the right to do whatever I want. My freedom ends when I hurt someone else's freedom. That's waht GPL tries to do. It puts the neccessary restrictions to protect the freedom in the software world. How much it achieves that goal or not is a different debate though. The matter is that for licenses witout any restriction on them is much easier to produce loose products than free. But again if someone prefers them I'm ok. But it's a differnet matter to prefer BSD licenses ove GPL and another one to prefer Apple's restricitons over GPL.


Sorry freedom by definition does not have limits. If I put out code into public domain my original code is still there untouched. If someone grabs that code and modifies it, improves, degrades it still does not effect my original code. That is my contribution and nothing can change that. No entity can hurt my code, ever. Implying anything else is like saying that the steel industry is responsible for gun shootings because they provided the steel. Now a criminal may use that gun to kill some undeserving Soul, but at the same time that same steel may save someone else's life in the same capacity.


If I have a copy of MS office and I want to give it to a friend who needs it but can't afford the money to buy it, I'm considered a criminal. Since when is a crime to help? Is that fair? By judging of your post I understand you agree with me as well. But yet you keep defend products that are totally different than your current statement. Isn't that a bit contradictory?If you have a copy of MS office and give it to someone your not a criminal. You are however if you retain use of it after transfer on your own systems.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/11/8140.ars

If your buddy cannot afford gas for his car, do you go and fill up his tank as well just because you paid for the gas in yours and not pay the gas station for his?

I'm not contradicting myself at all, all licenses on software are pure BS. Saying one is better then another is a POV and the only way to avoid it is public domain. Unfortunately the only thing I can do as a individual is make sure that my free and clear innovations are public domain to avoid the bullshit that licenses bring.

[qwerty]

Come on... That was some terrible marketing crap.

...

Although now since your in Steve jobs good books maybe they'll let you have a free mac pro.

Now I think so too. :(:(:(

From the conclusion of this article:


Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is a must buy.

:(

A must buy... USABLE ONLY WITH APPLE HARDWARE, that is EXACTLY the same of a normal Intel HW pc.

... A must buy...

[kraftman]

The GPL serves the FSF nothing more.

Stop kidding Deanjo :D The GPL serves every GPL software user. The GPL prevents companies like Apple to take someones code and give nothing back.

Every companies contribution to the linux kernel for example serves their product.And everyone can have benefit.

Sorry freedom by definition does not have limits.Anarchy doesn't have limits. Real freedom must have rules.

If I put out code into public domain my original code is still there untouched. If someone grabs that code and modifies it, improves, degrades it still does not effect my original code.You're missing the point here. If Linux were using BSD license MS, Apple, Sun (which are its rivals) can take all its benefits (kernel in example) add ZFS support and sell.

@Apopas

My freedom ends when I hurt someone else's freedom.Very well said friend.

[Apopas]

Sorry freedom by definition does not have limits
There is not a single totally acceptable definition, every philosopher and dictionary gives one, but despite their sayings there is something that only an insane could disagree with:
<<Even if you can you don't have the right to hurt me>>
and that alone puts restrictions on freedom and despite if it sounds bad, it is actually pretty nice.

If your buddy cannot afford gas for his car, do you go and fill up his tank as well just because you paid for the gas in yours and not pay the gas station for his?
No but if they don't let me use the gas I paid for in every way I like, then they hurt my freedom and at least in the world of software I can have more options than the irrelevant example you mentioned.

If you have a copy of MS office and give it to someone your not a criminal. You are however if you retain use of it after transfer on your own systems.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/11/8140.ars
I'm sure you could understand the real meaning of my example...


Anarchy doesn't have limits. Real freedom must have rules.
Exactly. Freedom must contain respect to be able to stay freedom.

[L33F3R]

A must buy... USABLE ONLY WITH APPLE HARDWARE, that is EXACTLY the same of a normal Intel HW pc.

... A must buy...

a must buy for apple users, period. The good man isn't attacking your buying decisions so you can relax :).

[deanjo]

Stop kidding Deanjo :D The GPL serves every GPL software user. The GPL prevents companies like Apple to take someones code and give nothing back.

Apple gives back as well to the projects it utilizes. If you can't see that then you really are blind.


And everyone can have benefit.


Hardly, the kernel is full of code that addresses one particular venders device and won't work for any other.

You can write nefarious code under any license you wish. A license will not change that. Once again I have to use sqlite of a living example of how public domain can work. Chances are you use multiple devices with it in a day without even knowing about it but yet you benefit from it.

[Apopas]

Apple gives back as well to the projects it utilizes. If you can't see that then you really are blind.
It can give but the matter is if they want they won't. That's the important thing. Everything works for their own benefit, not for me. If there is a period where their politics are beneficial for me, this doesn't change the general fact. And again to support Apple more than GPL is quite astonishing.

[deanjo]

No but if they don't let me use the gas I paid for in every way I like, then they hurt my freedom and at least in the world of software I can have more options than the irrelevant example you mentioned.


The example I gave is a direct comparison to the situation you mentioned. You were going to give MS office to someone that couldn't afford that. So either you were transferring your license rights or you were pirating. One is perfectly legal the other isn't and is theft.

I'm sure you could understand the real meaning of my example...

If you rent a car does that give you the right to modify it?

[deanjo]

It can give but the matter is if they want they won't. That's the important thing. Everything works for their own benefit, not for me. If there is a period where their politics are beneficial for me, this doesn't change the general fact. And again to support Apple more than GPL is quite astonishing.

This is the same of every vendor. You think intel for example doesn't put out code that only benefits their product? They choose too. These are corporations we are talking about and their end goals are to create profit by supporting their product.

[Apopas]

The example I gave is a direct comparison to the situation you mentioned. You were going to give MS office to someone that couldn't afford that. So either you were transferring your license rights or you were pirating. One is perfectly legal the other isn't and is theft.
That's exactly the matter. They decide what is legal and what is not in a way it is not beneficial for both me and my friend. If I have a house I can give it to my friend and to the other and to the other to do it whatever they want and simultaneously I can live in it if I want as well. With MS Office they say noooo you can't do whatever you want with it, is just for you or for just a single other. No in 2,3 or 100 computers simultaneously and while this sounds logical in some way, it is not because they don't allow me to help a lot of people. And that sucks.



If you rent a car does that give you the right to modify it?
No because it is not mine and I don't have the right to hurt the owner of this car with my actions. (The limits in freedom I mentioned before).

[Apopas]

This is the same of every vendor. You think intel for example doesn't put out code that only benefits their product? They choose too. These are corporations we are talking about and their end goals are to create profit by supporting their product.
Exactly, and that makes GPL AT LEAST a bit better than them.

[deanjo]

That's exactly the matter. They decide what is legal and what is not in a way it is not beneficial for both me and my friend. If I have a house I can give it to my friend and to the other and to the other to do it whatever they want and simultaneously I can live in it if I want as well. With MS Office they say noooo you can't do whatever you want with it, is just for you or for just a single other. No in 2,3 or 100 computers simultaneously and while this sounds logical in some way, it is not because they don't allow me to help a lot of people. And that sucks.

Hey, if your friend wants to use office on the device it's installed on it's perfectly legal. Using your analogy of a house you would have to build your friend a house and somewhere somehow that material has to be paid for some way. The license applies to what device it's installed on not on how many people can use it.

No because it is not mine and I don't have the right to hurt the owner of this car with my actions. (The limits in freedom I mentioned before). When code is in the public domain you cannot hurt the owner either. It will shall forever remain in it's original form for all to access and do with what they see fit. Putting something up on public domain does not mean some other entity can remove it from there.

[kraftman]

Hardly, the kernel is full of code that addresses one particular venders device and won't work for any other.

It's full of code that addresses many vendors :)

You can write nefarious code under any license you wish. A license will not change that. Once again I have to use sqlite of a living example of how public domain can work. Chances are you use multiple devices with it in a day without even knowing about it but yet you benefit from it.

I'm talking about supporting others. I don't want to support my rivals, but who does? It seems BSD guys don't care or those are their intentions (however, TDR was pissed of BSD license some time ago, because you can take all and you don't have to give anything back :P). In my opinion the GPL is mainly here to not support rivalry.

[qwerty]

a must buy for apple users, period.

It's not written "For Apple users" (It's written "if you are a Mac OSx user" that sounds like "if you are a Linux user, use Linux"). It's not written that to use this software you have to buy Apple brand Blob.

It's written that the new OSx is "A must buy". Moreover: it's also written that it costs *only* 25 $, but it's totally not clear that to use that OS the user is FORCED to buy Apple HW, that it's TOTALLY indentical to the normal Intel Pc HW.

And, as far i as i know, this site it's not Mac-Phoronix. Not yet, I think.

The good man isn't attacking your buying decisions so you can relax :).

I'm very relaxed, I can assure you.

I'd like only to explain my criticism about this paradoxally Apple advertising on this site, site that, i repeat, normally I read and I like a lot.

Of course if this is the new editor line in this site to try to convert Phoronix to some new Super-cool-Mac-Marketing-Hype-Evangelist site to grow some traffic and make more cash, Michael only have to say it clearer.

Personally, and I think a lot of people that read Phoronix, I totally don't like to see this meta-advertising for Companys that has Lock-in and user restrictions on his Business DNA. And when i don't like something, i simply unsubscribe from and i stop to support it.

Freely.

[Apopas]

Hey, if your friend wants to use office on the device it's installed on it's perfectly legal. Using your analogy of a house you would have to build your friend a house and somewhere somehow that material has to be paid for some way. The license applies to what device it's installed on not on how many people can use it.
Don't play with the words and tricks deanjo. Do I have to say stupid details? For example if a friend lives in Indonesia and doesn't have access to my computer because doesn't have internet etc etc? Or do we always have to use examples as if we are children? You seem smart man and you understand I hope pretty well that my example don't have to do with MS Offic specifically.
Everyone that forbids you even a bit to help others, abuse your rights and thus your freedom and the rights and freedom of the rest that would benefit from you. That's the matter of the case. Proprietary code do exactly that. They say actually that few lines of maths belong to them and them only and accuse me as a criminal if I don't use the software in the way they want. That sucks

When code is in the public domain you cannot hurt the owner either. It will shall forever remain in it's original form for all to access and do with what they see fit. Putting something up on public domain does not mean some other entity can remove it from there.
And now we return again in my previous statement about what the others have the right to do with your code. But again I said I'm fine with it, public domain contains a large amount of freedom. But the owners of proprietary code don't release their code at all and yet you prefer them.

[deanjo]

I'm talking about supporting others. I don't want to support my rivals, but who does? It seems BSD guys don't care or those are their intentions (however, TDR was pissed of BSD license some time ago, because you can take all and you don't have to give anything back :P). In my opinion the GPL is mainly here to not support rivalry.

And there lies the heart of the issue. As long as projects view other projects as "rivals" growth and progress will be slow and will only target one particular group. GPL also doesn't guarantee that modified code will make it back into the main project (which a lot of the times is decided by political agendas and not on technical merit). Just like GPL doesn't want to support their rivals neither do other licenses. Same shit different pile.

[deanjo]

Don't play with the words and tricks deanjo. Do I have to say stupid details? For example if a friend lives in Indonesia and doesn't have access to my computer because doesn't have internet etc etc? Or do we always have to use examples as if we are children? You seem smart man and you understand I hope pretty well that my example don't have to do with MS Offic specifically.
Everyone that forbids you even a bit to help others, abuse your rights and thus your freedom and the rights and freedom of the rest that would benefit from you. That's the matter of the case. Proprietary code do exactly that. They say actually that few lines of maths belong to them and them only and accuse me as a criminal if I don't use the software in the way they want. That sucks

It doesn't matter if your friend lives next door or on pluto. If you give your friend a copy without paying the owner's terms (monetary or otherwise) it's still theft. Just like if someone took GPL code and slapped it in their app and did not open it up. It's still theft. If your friend for example got a copy of open office from you, you are not the one granting that right. It's still the original developers that give that right to you and your friend.


And now we return again in my previous statement about what the others have the right to do with your code. But again I said I'm fine with it, public domain contains a large amount of freedom. But the owners of proprietary code don't release their code at all and yet you prefer them.

As a user of a 3rd parties product I prefer working solutions that fit my needs, nothing more, nothing less. Just like the vast majority of end users out there. I could give a rats ass if it's GPL, APL, MS, BSD, etc because the idea of licensing any intellectual property in my opinion hurts growth and adoption. As a developer however I will set the code that is mine free of any license and see what someone else maybe able to do with it. Eventually no matter what they do with that code it will be benefiting a end user somewhere who may not of had a good solution otherwise.

[kraftman]

And there lies the heart of the issue. As long as projects view other projects as "rivals" growth and progress will be slow and will only target one particular group. GPL also doesn't guarantee that modified code will make it back into the main project (which a lot of the times is decided by political agendas and not on technical merit). Just like GPL doesn't want to support their rivals neither do other licenses. Same shit different pile.

MS, Apple, Sun view Linux as a rival. Good code will get back :) There's always such option.

[deanjo]

MS, Apple, Sun view Linux as a rival. Good code will get back :) There's always such option.

And linux views them as a rival too. Again, same shit, different pile.

With public domain I have no rivals. It's simply out there for all to use if needed.

[kraftman]

And linux views them as a rival too. Again, same shit, different pile.

Exactly. That's why Linux is GPL not BSD and some others are proprietary.

With public domain I have no rivals. It's simply out there for all to use if needed.Nothing such important like Linux or KDE. If there's no difference why not release everything under public domain? :>

[deanjo]

If there's no difference why not release everything under public domain? :>

Other then serving a political agenda there is no reason why not too.

[smitty3268]

Once again I have to use sqlite of a living example of how public domain can work. Chances are you use multiple devices with it in a day without even knowing about it but yet you benefit from it.

Sure, but you probably also use multiple devices every day with the linux kernel in them. So by your own logic that must make the GPL2 a great license, right? Or are you just cherry-picking examples that prove your point while ignoring the counter examples?

I have no problem at all with BSD licenses, or with public domain code. But i do think the authors of the code should have the right to make that choice for themselves. It sounds to me like you would take away that choice and force them to license their code just the way you prefer, which seems a little arrogant to me. (And definitely not fitting with your previous definition of freedom, which is more accurately described as anarchy).

However did this thread get pulled off on this tangent anyway? Does anyone have anything to say about OSX? Anyone else think that the huge speed improvements here prove that 10.5 was pretty horribly optimized?

[deanjo]

Sure, but you probably also use multiple devices every day with the linux kernel in them. So by your own logic that must make the GPL2 a great license, right? Or are you just cherry-picking examples that prove your point while ignoring the counter examples?

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.


I have no problem at all with BSD licenses, or with public domain code. But i do think the authors of the code should have the right to make that choice for themselves. It sounds to me like you would take away that choice and force them to license their code just the way you prefer, which seems a little arrogant to me. (And definitely not fitting with your previous definition of freedom, which is more accurately described as anarchy).


No I fully respect anybody that wishes to place their code under a license. It is their code after all. If they don't want to make their code to benefit all that is their right.


However did this thread get pulled off on this tangent anyway? Does anyone have anything to say about OSX? Anyone else think that the huge speed improvements here prove that 10.5 was pretty horribly optimized?

Na it's not so much that it was horribly optimized as it still used a lot of legacy foundations that could finally be turfed when they decided to cut pre intel support. Plus alot of the technology has either evolved or simply didn't exist when 10.5 came out.

[qwerty]

Does anyone have anything to say about OSX?

"A must buy" ...

[Apopas]

It doesn't matter if your friend lives next door or on pluto. If you give your friend a copy without paying the owner's terms (monetary or otherwise) it's still theft. Just like if someone took GPL code and slapped it in their app and did not open it up. It's still theft. If your friend for example got a copy of open office from you, you are not the one granting that right. It's still the original developers that give that right to you and your friend.
You pretend that you don't understand or you really don't? Yes I know it is a theft. The matter is if it should! that's what I'm saying all this time.


As a user of a 3rd parties product I prefer working solutions that fit my needs, nothing more, nothing less. Just like the vast majority of end users out there. I could give a rats ass if it's GPL, APL, MS, BSD, etc because the idea of licensing any intellectual property in my opinion hurts growth and adoption.
So because they hurt growth and adoption, you choose the ones that hurt even more. Very working solution indeed. It's obvious, you pretend that you like a way of sharing that is totally unrealistic just to have the right then to say everything else is the same shit. How can someone who lauds intellectual property thus much, puts in the same cesspit proprietary and free it's indeed amusing.

[Apopas]

"A must buy" ...
Hahaha. But it's nice, two totally different debates take place simultaneously in the same thread. Nice to have a lot of smart guys around, unlike the "other" forums :) (not kidding)

[qwerty]

Hahaha. But it's nice, two totally different debates take place simultaneously in the same thread. Nice to have a lot of smart guys around, unlike the "other" forums :) (not kidding)

I do not follow the LicenseWar flame, because it's an everyday flame, in every forum in the world that talk about OSs.

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.

[smitty3268]

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.

I don't know, you're philosophy seems to assume that if code wasn't licensed under one license, it would still be available under another (or public domain). That seems like a dubious assumption to me. After all, it's kind of the entire point of the GPL to encourage the spread of code that is written.

Let's take a recent example: the MS hypervisor drivers they released for Linux under the GPL. Does anyone think they would have done that if Linux was under PD? No, they would have kept their code private. But because they had to release under the GPL, now any other OS out there can try to integrate that code themselves.

So yes, the GPL does restrict the code from being used anywhere, but it also provides an incentive for releasing that code to a lot more places than it would have been otherwise. This kind of reminds me about discussions of capitalism. It's full of flaws and ugly sides, but ultimately it works because even if it isn't perfect it harnesses the reality of the world which is that people work in their own interests. I think the GPL is similar, lots of people would write PD code, but the GPL gives those who wouldn't a good incentive to come part way.

[bridgman]

Hey, I have a crazy idea. Why don't we let the people who fund and/or write the code choose what license they want to use and stop pretending that one license is better in all cases ?

That way developers who want to make their work broadly available but are not comfortable with companies using it for proprietary products can use GPL, developers who want to make their work used as broadly as possible *including* in proprietary products can use something like BSD or PD, and developers who implement proprietary features can release them under a proprietary license ?

The problem comes when people think their favorite license is "the one true way" and that anyone using a different license is somehow wrong or evil. In practice BSD/PD and GPL end up having almost the same results, so it really boils down to choosing which risk you are most comfortable with.

Using GPL reduces the chance of your work disappearing into a proprietary product and having your original code stagnate, but I don't think that has actually happened very much unless you want to count the "Unix wars" (and I don't believe GPL would have helped there anyways).

In theory projects like X/DRI/Mesa should have been stolen by evil companies a long time ago, but the reality is that everyone keeps contributing to the public code base because that works out best for the contributors. The code could have been locked down under GPL but the most likely outcome from that is the code simply not being used in as many places, rather than seeing more contributions as a result.

[Apopas]

Hey, I have a crazy idea. Why don't we let the people who fund and/or write the code choose what license they want to use and stop pretending that one license is better in all cases ?

That way developers who want to make their work broadly available but are not comfortable with companies using it for proprietary products can use GPL, developers who want to make their work broadly available *including* in proprietary products can use something like BSD or PD, and developers who implement proprietary features can release them under a proprietary license ?

Oh wait, that's what we have today.
Yeah, but still proprietary sucks because forbids me from having freedom.

[bridgman]

Well, it stops you from having freedom with someone else's property, yes.

The question is whether you have the right to expect unrestricted use of someone else's property in the first place. If they want to give you that freedom, fine - they can put it out under GPL or BSD or PD or whatever... if they don't want to give you that freedom, it *is* their software, right ?

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 just don't think it makes sense to *demand* (or even to expect) that companies which make big investments in proprietary software development turn over all rights to their work *and* lose the ability to make use of third party improvements in their own future products. The big benefit of proprietary licenses is that they make it possible to fund larger investments in development effort than we have been able to achieve today for projects where the resulting code is publicly available and can't easily be turned into a stream of revenues to provide a return on the original investment.

Do I think that corporate development and proprietary licenses are the only solution ? Absolutely not, I just don't want to see that model attacked or dismantled until we have something that works at least as well to replace it.

[Apopas]

Well, it stops you from having freedom with someone else's property, yes.

The question is whether you have the right to expect unrestricted use of someone else's property in the first place. If they want to give you that freedom, fine - they can put it out under GPL or BSD or PD or whatever... if they don't want to give you that freedom, it *is* their software, right ?
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.

[bridgman]

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.

[smitty3268]

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.

[Apopas]

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.

[Apopas]

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.

[bridgman]

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 ?

[smitty3268]

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.

[Qaridarium]

Again, you think, and your wrong. Read the developer papers on OS X before assuming because your assumptions have no basis in fact.

http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/releasenotes/MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/Articles/MacOSX10_6.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40008898-SW1

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. "

[Qaridarium]

Come on... That was some terrible marketing crap.

OS10.5 looses - look at that that is amazing...
OS10.6 looses - yeah but they'll fix that...

That sudokut benchmark was especially damning. Thats a CRAP showing from 10.6. And no they arent gonna fix it, they'll release 10.7 and make you pay some more dollars.

a quote from java2d microbenchmark


but the OS10.6 tiny win in lame gets


Wait so they download the latest version of lame and make you pay for it. Now thats just VALUE for money!

Wait when OS10.6 draws in php compilation

Let's mention the previous benchmark that was really good...

I hope this proved my point. Change that title to MAC OSX Brings Improvements but also regressions and I'll be happy.

They cant even package working drivers! Those openGL benchmarks are damnright hilarious.

Although now since your in Steve jobs good books maybe they'll let you have a free mac pro.



You are sooo Right!

"Come on... That was some terrible marketing crap.
OS10.5 looses - look at that that is amazing...
OS10.6 looses - yeah but they'll fix that..."

macos10.6 wins in pointless benchmarks and if there comes a benchmark a game needs the speed 10.6 is broken in fakt you can't play nexuiz on 10.6.

you can't play any modern style games. WINE will be Broken to wine use the same OpenGL extansions if you want play Oblivion you need to install windows or Linux...

[Qaridarium]

Unfortunately isn't very popular :(

its not the orginal mean of freedome in ultimate since but its the maximum you can get witout starting a world war 3.

overall maximum freedome isn't save mean save the world again the next war.

in my point of view freedome is not so importand Peace is more much more.

i think apple and macos is a part of the Peace in the softwareworld Linux benefit from macos becourse linux use OpenGL to if MACOS dies _DirektX wins the battle and linux will lose to becourse linux and macos share some technical.

in my point of view apple brings peace to linux users becourse they do not use apple only technics like microsofts direktX.

[Qaridarium]

So by your own logic that must make the GPL2 a great license, right?

No GPLv2 in the past only was a great license and time chances and the law chances and the patent system chance to!

GPLv2 hurts linux-DEVs and Linux users! only because Microsoft can sue all of them only because of the Patent system.

Realy GPLv2 was great in the past, today GPLv2 was a disaster!

GPLv2 today works exactly against the orginal since of the mind of GPL.

GPLv2 works perfekt for microsoft in fakt microsoft can do all there software on GPLv2 and sue all of the users and devs only because the patent system! GPLv2 is an microsoft supported license to fight again opensource and Freesoftware.

Only GPLv3 can save us... Bad world! Bad World!