iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

Bob Campbell <[email protected]> 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... 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 Apple¹s 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 you¹re 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.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Join the largest opensource platform for free here:

http://developer.apple.com/

-

---

› See More: iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

"Rick" <[email protected]> stated in post [email protected]
on 11/11/07 11:03 AM:

> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:06:42 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Darwin 6.0.2 is available as a bootable ISO CD image.
>>>>
>>>> * x86 ISO image (315 MB)
>>>
>>> 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.

Jesus <[email protected]> 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 ****ing 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.

-

"Rick" <[email protected]> stated in post [email protected]
on 11/11/07 11:06 AM:

> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:43:15 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Steve de Mena <[email protected]> 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 ****).
>>
>> 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>

Snit <[email protected]> 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 ****).
> >>
> >> 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, 1:22 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jesus <[email protected]> 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 ****ing 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?

"Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:29 AM:

> On Nov 11, 12:41 pm, Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
>> [email protected] on 11/11/07 10:30 AM:
>>
>>> On Nov 11, 11:43 am, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Steve de Mena <[email protected]> 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 ****).
>>
>>>> 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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472

In news:[email protected],
Oxford <[email protected]>spewed forth:
> Mark Crispin <[email protected]> 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, **** for brains?
Please keep your **** 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 ****.
So please STFU

On Nov 11, 1:33 pm, Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/11/07 11:29 AM:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 12:41 pm, Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
> >> [email protected] on 11/11/07 10:30 AM:
>
> >>> On Nov 11, 11:43 am, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Steve de Mena <[email protected]> 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 ****).
>
> >>>> 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.

"Jesus" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:35 AM:

> On Nov 11, 1:29 pm, Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Oxford" <[email protected]> stated in post
>> [email protected] on 11/11/07
>> 11:25 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Snit <[email protected]> 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 ****).
>>
>>>>>> 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

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/11/07 11:35 AM:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Oxford <[email protected]> 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

Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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"...

http://www.caminobrowser.org/

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.

**** OFF with your Apple **** and stop cross-posting!


--
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>

Jesus <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Apple follows that same success.