iansilv
Apr 29, 11:23 PM
GOOD. I hate tweaking stuff just for the sake of tweaking it. If it works, leave it- no reason to throw out simple intuitive controls.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
zim
Nov 23, 05:52 PM
Hmm. Anyone think that there's a chance of a price drop on the Airport Express?
I got mine last Back Friday and it was discounted.. so maybe.
I got mine last Back Friday and it was discounted.. so maybe.
miamialley
Jul 21, 09:13 AM
Fine, but does it drop as many calls as my iP4?
GoKyu
Apr 12, 07:24 AM
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
As stupid as they are, probably not. They're happy with having the most market share, why should they bother changing anything?
But, when it's as easy to get a virus as downloading a banner ad from a website that you visit ( sometimes even legitimate ones) using IE with ActiveX enabled, then *maybe* a stronger security model is called for.
These days, if you're running Windows and don't have at least a good antivirus, antispyware and (can't hurt) firewall, you're almost assured of getting infected somehow. I see it all the time at work - we have people coming in paying hundreds to have us remove viruses and to install a new antivirus program, because they didn't know the old one expired.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd even *consider* doing this - I hate to say it, but look at Mac users - even though we're not immune to potential viruses in the future, how long has OS X been around, and how much malware is out there to infect it? Maybe 5-10 programs? UNIX just has that stronger security model...
As stupid as they are, probably not. They're happy with having the most market share, why should they bother changing anything?
But, when it's as easy to get a virus as downloading a banner ad from a website that you visit ( sometimes even legitimate ones) using IE with ActiveX enabled, then *maybe* a stronger security model is called for.
These days, if you're running Windows and don't have at least a good antivirus, antispyware and (can't hurt) firewall, you're almost assured of getting infected somehow. I see it all the time at work - we have people coming in paying hundreds to have us remove viruses and to install a new antivirus program, because they didn't know the old one expired.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd even *consider* doing this - I hate to say it, but look at Mac users - even though we're not immune to potential viruses in the future, how long has OS X been around, and how much malware is out there to infect it? Maybe 5-10 programs? UNIX just has that stronger security model...
yg17
Mar 4, 11:55 AM
ooops...
gop takes unprecedented 10-point lead on generic ballot (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/gop-unprecedented-lead-generic-ballot.aspx)
republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting
princeton, nj -- republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the gop's largest so far this year and is its largest in gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for congress.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/gallupspaces/production/cms/poll/4nitz4hkueaj85zreale-w.gif
2010 != 2012
gop takes unprecedented 10-point lead on generic ballot (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/gop-unprecedented-lead-generic-ballot.aspx)
republicans also maintain wide gap in enthusiasm about voting
princeton, nj -- republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the gop's largest so far this year and is its largest in gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for congress.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/gallupspaces/production/cms/poll/4nitz4hkueaj85zreale-w.gif
2010 != 2012
MacTraveller
Oct 4, 08:15 AM
If I were CES management, I'd ban them for life. Can't imagine Apple will let them anywhere near Moscone.
It's not up to Apple. It's up to IDG. They manage the expo, they administer the expo on behalf of Apple.
It's not up to Apple. It's up to IDG. They manage the expo, they administer the expo on behalf of Apple.
roadbloc
Apr 8, 05:57 PM
I'd say 10.6 had a ton of new features; they just weren't in the UI.
Care to elaborate? I didn't notice any apart from a few UI tweaks.
Care to elaborate? I didn't notice any apart from a few UI tweaks.
toromac
Apr 9, 03:56 PM
um just walked into my local Best buy and bought a 16gb ipad 2 Wifi in black. they had like 7 or 8 of each model. interesting... maybe they�re not participating in this so called promotion.
mkrishnan
Sep 8, 08:17 AM
How is he a 'no-talent ass clown'.
That term should be reserved for one person and one person only:
http://www.hollywoodimages.net/Michael_Bolton.jpg
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images3/OSM&Ssm.jpg
:D
That term should be reserved for one person and one person only:
http://www.hollywoodimages.net/Michael_Bolton.jpg
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images3/OSM&Ssm.jpg
:D
balamw
Apr 26, 09:12 PM
wlh99 , you just described exactly what I want to do.
And what was in the tutorial I linked and the code that KnightWRX posted ...
B
And what was in the tutorial I linked and the code that KnightWRX posted ...
B
patrickdunn
Apr 25, 02:39 PM
I any of these were real, wouldn't we see a cease and desist letter?
spazzcat
May 4, 05:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Are you living under a rock? Everything they shown is happening today with the iPad.
Are you living under a rock? Everything they shown is happening today with the iPad.
Reverend Wally
Nov 16, 01:17 PM
i just don't see this happening. Intel has better performance, especially in notebooks (correct me if i'm wrong)
OK...Not a correction and I see it that no one is either right or wrong. I am using a custom built AMD powered laptop that literally, if it had tires, could burn a set slap off the rims by squeeling out....and it is like greased lightning, and was the cat's meow until the Core 2 Duos were released.
I would put this little jewel up beside anything out there, and it isn't even an Apple.
BUT
Soon that is what I will be using... Macbook Pro...ie the Rolls Royce of the computer world.
;)
OK...Not a correction and I see it that no one is either right or wrong. I am using a custom built AMD powered laptop that literally, if it had tires, could burn a set slap off the rims by squeeling out....and it is like greased lightning, and was the cat's meow until the Core 2 Duos were released.
I would put this little jewel up beside anything out there, and it isn't even an Apple.
BUT
Soon that is what I will be using... Macbook Pro...ie the Rolls Royce of the computer world.
;)
arn
Oct 2, 04:32 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
Marlor
May 2, 06:47 PM
Seconded. It's such a PITA to re-jailbreak after each of these mini-updates.
That's the result of modifying the firmware of your phone. If you don't like it, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to.
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
That's the result of modifying the firmware of your phone. If you don't like it, don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to.
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
Chundles
Sep 12, 01:15 AM
I really don't care anymore...tomorrow will probably follow a familiar formula - some disappointments, some bullseyes.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
That's just a continuation of the old cube patents - keeps anyone from copying Apple. The old cube had a handle too you know.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
That's just a continuation of the old cube patents - keeps anyone from copying Apple. The old cube had a handle too you know.
CQd44
May 2, 10:33 AM
I find it amusing that the G1 can run Android Gingerbread fairly well, but Apple makes it impossible to upgrade the original iPhone to the latest and greatest iOS.
Moyank24
Apr 15, 10:02 PM
Pffft I'm practically married myself. Live-in gf. Friday nights are a thing of the past.
Lucky girl.
Lucky girl.
lordonuthin
May 10, 08:04 PM
well i wouldn't say that. it wouldn't be as big of a deal if i was at the machine everyday, then a quick change of a few settings and it's back up. but being away, this is not fun.
It will be easier once you get moved.
It will be easier once you get moved.
Applejuiced
Apr 29, 10:59 PM
Update. it started working again for me on IE9 and I didnt do anything.
Maybe something the Admin updated on their end.
Edit.
Ok 15 minutes after this post it started kicking me back to the main forum section again:D
I give up:D
Maybe something the Admin updated on their end.
Edit.
Ok 15 minutes after this post it started kicking me back to the main forum section again:D
I give up:D
t19880821
Sep 22, 02:01 PM
Actually, this is really immature.
I understand where Giz is coming from about how they're not the protectors of companies, blah blah blah. That's right.. press don't protect companies, and they also don't harm them. "Disrupting" is in the category of harming a company.
So.. it's okay then to turn of people's computers everytime they look at Giz? I mean.. they can just turn them back on, right?
Giz is trying to make a statement, but what they fail to do is show some goddamn respect. How in hell are their writers supposed to get into any more events if they make it public that they have no respect at all for these companies?
I understand where Giz is coming from about how they're not the protectors of companies, blah blah blah. That's right.. press don't protect companies, and they also don't harm them. "Disrupting" is in the category of harming a company.
So.. it's okay then to turn of people's computers everytime they look at Giz? I mean.. they can just turn them back on, right?
Giz is trying to make a statement, but what they fail to do is show some goddamn respect. How in hell are their writers supposed to get into any more events if they make it public that they have no respect at all for these companies?
The Phazer
Apr 16, 04:32 AM
I want My next iPhone to look like this,
222383
Plus a flash and that would look great to me.
It's worth noting that a metal case is the sort of thing that can be worked around, and indeed even used with *very* good antenna design. But Apple have never been very good at antenna design previously, so it would be unusual for them to start now - they patently haven't figured it out with the iPad. But a plastic section would be absolutely fine by me.
But yes, these are clearly fake, despite some complete perspective fail from people saying the same in this thread...
Phazer
222383
Plus a flash and that would look great to me.
It's worth noting that a metal case is the sort of thing that can be worked around, and indeed even used with *very* good antenna design. But Apple have never been very good at antenna design previously, so it would be unusual for them to start now - they patently haven't figured it out with the iPad. But a plastic section would be absolutely fine by me.
But yes, these are clearly fake, despite some complete perspective fail from people saying the same in this thread...
Phazer
escapehere
Oct 29, 06:16 AM
Are we talking about the FreeBSD license or the NetBSD license. The NetBSD license isn't free and that is what OSX is based off of and apple paid to use the license.
OSX is based off FreeBSD and mach. Apple may have taken some code from NetBSD over the years but FreeBSD is the predominate source for the BSD layer. It's pretty common knowledge, it even used to be mentioned on Apple's website, although I don't know if it still is.
The NetBSD licence is a BSD-style licence. That's a free licence. FreeBSD and NetBSD often use each other's code for various things. View the licences for yourself:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html
If Apple did use any NetBSD code, they may possibly have made a donation to the NetBSD foundation but they certainly didn't "pay" for a licence.
OSX is based off FreeBSD and mach. Apple may have taken some code from NetBSD over the years but FreeBSD is the predominate source for the BSD layer. It's pretty common knowledge, it even used to be mentioned on Apple's website, although I don't know if it still is.
The NetBSD licence is a BSD-style licence. That's a free licence. FreeBSD and NetBSD often use each other's code for various things. View the licences for yourself:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html
If Apple did use any NetBSD code, they may possibly have made a donation to the NetBSD foundation but they certainly didn't "pay" for a licence.
No comments:
Post a Comment