 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpoly edu> wrote:
> >> Apple cripples their software so that it only runs on Apple hardware.
> >
> > Not true.
> I challenge you to install OS X on an arbitrary PC.
I don't need to. There's even a wiki dedicated to this exact purpose:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
It's not even that hard to install OS X in an arbitrary (modern) PC.
> There's no easy, legal way to do it, because OS X is tied to Apple's
> firmware.
If it was tied to Apple's "firmware" (whatever that is), it would not
be possible to install it in a PC which doesn't have that. However, it's
perfectly possible. Granted, perhaps not right out of the box, but with
some tweaking certainly possible.
If Apple had wanted to completely stop OS X from working in non-Apple
computers (or at least make it very difficult) they could have done it.
> >> Linus lets me use Linux any freaking way I want.
> >
> > Not true. Linux is bound to the GPL license, which limits what you can
> > do with it. For example, you can't take the linux kernel and build a
> > closed-source commercial product with it. You certainly can not do whatever
> > you want with it.
> I can can personally use it however I see fit.
> As soon I as start redistributing it, that's a *whole* different can of
> worms.
Distributing it *is* "using it however I want". You didn't specify it
as an exception.
> > So it's just a question of principle, not of logical reasoning?
> > You protest the fact that you can't "do whatever you want" with the
> > betas?
> As long as I'm not hurting someone else, then yes
Well, your protest is kind of moot. It's not helping anyone, less
yourself.
> Alright, you've got me there. Yes, it is well within their right to do
> so. It just always struck me as a strange attitude to keep the
> development sources secret, when you're going to publish the finished
> version, anyway.
It's because, as I said, they have high quality standards as principle.
They don't want to distribute half-ready buggy code. You might not care
about such quality standards, but they do.
> I actually would to the opposite of what the POV team does with its
> betas: Distribute sources, and not binaries. Having to compile your own
> software would filter out the people who aren't going to submit helpful
> bug reports, and would make it possible for people to submit patches as
> they find bugs.
That would filter out 99% of potential beta testers.
Also, you assume that every single person who thinks he can code in C++
is actually competent at it. Just because someone "submits a patch" doesn't
mean that the patch is good.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:470b5336@news.povray.org...
> Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Yep, then there are the file associations etc. All it takes is for pov
>> to
>> fire up the wrong version just once...
>
> Why would copying an .exe file into a directory change any file
> associations?
It doesn't, I open pov files from explorer by double clicking on them, they
then open in the version of pov that is associated with .pov files.
If I have 2 versions of pov, i can only set 1 file association. It means I
have to open pov files in a different manner and i dont work like this.
>
>> There are many reasons why it doesn't work for me
>
> You mentioned only one.
>
> --
> - Warp
yep and all I can be bothered with with you to be honest, you obviously dont
have any issues with the time out and thats fine. It doesn't work with how
I work, simple as that.
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:470b17ed$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Dre" <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:470ac353@news.povray.org...
>
>
>> Fair enough, but I get the impression I am on one side all by myself!
>
> Nope, I understand exactly where you're coming from, so you're not
> alone. :)
>
> ~Steve~
>
>
>> Cheers Dre
>>
>
>
Great, thats 2 :)
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:470### [at] hotmailcom...
> Dre wrote:
>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> news:470### [at] hotmailcom...
>>> Dre wrote:
>>>> "Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote in message
>>>> news:470a2ca3@news.povray.org...
>>>>> "Fa3ien" <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote in message
>>>>> news:470a1add@news.povray.org...
>>>>>> Maybe there's something to learn from this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While the operations you describe are quite simple, maybe more
>>>>>> testers
>>>>>> could be attracted if the download of the beta was accompanied by a
>>>>>> quick guide of "how to cope with 2 POV-Ray versions at the same
>>>>>> time".
>>>>> I don't see how it's the POV-team's task to teach the users how to use
>>>>> their operating system ?
>>>>>
>>>>> cu!
>>>>> --
>>>>> #macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
>>>>> sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
>>>>> #end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
>>>>> _(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x) // ZK http://www.povplace.com
>>>>>
>>>> <deep sigh> I dont have trouble using my operating system!!!!
>>>>
>>>> The way I work is the way I work, having to muck around with different
>>>> versions simply doesn't gel, hence why I dont do it.
>>>>
>>>> Simple as that.
>>>>
>>>> Now, back to lurking, next time I keep my mouth shut, seesh!
>>> why? the community is split on this and you happen to be in one side.
>>> Even if others think this as a holy war, that does not mean it is.
>>
>> Fair enough, but I get the impression I am on one side all by myself!
>
> No, but that may be because many others did already express their opinion
> in povray.beta-test and you are not subscribed to that group. It is
> something that has come back nearly every beta release for years.
well maybe it keeps coming back becuase its still an issue!
>
>> Its also something that doesn't really bother me that much, I just put my
>> opinion in about the time limit and I got pounded with me not knowing how
>> to use a computer! If everyone else is so passionate about the time
>> limit, have a time limit, it doesn't bother me, I just wont use it,
>> simple.
>>
>> Cheers Dre
> Andrel (who decided not to use 'Dr Dre' because there already was one in
> the music scene)
hehe, my mates call me Dre, its cause they have trouble with my real name
(Andreas). Its kinda stuck now and I dont mind it... (I'm not to keen on
being called Dr Dre though)
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:470b53e6@news.povray.org...
> Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> <deep sigh> I dont have trouble using my operating system!!!!
>
>> The way I work is the way I work, having to muck around with different
>> versions simply doesn't gel, hence why I dont do it.
>
> I can't even imagine how you are having so many problems in having
> to different .exe files in the same directory, and launching either
> one of them.
>
> --
> - Warp
I dont have many problems just because the exe is in there, its the way its
all setup that doesn't work with me.
Look, you dont understand how I work, I cant be bothered explaining the
intricies of how I work to you as it will be lost on you. Its fine, I've
put my 2c in now and will continue to happily use 3.6 and wait till there is
a newer version without a time limit before I upgrade. Simple, conversation
over.
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:470b551d@news.povray.org...
> Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Yes I fully understand how to use Windows thanks very much!
>
>> How I have my computer set up atm works fine for me, using 2 different
>> versions of pov *doesn't* work for me.
>
> Those two sentences feel contradictory to me.
>
> If you were fluent at using Windows you wouldn't have the slightest
> problems in using POV-Ray 3.6 and 3.7beta (especially given that the
> latter is just an .exe which you can put besides the 3.6 exe in the
> same directory).
>
>> I dont know why you are getting so fired up about this
>
> Because you are badmouthing the pov-team by (IMO) unjustly criticizing
> how they are distributing the 3.7 beta.
Well you are wrong, I am not badmouthing them at all, I simple put forward
my opinion on the time limit, *you* have read into it way too far and are
getting totally the wrong impression of what I am (trying) to say.
>> use as many versions of pov as you like and fill up your
>> desktop with useless shortcuts, *I* dont work like this.
>
> The desktop is one place where you can put the shortcut. You can put
> it somewhere else. Heck, you can put it in the same place where you
> have the shortcut to pov3.6. I just can't see the problem you are having.
And see the last sentance you have said here: "I just can't see the problem
you are having." Exactly. you cant so dont bother, I'm over this
conversation and wont continure.
> Even if you don't use a shortcut for pov3.6 *at all*, I still can't see
> the problem. That means that you are launching pov3.6 by directly going
> to its directory and launching the executable. What is the problem if
> there was another executable (pov3.7) there as well?
>
> --
> - Warp
Warp, please dont worry yourself about this issue, I am perfectly happy with
my arrangement using 3.6, I believe the time limit for pov beta's is a bad
idea and have put forward my opinion on it. This is the last thing I will
say to you about this.
Cheers Dre
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Warp, please dont worry yourself about this issue, I am perfectly happy with
> my arrangement using 3.6
Then why did you come here and critique the beta testing system if you
are perfectly happy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:470b5336@news.povray.org...
>> Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Yep, then there are the file associations etc. All it takes is for pov
>>> to
>>> fire up the wrong version just once...
>> Why would copying an .exe file into a directory change any file
>> associations?
>
> It doesn't, I open pov files from explorer by double clicking on them, they
> then open in the version of pov that is associated with .pov files.
>
> If I have 2 versions of pov, i can only set 1 file association. It means I
> have to open pov files in a different manner and i dont work like this.
>
You can add two associations, one will be the default when
double-clicking, the other will still show on the context menu.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Warp wrote:
> If it was tied to Apple's "firmware" (whatever that is), it would not
> be possible to install it in a PC which doesn't have that. However, it's
> perfectly possible. Granted, perhaps not right out of the box, but with
> some tweaking certainly possible.
- From the site you pointed me at:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Apple_hardware_to_run_Mac_OS_X.3F
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/TPM
OS X is designed to not run on hardware without Apple's "Trusted
Platform Module."
That said, it looks easier to bypass than I realized. Kudos to the
hacker community on that one.
> Distributing it *is* "using it however I want". You didn't specify it
> as an exception.
Shall I start ranting about how the redistribution clause in the Povray
license is significantly more restrictive than the GPL?
> That would filter out 99% of potential beta testers.
So do the crippled binaries, apparently.
> Also, you assume that every single person who thinks he can code in C++
> is actually competent at it. Just because someone "submits a patch" doesn't
> mean that the patch is good.
No, I assume that *some* of them are good at it.
You want to lock out the few good coders, just because there are a bunch
of bad ones?
- --
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu
You know you've been raytracing too long when you find yourself hungry
and discover that it is 9 PM and that you have been rendering since 8 AM
without a pause.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHDBPQcCmTzQ++ZncRAs0JAKCQZLNTH/PxMi1GRAtBzm4j/3sc/QCaA+qa
J87JVuJuVvAcH31kIsUnfJc=
=wSp+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> > Distributing it *is* "using it however I want". You didn't specify it
> > as an exception.
> Shall I start ranting about how the redistribution clause in the Povray
> license is significantly more restrictive than the GPL?
That was not the point. The point was the claim that linux can be used
in whatever way you want. That's just not true.
> > That would filter out 99% of potential beta testers.
> So do the crippled binaries, apparently.
Really? I have seen 2 people complaining. Hardly 99% of all people who
use it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
