on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:31:46AM +0000, Ricardo Campos wrote:
Unless something has changed, Darwin is *not* Open Source in the OSI sense, ie it is not Free Software (free as in freedom).
Isn't it a BSD-style license? I'm really undecided as to which I feel is 'better', as I find one more ethically acceptable, and the other more economically viable. But then I'm neither an expert on ethics or economics!
Apparently, it's the APSL. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html Something was quite amusing: * It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary. (copyleft != freedom)
Find an x86 machine at the same price as an Apple one and you'll probably find that the performance/features are about equal.
I agree with that wholeheartedly, at least it has been so in the past.
The fact x86 performs so well says a lot about intel's engineers. It is a crap architecture, full of hacks and twists and such to make it backward compatible to 20+ years ago. (Even itanium does, but the actual IA64 doesn't afaik, and sucks less.)