Common Lisp for Mac OS X
in [Lisp]
|
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 3 Jun 2010 13:04 On 2010-05-28 21:50:19 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > That's the problem with lawyers, they can't say what they mean. It > would have been much simplier and clearer to have written: > > "It is forbidden to run Flash implementations from Adobe on iPhone OS." > > or: > > "It is forbidden to run any Flash implementation on iPhone OS." On the contrary, lawyers almost always say precisely what they mean. In this case, they just mean more than "no flash." They have been careful to word this as restrictively as possible, to prevent an end-run by Adobe and others (e.g., rebranding flash, or a flash to objc compiler, a lua to objective-c compiler, etc.) Quite clearly, Apple wants devs to: 1. only use the Apple tool chain, or tool chains approved by Apple, with the languages approved by Apple. 2. leave iPhone OS apps open to inspection, and copying/replacement by Apple without compensation (yes, that's in the license too, has been since the very first version). 3. allow Apple to deny or remove their apps from the app store for the broad range of reasons available to Apple in the agreement (security, inappropriateness, etc.). If you submit to these conditions, you get to have Apple market your app for you to millions of users whose credit cards are already on file and for whom a purchase is a click away. All in exchange for a 30% cut that goes to Apple. Many devs consider this a value proposition, so there are thousands of apps in the app store. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Günther Thomsen on 4 Jun 2010 18:06 On Jun 3, 12:14 am, Tim Bradshaw <t...(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-06-03 01:40:17 +0100, Andrew Reilly said: > > > I think that there are quite a few people who don't think that the > > "network" part is necessary, given that most machines capable of running > > X (well) are also capable of running the whole GUI, and that the > > partition should be elsewhere. This was the original premise of Java, as > > it grew out of experience with NeWS (which was a PostScript based GUI > > that Sun played with for a while --- I can't remember if you could run > > NeWS apps over a network, but I can't think of any reason why not.) > > I'm fairly sure NeWS stood for *network* extensible window system, and > yes, it could run things over a network. It was a good idea, but it > was slow on anything you could afford and Sun cocked it up in the way > they cocked up almost everything. No, I can't agree there. They had good products, they had flops. More of a hit and miss, I'd say (Solaris is a sound, even if not comfortable, OS and ZFS is one of the best production quality single- node filesystems out there currently). > > Obviously when X was designed, a window system that would run over a > network was pretty useful, because if you had a 3/50 on your desk > (which would run X11 OK after the release that improved performance - > R4 maybe?), but there were much bigger systems in the basement, you > didn't want to run too much on the 3/50. > > Nowadays it's still important, but in a way X doesn't provide. > Obviously the Linux fanboys don't see it as important because they live > in a world where compute power is cheap and it's easy to provide on > your desk. Yeah, that's pretty much the world I live in. Or rather that part of the world. Compute power to the desk is basically limited by the noise one can bear. Could you clarify, which part of the world you are referring to? > (But no one actually cares what they think.) Yes, sadly not enough are. > But think > about a bank or something: they have maybe a few tens of thousands of > desktops, all of which have operating systems which are busily > persistently caching data. This is a hideous security & compliance > nightmare for them, so there's basically nothing they'd like more than > to put all of that in some central secure location and remove any > persistent storage from desktops. As an added bonus they then get rid > of a lot of maintenance costs. But what they need, which X can't do, > is to be able to move the whole desktop to another screen, so people > can move around. Of course there are systems which can do this, > they're just not X. I cringe every time I walk into a Citibank or Wellsfargo branch and see all those PCs running Windows and IE and if I'm not mistaken, even with internet access (on the very same desktop). I wonder, if they ever even tried Sun's thin clients (Sun Ray)? It works great for me (not that I'd care so much about the security aspect of it or the ease of maintenance, but rather the mobility of the user session as well as the lack of noise) and it was just made for such (they seem to have enjoyed moderate success within hospitals, but I'd think banks and schools are an obvious application too).
From: Tim Bradshaw on 6 Jun 2010 10:43 On 2010-06-03 18:04:42 +0100, Raffael Cavallaro said: > On the contrary, lawyers almost always say precisely what they mean. I can tell you from experience in reading, and having a lawyer read, a number of contracts that this is not the case. Very often things are worded intentionally vaguely or in an intentionally over-broad way. I suppose you could argue that this intentional confusion *is* what they mean, in which case I would agree with you.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 6 Jun 2010 11:09 On 2010-06-04 23:06:19 +0100, G�nther Thomsen said: > No, I can't agree there. They had good products, they had flops. More > of a hit and miss, I'd say (Solaris is a sound, even if not > comfortable, OS and ZFS is one of the best production quality single- > node filesystems out there currently). I think both Solaris and ZFS are good examples of Sun cocking things up actually. Both are technically very fine products let down by poor productionisation. [I've elided a long rant/explanation here, which is unfair on you, but I shouldn't be too rude about the people my income depends on, I think...] > Yeah, that's pretty much the world I live in. Or rather that part of > the world. Compute power to the desk is basically limited by the noise > one can bear. Could you clarify, which part of the world you are > referring to? Any kind of organisation where security compliance is a big deal.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 6 Jun 2010 12:12
On 2010-06-06 10:43:29 -0400, Tim Bradshaw said: > Very often things are worded intentionally vaguely or in an > intentionally over-broad way. I suppose you could argue that this > intentional confusion *is* what they mean, in which case I would agree > with you. Precisely. Apple has been careful to word the agreement as broadly as possible (or as restrictively as possible from the devs' perspective) in order to provide Apple with the maximum possible leeway to refuse/terminate/replace apps. The net result is that devs will self-select/self-censor and only submit apps that use the Apple tool chain in the way that Apple wants them to use it. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |