Slashdot Mirror
DishPVR 721 Review
An anonymous submitter writes "TiVo's not the only Linux based PVR in the US market anymore. Echostar's Dish Network is now offering their own Linux based PVR, the dual tuner, 120 GB DP721. The first review can be found here at DBSTalk.com." Another anonymous person (how hard is it to give yourself a handle? sheesh) describes the gizmo and notes a possible problem: "Echostar is now shipping a Linux based set-top box called the DishPVR-721 that won best of show at CES. It has a 120GB drive, a pentium like processor and supports dual channel PVR. Also, from my call to their technical support this morning, they aren't planning on giving up any of the GPLed source code they have modified. I've got one in front of me right now, ugly silver box but nice specs. I'm going to open it up this morning and start taking it apart."
Would you trust a company whose CEO is a professional gambler:
Charlie Ergen is not a name that slips readily from medialand lips. Outside America his name is unknown. But today he has earned his place in TV history - the 48-year-old former professional gambler has torpedoed one of Rupert Murdoch's most ambitious plans - to set up a global TV network straddling America, Europe, Asia and Australia.
And although 22 years his junior, the deal to buy DirecTV in the US is a personal triumph for Mr Ergen, who fought Murdoch once before and won.
As Mr Murdoch seethes over his defeat, he will be reflecting on a personal feud that goes back five years.
The pair first clashed in 1996 when Mr Ergen bid against Mr Murdoch in an effort to force up the price of the last remaining satellite licence in the US. He succeeded, forcing Mr Murdoch to pay almost £281m over the odds for the licence.
After paying so much, the media tycoon's telecoms partner, MCI, pulled out of a proposed joint venture, forcing him to go cap in hand to EchoStar. The two rivals agreed to a merger deal that would have seen them sew up the satellite market between them.
However, Mr Murdoch subsequently pulled out in the face of opposition from the cable giants and a furious Mr Ergen filed a £5bn lawsuit against him.
The saga was eventually settled when Murdoch - left with two satellite operations and a satellite licence he couldn't fund alone, - was forced into a humiliating settlement with EchoStar. Mr Ergen ended up with the satellite business and Mr Murdoch was left with just an 8% stake in EchoStar.
Mr Ergen, who abandoned his blackjack card games in Las Vegas when one of the casinos accused him of "counting cards" (a practice sharp-eyed gamblers use to work out where cards are in the pack as they are dealt), has now gambled again and apparently won.
A workaholic, the Echostar boss knows the value of the money he has just borrowed to secure the deal. According to reports he watches every penny affecting the bottom line - he makes bearded linux hippies take night flights to save money and apparently requires them to double up on hotel rooms.
Barring a late return of Mr Murdoch to the negotiating table or a rejection by competition authorities, the DirecTV deal will be crowning glory of an illustrious career for Mr Ergen.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
According to this link:
Dish Network is planning a late 2002 introduction of a new model 921 STB that combines a HDTV receiver for both over-the-air broadcasts and Dish satellite programming with a HDTV capable personal video recorder (PVR). The PVR is reported to incorporate a 160 GB hard drive that will provide for somewhere between 10 and 20 hours of HDTV recording capacity. This unit will also include provisions for web browsing. It will include a DVI/HDCP digital video interface in addition to the standard analog monitor interfaces.
How do you know they modified any? If they did, I doubt it's much, or would be of any use to anybody anyway. TiVo's modified code is only to get linux working on that box. All the stuff that makes a TiVo useful is not GPL. My guess is the same would be true for this box.
Free Mac Mini
I'd say go for it.
I mean, I really don't want to see the GPL thrown out or anything, but it's got to go to court eventually. Then, somehow, the world will change.
I remember reading that the FSF encourages people to license with the specification that newer versions of the GPL will apply. I know lots of people purposefully exclude that out of distrust for the FSF's motives. It would be ironic, albeit sucky, if being able to update the GPL would save a lot of code from badness.
I mean, usually that "future changes apply" clause usually bites people in the butt. It seems about time that it got used for something beneficial.
Has anyone ever considered a sort of "future updates to the GPL apply if a) the author is dead or b) the author files an agreement to update form with the FSF"?
It seems that would protect against fears that the FSF may sell them out in the future. At least then users would be safe unless both the FSF *and* the author wanted to sell out. Seems much less likely.
Also, does the redistribution clause of the GPL apply when it's distributed embedded or just as a software package. If I build a USB widget and distribute the widget running the Linux kernel with scheduler changes to accomodate my widget's real-time foobazzle, does it need to be GPL? Even if it is only allowing my widget to simply run? I don't have a problem with that (I actually kind of like it), but a lot of the less committed to free software would.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
They aren't legally allowed to distribute GPL code if they won't abide by the license, so it won't need someone to reverse engineer it... either they start distributing the code or stop distributing the PVR.
In the past the companies that have tried this have backed down before things got legal, which means that the GPL has never been tried in court. It remains to be seen how this one gets sorted out.
Now honestly, do you really expect their technical support to have any idea whether or not they will be releasing the modified code? These are people who explain how to use the box, not the corporate strategys of the company. I'd be surprised if more than 3 of their PVR techs even know what Linux, outside something the DishPVR uses. I supervise people in a Cable modem call center and 2/3rds of the people I work with who fix peoples computers don't even know what Linux is.
The "Low Speed Data" port on DSS recievers can be hooked up to a PC serial port for control. This guy has an interesting project, with downloadable source code for just that purpose. There's even scripts for pulling down the program guide from direcTV's website. Email him if you want.
I'm currently using a setup like this with another debian box running samba, so I have near unlimited storage space.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
According to this Sonicblue's Replay 4500 is also Linux based.
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he does.
Won't work....
You would have to buy one from them first, then you can demand the source from them.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I know several people working on this project. Echostar is going to release all the source code that they are required to. Just because a call-center person who is trained to help people hook the box up to their TV doesn't know about it doesn't mean the code is not going to be released.
This is a new platform for Echostar and it may take a while to get everthing in place. Based on my understanding, they have every intention of following all GPL requirements.
Not everything is GPL.
Excellent point.
If they've made modifications to the Linux kernel itself, they're legally obligated to release their modified kernel source. But in all likelihood, all they've done is develop dynamically loaded device drivers for their hardware. If that's the case, then there's no legal requirement whatsoever for them to release their device driver code.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
"...or they'll (hopefully) never sell another unit once it's made known they don't respect the GPL."
Well I dunno about u guys, but when I go shopping for PVRs I always look for the "GPL Inside" sticker. I won't buy a PVR without it!
Heh.
Nobody is asking them to do this. However to comply with the GPL they must make the GPL licensed code available or point to somewhere where it can be downloaded (kernel.org would probably be enough if they haven't modified anything). If they have made any modifications they must make the modifications available. Ambiguity helps nobody, and saying 'f**k you' to the (presumably polite) enquiry about this makes it seem like they have something to hide.
Tip: The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL.
Tip: You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Don't call their tech support and rag on them, you write them a nice letter on paper and request it, mentioning their 'oversight'.
Good point.
And you wonder why people hate Linux Supporters
You go through all the trouble to develop, design, construct, and market a box that does something damned useful, and then a snot-nosed 14-year old who can't program other than running a vbs worm starts calling your tech support demanding your "GPL" code.
If their product is based on Linux, they did not go to all the trouble to develop, design, and construct the product. If they don't want the benefits and obligations of the GPL, they can use BSD, sell their souls for a closed source alternative, or write their own code.
The thing is the GPL won't get thrown out in court. The reason is that it does not, in any way, restrict your right to do things under copyright law. It's only when I distribute it that I have to deal with the GPL, and under normal cirumstances i wouldn't be allowed to do that at all.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Since they don't come with rackmout attachments, I'll have to make my own, I suppose. 2 directivo's, 2 dishpvr's, a standalone tivo or two for C band and basic cable. If only general instruments would release a digital cable box tivo, I'd be set.
Just have to build my raid array a little bigger.
You go through all the trouble to develop a program to be used as a PVR in a computer; you give it out for free so anybody can use it, and ask for only that they do the same when the make it better. Then somebody comes along, takes your work, modifies it, and sells it, claiming it be their own.
Tip: Not everything is GPL. Those that that aren't should have written from scratch, or from licensed code. According to the story, Echostar used GPL'ed code, and hence, are required to, by the GPL license, to GPL their code.
What if this was proprietary code that they took and used? I believe you'd have a different view then, because it's generally called "IP Theft." Keven Mitnick served years in jail for something similar, and he wasn't even getting any financial benefit.
Well, guess what? If they don't GPL their code, they violated copyright. Plian and simple.
My highschool bio teacher always said,
"When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
Dude, they don't have to GPL THEIR code, as long as they didn't use someone elses code as a base.
The kernel is just one small part.
As countless other people have said, they probably have a nice module or even *gasp* a user-space program that does all the neat stuff.
How they license that stuff is their choice, much like how I license my KDE applications is my own choice.
You wouldn't have to buy it:
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
as long as their work doesn't modify the existing GPL code. So they just add some scripting to do what they want using a standard kernel (not an unlikely scenario). They can copyright their code or keep it secret; it's their choice. They need not release any of it as long as it does not incorporate any code that is already under GPL copyright. It would, in effect, simply be an application that runs on the Linux OS (like an accounting application or a database application).
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
I'm wondering how they implemented smartcard authentication: Wishful thinking says that they were dumb enough to build the smartcard driver into the kernel, thereby legally obligating them to release the source code, thereby declaring open season for smartcard hackers...
Honestly, they most likely did it as a kernel module (which doesn't need to be GPL'ed; see Nvidia). Oh well.
Hehe. I knew there was a reason that they didn't install a video trap when I discontinued my subscription. This was *meant* to be.
If it's a Geode based machine, they didn't alter much of anything GPLed- much of the work is done with specialized hardware, possibly supplied by Sigma Designs or someone like them. There is no way that those machines have anywhere near the muscle needed to do PVR otherwise.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm sorry your post was moderated down. I agree completely with what you said. The GPL is a commercial-hostile license, and there are a significant number of GPL advocates who also happen to be anti-business advocates. This makes developing commercial products that are based on Linux or any other GPL'd software an absolute minefield.
My company is currently selecting the next platform for our software. (You've never heard of it, so don't bother trying to guess.) Some of my staff (I'm the CTO) are lobbying for a Linux port, mostly for business reasons but also to support Linux as an alternative to Windows on the Intel architectures.
I have vetoed that proposal summarily. My reason is mostly based on technology-- Linux doesn't have very good support for some advanced hardware that we depend on-- but the last nail in the coffin was politics. I don't want to even dip a toe in the GPL pool as long as there are vocal and influential people out there trying to make life hard for for-profit businesses.
We're porting from IRIX to Solaris. Linux is just more trouble than it's worth.
As a Dish Network employee I can tell you for a fact we aren't selling it direct, YET. The plan is to also offer them direct later this year, as I understand it. The primary focus at this point is to get them to the retailers first.
The only models that Dish sells direct are the 301 and 501, but we do support all models.
Historically, all of the dishplayers have sucked in very major ways -- so much so that EchoStar has sued Microsoft repeatedly (gee, I wonder why they suck.) I'm surprised they didn't simply walk down the street and ask Tivo, Inc. to recode the existing DTivo software to deal with the EchoStar signal (DVB vs. DSS) which the hardware can do.
Looking at the screen shots, this thing looks like only a commetic difference from the UTV. Give them some time. If they are developing the system themselves instead of letting M$ screw it up, it'll get better over time. Even the tivo was pretty crappy in the early days.
Actually, I think Apple's decision to go with BSD is based on the fact that the NeXT system that OS X was built on was already using BSD + Mach Kernel (Apple's lead programmer, Avie Tevanian, created the Mach Kernel, so there's probably some bias on his part, too).
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Is it just me or did alot of good posts seem to get slammed by the moderators on this topic? Some of the most important points I wanted to make but found instead in the threads were moderated down for no apparent reason. I don't think I've ever seen such a massacare.
include('moderation_abuse_rant.inc');
Perhaps i'm foolish to not AC this post... but I didn't think the point of slashdot was to live in fear of moderation while trying to make a valid point. I guess I'll get my answer.
Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
Richard Feynman (the nobel prize winning physicist) once worked as a bodyguard to a professional gambler. The details can be found in "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman".
From memory, the gambler had a combination of "mathematics as well as data and strategy analysis" and combined that with knowing a few little tricks, like side betting. Strictly not allowed (like all money-making schemes in a casino) side betting involves ignoring the house, and betting on outcomes privately between gamblers. He would overhear "I'm sure this next spin will be black, I just know it", and casually reply "I bet it's not". That sort of thing. Anyway, read the book.
My badly laboured point is, a professional gambler is someone who knows the rules intimately, knows that the odds are heavily stacked against him, and therefore knows that he has to play slightly outside the accepted rules in order to win.
Sounds ideal for a CEO of a company selling Linux-based products..
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Accompany it with a written offer
Which would mean that you would first have to buy it to get this written offer...
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
...then upon any external distribution, even a beta, they must release to anyone who asks all source derived from a publicly released GPL'd project. I agree that a first tier technical support rep shouldn't be expected to know or understand this. But a formal letter to their corporate offices should resolve this situation promptly, otherwise the author(s') of the derived code are within their rights to sue under copyright law for software piracy; as well they should.
/. is both correct and proper to post this front page to apply public pressure on Dish to follow through with their responsibilities. This is what /. does best, and I support them for it.
It's only slightly more comforting to hear from an anonymous source that Dish Network plans to follow their legal duties and responsibilities with the licensing agreements of the code they are using. But I (and I think many others) would feel much better once they comply and make available their derived source. Until then I would suggest the authors of that source, and the free software community in general, are within their rights to complain vociferously. In fact, I would argue that
Cheers,
--Maynard
No. They distribute vanilla Linux in binary form, therefore they are required by the GPL to make vanilla Linux source available. They *cannot* point at someone else's FTP server. If they normally distributed their binary vanilla Linux from their FTP server, then they could offer the source up via FTP. But they don't.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place
They don't distribute their object code via FTP; they distribute their object code by shipping a box, so this section doesn't apply. Furthermore, the "special exception" of the GPL doesn't apply either, since the executable is itself a (vanilla) kernel and doesn't run on any "operating system". So, even if everything were completely vanilla GPL, they still would have to ship full source. However, it is very likely that they had to make some tiny changes to the vanilla kernel source in order to accomodate their proprietary module, if only to the complilation scripts. So it's not vanilla anymore and full source (not just patches) has to be mailed on demand anyway.