Slashdot Mirror


Latest Version of iPodLinux Reviewed

Demolition writes "The latest release of the iPod-Linux Installer has been reviewed on Accelerate Your Mac!, a popular Mac performance/modification site. As mentioned in previous Slashdot articles, the iPodLinux Project is an open source venture devoted to porting Linux to Apple's iPod. In a nutshell, the reviewer finds that the iPodLinux Project has progressed a long way from its early proof-of-concept days."

301 comments

  1. This has to be... by yetdog · · Score: 0, Troll

    From the "because you can, and really no other reason" department.

    1. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, "because you can play OGG and other formats and aren't limited by what Apple wants to put in their firmware?"

    2. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      From the "because you can, and really no other reason" department.

      More like from the "counting the days until the lawsuit" department.

    3. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, "It can't even play AAC. It's not going to play OGG. This is horrible, why would anyone choose this over iPod's existing firmware is beyond me. What are they, retarded?"

    4. Re:This has to be... by Saven+Marek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the best part, what I would say, is that, you can now easily play .ogg files on iPod. and also .wma and other audio formats supported in linux. Then there's also video on ipod like everyone wishes for.

      If there are some formats that don't play then that's allright as the support will come when they are popular enough and anyway there are allready more open source players than for any other device. for ex linux can do hundreds of formats but most mp3 players can do only say 4 or 5.

      Also ipod photo with linux and mplayer or xine or vlc and you will have your video ipod and eat it too.

      Net's biggest online nude anime Gallery's

    5. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not really. This is a very important project because there are several autonomous surveillance vehicles (ASVs) which will be deployed by the military that use the same basic architecture of the iPod for one of their flight control systems. It turns out that for long transcontinental flights, the little Lego pilot inside the ASV needs about 10 hours of music to keep him alert during the mission. Porting Linux to the iPod ensures that ASVs will be able to fly long after the iPod craze peters out and Apple goes out of business.

    6. Re:This has to be... by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you can now easily play .ogg files on iPod. and also .wma and other audio formats supported in linux.

      Not necessarily. Is the iPod fast enough for the Tremor decoder? And isn't the .wma decoder written in x86 assembly language, which the ARM processors in the iPod do not run at full speed?

    7. Re:This has to be... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Playing compressed video on a 33MHz ARM with no real graphics buffer, sounds completely possible!

    8. Re:This has to be... by yetdog · · Score: 1

      Troll? Please. I must have missed the memo where any usefulness of this hack is explained past the part that says, "because we can".

    9. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is possible. The resolution of the screen is not so large so the video will be small anyway. I reember playing 320x240 videos on my Pentium 120MHz without MMX. Is the ARM really that much slower?

    10. Re:This has to be... by am+2k · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is the iPod fast enough for the Tremor decoder?

      The iPod is definitely fast enough to handle ogg vorbis. The problem is just that the iPod has two different processors, which the tremor decoder wasn't designed for (or anything else except the original Apple firmware). Linux on iPod currently doesn't use the second processor except for some very basic stuff.

    11. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's really needed for audio is support for .ogg/.flac and gapless playback, that would be a good firmware improvement.

      "Possible iPod-to-iPod file transfer. This is currently under development, and is very possible. Not only will the iPod be able to access other iPods, running Linux or not, but it will be able to read from and write to Firewire and USB 2.0 mass storage devices."

      Also a good selling point for a firmware replacement if it ever gets polished and has good playback.

    12. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about then you should have bought another MP3 player that supported OGG and "other formats"

    13. Re:This has to be... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Although it's a plausable goal, it doesn't seam to be in high demand. If even 20% of iPod users wanted different firmware, the project would take off quickly once the initial reverse-engineering was done, and by now we would have mplayer and an mp3/ogg/acc/wma player with color visualizations and sync with music libraries of WMP, winamp and xmms.

      As it is, the project's contributors page only lists 3 developers. Seams an overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with Apple's firmware.

      Besides, you can recompress oggs into high bit rate AACs. Sure, there will be a quality loss, but are your headphones that good?

    14. Re:This has to be... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Uh, apparently these people don't like Referer: slashdot.org. Just copy and paste the URL: http://www.ipodlinux.org/index.php/Contributors

    15. Re:This has to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just because a project only has 3 developers doesn't mean it's not in high demand. After all, the NeoOffice/J project (a port of OpenOffice to Mac OS that has native menus and doesn't require X11) only has two main coders (Patrick and Ed).

      -H

    16. Re:This has to be... by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      Why not read the article before boosting your total ignorance? Maybe that could give you some clues.

      More codecs
      More games
      Better connectivity
      recording capabilities

      Not to mention Linux is about 500 times more advanced than ipods normal firmware. Also you don't have to buy a new ipod to update to the latest firmware.

      Of course some of these things are in its infancy, but thats how open source software works. At some point they might get there and have everyting working.

    17. Re:This has to be... by lintux · · Score: 1

      And isn't the .wma decoder written in x86 assembly language, which the ARM processors in the iPod do not run at full speed?

      Well, there are many portable players with WMA support already, so it seems there's more than just x86 code for it. (But that code is indeed not likely to be open source...)

      Anyway, AFAIK the iPod has a separate chip (DSP?) for the audio decoding. It's not very easy to program that one. And some time ago there was a post on /. IIRC that told the chip that does the interfaces (and runs Linux) indeed can't decode Ogg in real-time..

    18. Re:This has to be... by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Think for a moment. What about the people who aren't buying iPod BECAUSE it is restricted and can't play the formats they want? Or doesn't have the features they want? That's me.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    19. Re:This has to be... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are, thank you for asking.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    20. Re:This has to be... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Well, why aren't you contributing to iPod-Linux? Perhaps people like you want a different device - like a portable video player, a PDA or a cellphone - rather than just a different firmware.

  2. Interesting, but why? by blahbooboo2 · · Score: 0

    Serious question. Why would you want to run linux on an Ipod which already has a great interface? the ipod also doesn't have much horsepower, so not sure this is a cheap PC in the making?

    thanks!

    1. Re:Interesting, but why? by mrbah · · Score: 1

      Whahuh? When did this happen?

    2. Re:Interesting, but why? by dirty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the interface could use some improvement. Scrolling song names when browsing would be great. It's really annoying to have 5 things in a list with the only way to tell them apart being to play them.

      --

      -matt
    3. Re:Interesting, but why? by Enahs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, but for a different reason: why Linux? Why not some lighterweight OS than the Linux 2.4.x kernel?

      Don't get me wrong; I like the oh-look-someone-ported-Linux-to-a-toaster-isnt-tha t-neat stories as much as the next Slashdotter. But I do have to scratch my head on this one.

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    4. Re:Interesting, but why? by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 2, Informative
      a couple reasons:
      • to play formats that aren't supported by ipod normally
      • to allow running of additional apps (games or whatever)
      • expanded features that the current ipod software doesn't have
      • it's cool!
    5. Re:Interesting, but why? by xcfx · · Score: 2, Funny

      iBecause iTs iCool, iDon't iYou iSee?

      --
      WARNING: DO NOT LET DR. MARIO TOUCH YOUR GENITALS. HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR!
    6. Re:Interesting, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, what?

    7. Re:Interesting, but why? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      first off the links are for the ipodlinuxinstaller which is based on the actual ipodlinux which is based on the microwindows project. Ipod linux installer seems to be a vanilla "I want cash give me cash so i can port software someone else wrote to your ipod... only i'm not going to actually do that, but when the guys really doing the porting do the work i might pur thier code up here"... project.
      Basically its a guy whining for cash to buy an ipod, because his free ipod link didn't work.

    8. Re:Interesting, but why? by megaversal · · Score: 1

      Which version of the iPod do you have? My iPod Photo does exactly what you're saying doesn't happen to yours.

      --
      Sig!
    9. Re:Interesting, but why? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      the ipod also doesn't have much horsepower

      I bet $5 it has more horsepower than the machines first used for Unix - specifically over 10 times the power of a PDP11/40.

      Using shell commands might be tricky though!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    10. Re:Interesting, but why? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, programming with familiar libraries, filesystem, and system hooks is a good enough reason for that... imo.

      plus, there's already a bunch of lightweight programs and audio decoders for ucLinux

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    11. Re:Interesting, but why? by dirty · · Score: 1

      4G 20gig. I'm talking about in the list of songs itself, not while the song is playing. It's quite possible that they updated it for the iPod photo, everyone I know who has an iPod lists that as one of their biggest complaints.

      --

      -matt
    12. Re:Interesting, but why? by megaversal · · Score: 1

      Hm, I just checked with a friend who has a 4G as well, guess it's new for the iPod photo.

      --
      Sig!
    13. Re:Interesting, but why? by damiam · · Score: 1
      With all due respect, sir, you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about.

      The donations collected from the installer site go to the main iPod Linux fund, which will be used to purchase a 4G iPod. The lead developer, Bernard Leach, has put a huge amount of time and effort into getting Linux to work on 1G, 2G, and 3G iPods. The main stumbling block to a 4G port is that neither he nor any other major developer has access to a 4G iPod. It makes perfect sense for people to try and buy one to help further development.

      Also, FWIW, posting free iPod links is a good way to get banned from the iPod Linux forums.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    14. Re:Interesting, but why? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      how about to download your own MP3's without having to resort to the apple near-monopoly? Altho I'd prefer a "build-your-own-Linuxpod-hardware", but so far I haven't seen such thing.

      Of course, I don't know if this iPodLinux could be accused of violating the DRM stuff blahblahblah. Any thoughts on this?

  3. Sounds sketchy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it digitally signed?

    1. Re:Sounds sketchy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, what?

    2. Re:Sounds sketchy. by Johnny+O · · Score: 1

      ??? please explain ???

    3. Re:Sounds sketchy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an idiotic new Slashdot-ism (like "in Soviet Russia" or "imagine a Beowulf cluster"). God knows why it got modded up +5.

    4. Re:Sounds sketchy. by cioxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe this new /. catchphrase started from this article where some idiot blogger claimed that Firefox extensions aren't digitally signed, which prompted him to write a thesis why IE is a better choice because of it.

    5. Re:Sounds sketchy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, only old people put Linux on their iPods. At least in Korea.

  4. Coolest fad ever, but still... by ZSpade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one seeing the IPOD going the way of POG in a few years? Still this has some interesting implications.

    If people find out they might have the ability to do ohh so much more with they're $200+ toys, and they make it easy enough to port linux(has to be idiot proof), then we may find Linux getting much more exposure in pop culture. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll be able to make it user friendly enough.

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    1. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by eeg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Am I the only one seeing the IPOD going the way of POG in a few years? Still this has some interesting implications.

      Yes.

    2. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Other than sharing two letters in their names, what makes you think there is any similarity?

      In NYC, I can't go out for the day without seeing at least ten people with iPods. If I walk into a subway and look around, there is almost always at least one person wearing Apple's white earbuds. Sometimes, when it's crowded, there are three or four people in one car. I actually find it slightly embarassing pulling out my iPod (I don't use the white headphones) and getting looks of aknowledgement from those guys.

      I certainly didn't see that many people with Pogs in their hands when they were popular.

      Sure, when Apple stops selling them or they or someone else comes out with something much better, people will move on, but it's not like they're just going to get tired of using them.

    3. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by mickyflynn · · Score: 1

      pogs were for 9 year olds. they're stupid pieces of cardboard with drawings on them. Not a lot of buyers remorse or post-purchase justification. If a 9 year old stops thinking pogs are cool, he's out $5.00. A 19 year old stops thinking iPod is cool he's out $200+ dollars. Even if iPod is gay and he gets beaten up for it, he's still going to rationalize the purchase. The effect gets stronger with age. So yeah.. nothing like pog. Probably moer like Magic: The Gathering.

    4. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's a pog?

      i don't know anyone who knows what a pog is.

      i asked everyone in the office.

      my grandparents will know what an ipod is in 10 years.

      see the difference?

      apparently not.

      how could anyone who knows what a pog is, know the difference...

    5. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by A+Drake+Man · · Score: 1
      Nahhhh, I don't see it going the way of POG. POG's were only worth as much as their collectible value. While the iPod DOES have limited value (only to computer users, how else to get the music on it??) it's still a music player and in 4 years will still be a music player regardless of what else may be on the market.

      Now it MAY go the way of minidisc. I don't think that's too much of a stretch!

    6. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by ZSpade · · Score: 0

      Ah, there's the example I was looking for. Thanks.

      --
      Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    7. Re:Coolest fad ever, but still... by endlessoul · · Score: 1

      Actually, I recently installed Podzilla onto my 3G 20GB.
      I run WinXP, and have 3 Linux distros sitting somewhere in my messy room and have yet to see them all. Unfortunate, yes, but my point is this: As much as I'd like to use even Linspire, I just don't want to bother "making the switch" to the penguin. Even though Windows has it's downfalls.
      I know close to nothing about any coding whatsoever. In the bugs that I find, I can't just re-write the code because I don't even know how or where to begin. (Yet I'm still "that guy" in a group of friends that fixes the computer.) Yet, I find Podzilla to be just user-friendly enough to use. Recording is uber-sweet.

  5. Linux by tyleroar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Pros: Expandability! This Linux thing is just gonna get bigger and bigger, baby. Linux will allow the iPod to live on and grow for years to come. This Linux thing? Is this the first time the author has ever heard of Linux?

    --
    Portland, North Dakota Puppies
    1. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, laugh!

  6. Looks like they made Apache for iPod too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Server is goooooooooone!

  7. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not at full speed with the current software. It needs optimisation, or at least better buffering.

  8. This is quite exciting. by Sheetrock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While the iPos already does everything it needs to (decent music playback, excellent interface, remarkably durable) there would be a number of advantages to putting Linux on it.

    It would be possible to get third-party support for formats that are not officially supported, such as RealMedia or Microsoft DRM-protected audio files. Additionally the dial interface lends itself to use for reading e-book or USENET newsgroups, or for keeping an address book, phonebook, or the days events in your pocket.

    However, I wonder if the GPL would create problems in this sort of environment -- presumably there is content that is not open on the player that would be necessary to incorporate into this project. Perhaps it would be wiser to adopt something Open Source such as OpenBSD instead; it's a text-only environment, so the lack of graphical support would be a minor problem at best, and it contains a good deal of security features that would be beneficial should wired applications for this new platform be developed after this project takes off.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:This is quite exciting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Since when is there support for Microsoft DRM-protected audio files for Linux? Did I miss an announcement of a WMA cracker somehow? Last I heard, the old WMA cracker (called unfuck.exe, I believe) doesn't work for anything except very old WMAs (format 1.0 maybe).


      Anyone have more specific information on this?

    2. Re:This is quite exciting. by Saven+Marek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Perhaps it would be wiser to adopt something Open Source
      > such as OpenBSD instead; it's a text-only environment, so the > lack of graphical support would be a minor problem at best

      When did OpenBSD drop support for XFree86 and x.org?

      Biggest online anime gallery's

    3. Re:This is quite exciting. by m00j · · Score: 3, Informative

      well the iPod already has a address/phone book, a todo list and a calendar. Not to mention games and a notes section that can be used for USENET newsgroups or e-books - there are already programs to get various web items onto it, like one that gets google news and outputs it onto the iPod when you sync it. But before I say any more I should probably go RTFA.

    4. Re:This is quite exciting. by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree - probably the only things that would be developed on top of iPod linux would be entirely new apps. Porting things like audio codecs or rewriting a work-alike of Apple's simple UI is trivial in comparison to the task of getting an OS with complete hardware driver support working on a custom embedded system.

      It would be simpler to reinvent those things than to try and get Apple's code to run atop Linux (through emulation of Apple's underlying firmware).

      The only reason not to GPL it is if you want to make it easier for Apple (or others) to reincorporate your improvements. That might be a good thing depending on your goals. I'd say porting Linux to the hardware is interesting per se, and could yield a groundswell of other OSS support - Apple has bigger fish to fry right now.

      Also realize: there are some generally accepted (but not explicit) rules that differentiate "derived" vs "aggregate" works when it comes to GPL. It is unlikely that using a GPL'd OS would preclude higher level apps like phone books from being offered under whatever license the author chooses.

    5. Re:This is quite exciting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      the iPos already does everything it needs to

      No it doesn't. I was about to buy one, but then I found out it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support. A quarter of my music is in Ogg. I bought a Rio Karma instead, and I wasn't let down by the purchase.

    6. Re:This is quite exciting. by kosmosik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMHO such project has no chances for commercial adoption. First of all iPod is not only hardware - it is also part of a bigger system (think Mac, think iTunes etc.). Apple now is in quite big control over this product, and it simply works for normal user. And also probably iPod EULA (or something similar - I don't really own one) forbids you to use something different than Apple software on iPod (FIXME here).

      Linux version is nice thing to have. If somebody really want to go with this overpriced hardware (you can get gizmos more powerful than iPod, like iRiver, but they are probably not mass-market trendy) you can go with iPod and Linux on it. But I don't see larger audience for that. Just few hackers that like to play with hardware, like to be free with it (most of users don't care about it - and I understand it), use rsync to upload your songs, load self compiled/developed/custom/share it... software to _your_ hardware etc. - this is generally what Linux is for :) - to give great computing experience for people who can reach for it.

      Just my 2p.

    7. Re:This is quite exciting. by Mr.Ned · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Perhaps it would be wiser to adopt something Open Source such as OpenBSD instead; it's a text-only environment, so the lack of graphical support would be a minor problem at best..."

      When did OpenBSD not have 'graphical support'? I'm writing this from OpenBSD with X.org.

    8. Re:This is quite exciting. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "And also probably iPod EULA (or something similar - I don't really own one) forbids you to use something different than Apple software on iPod (FIXME here)."

      I worked my ass off to afford my iPod. I'll do with my private property as I please. Once you buy a piece of hardware it's yours and nothing less. Granted, your warranty will be void, but that's a separate issue.

    9. Re:This is quite exciting. by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      I haven't mean you specificaly. Parent post was about Linux and GPLed software going into commercial area (think: alternative software for iPod) - well there is no way to do so (FIXME as I don't know if iPod's EULA is against it - it probably is). You as one person and owner of an iPod can do probably whatever you want with it, you can load up whatever software you wish, you can hit it with a hammer and pin to your wall - that is because such behaviour does not conflict with Apple interest.

      Now when some commertial firm starts to offer alternative (be it Linux or GPL, it does not matter here) software for iPod and it conflicts with Apple interest (whatever you will want to do with iPod will conflict with Apple, at least when it is not something like wool coating for your iPod) - then Apple is after you, and that is (FIXME, FIXME) what EULA is all about. Not end user but concurent firms.

    10. Re:This is quite exciting. by all+your+mwbassguy+a · · Score: 1

      good job. can't wait to see this on trollback.

    11. Re:This is quite exciting. by dTaylorSingletary · · Score: 3, Informative

      In an effort to be more informative than "there are already programs to get various web items onto it, like one that gets google news and outputs it onto the iPod when you sync it", I did some quick googling..

      Googleget - Grabs Google News and syncs it onto your iPod. Looks great, can't wait to try it.

      Many other iPod tools written in .NET for Windows (haven't found out if these are open-source, if so I'd love to try to port some of them to mono/gtk) available at iPodSoft -- I tried out a few of these and they look great.

      And then there's the big list over a iPodLounge...

      --
      d. Taylor Singletary,
      reality technician techra.el
    12. Re:This is quite exciting. by figgypower · · Score: 1

      This is got to be the dumbest thing I've heard (read?). It's completely fine to run non-GPL stuff on top of a GPL OS; the GPL would pose no problems whatsoever. I mean think about, you can run Half-Life on Linux and Half-Life isn't GPLed.

      This is of course considering you aren't trying to bind to a GPLed library -- that's a different story and one that shouldn't be necessary.

    13. Re:This is quite exciting. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      While there is a lot of potential in iPods and similar devices, many of these potential uses seem to be far from optimal.

      I'm not sure why I'd read USENET postings on anything, much less an iPod. The thing was designed for music, for many people, their entire collections, thus it wasn't designed for handling a lot of text. I have a Palm too and I find it a chore to read on that too, despite having a much larger screen.

    14. Re:This is quite exciting. by nihilogos · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It would be possible to get third-party support for formats that are not officially supported, such as RealMedia or Microsoft DRM-protected audio files

      I would guess that there is purpose built hardware to do the mp3 and aac decoding on an iPod, and that software decoding of other formats would be very slow, perhaps useless.

      But I don't actually know.

      --
      :wq
    15. Re:This is quite exciting. by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Did I sign some kind of contract before they let me walk out with my iPod from the store? If not, I can do anything I want with my own device, and consult/pay other people for help. Even Apple realized that and released new firmware rather than sueing Real.

    16. Re:This is quite exciting. by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about the latest generation of iPods, but I know that previous iterations had proved to run too slowly for new codecs to work in real-time. The iPod uses a hardware decoder to play the formats that it supports; the CPU is there for the interface.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    17. Re:This is quite exciting. by jacobdp · · Score: 1
      And also probably iPod EULA (or something similar - I don't really own one) forbids you to use something different than Apple software on iPod (FIXME here).
      It's the other way around. You're probably thinking of, i.e., the Mac OS X license agreement, which forbids running it on non-Apple hardware.
    18. Re:This is quite exciting. by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      The L in EULA stands for License. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you can license hardware, this being a copyright practice. What you could have is some sort of contract that you would sign when buying your iPod. Sounds a bit orwellian though.

  9. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    This'll only be interesting to me if and when the Ogg guys get bitrate peeling working. Absent that, it's more of an engineering challenge than anything too practical.


    -H

  10. IPOD + LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a pair made for each other. LOL

    1. Re:IPOD + LINUX by Neil+Blender · · Score: 2, Funny

      a pair made for each other.

      If you didn't have that 'LOL' tacked on at the end, you'd probably have a +5 Insightful comment here. However, since this has remained at 0 for more than an hour, I think you must have confused the moderators. "Hmmm, sounds insightful but it might be a trap! Better leave it alone lest my moderating priveledges be damned to hell by m2."

  11. Cached page... provided by - Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ayhh...
    Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server.
    Too many connections


    Here is the link to cached page:
    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yV2MBr7DjzQJ: www.ipodlinux.org/index.php/

    1. Re:Cached page... provided by - Google. by kaleco · · Score: 1

      They should have made a static html 'image' of the site when they realised that a slashdotting was in progress - it would mean they couldn't maintain an up-to-the-minute accurate wiki, but they would only have to do this for a few hours until the slashdotting recedes. Then switch back to their database-accessing monster ;)

      --
      Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
    2. Re:Cached page... provided by - Google. by johnlesueur · · Score: 1

      Or you can use coral cache: http://www.ipodlinux.org.nyud.net:8090/index.php/M ain_Page

  12. YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOWEVER, YOU ARE STILL STUPID

  13. Re:ebay by zakezuke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I have also have a very narrow vision of what I desire in a portable media player. I want a portable player that will play DVDs. It's what I use at home and it's what I want to use away from home. It is not too much to ask.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  14. Already down by Stevyn · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they were hosting the site on an iPod.

  15. Bah! by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative


    I want an iPod with a 512x384 display, emulating a Mac Plus (except with much more RAM.)

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Bah! by kaleco · · Score: 1

      I think the ARM processor would make that a complicated affair. The accumulated man-hours of development would be greater than all the man-hours of entertainment the community would get from it. But yes, I agree with you in principle ;)

      --
      Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
    2. Re:Bah! by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the ARM processor would make that a complicated affair.

      I don't see why. The ARM is a very capable machine, and we're only talking about emulating an 8Mhz 68000.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Bah! by bnenning · · Score: 1

      I think the ARM processor would make that a complicated affair.

      I doubt it. If the ARM in the iPod can play MP3s in software, it's at least as fast as first-generation PowerPCs, which were emulating 68040s with decent performance.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    4. Re:Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're assuming the man-hours of development aren't also man-hours of entertainment :-)

    5. Re:Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bah! I want...
      jcr, you write very well for a three-year-old. Your parents must be very proud.
    6. Re:Bah! by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      I want an iPod with a 512x384 display, emulating a Mac Plus (except with much more RAM.)

      Only if it runs Dark Castle.

      That would be coooool.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    7. Re:Bah! by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      Actually, if I'm not mistaken, there are *two* ARM CPU cores in the iPod's CPU chip package thingy.

      For what it's worth.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  16. Re:ebay by the31337z3r0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But what if you want to put 40/80 GB of your music collection on a music player? What if you don't want to have to remove/upload music every time you wanted to hear something different? I know that even at 128kbps 1gb isn't a whole lot of music.

  17. Slashdotted, article text (anon, no karma whoring) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server.
    Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

  18. Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by ValourX · · Score: 1, Troll

    Just like they did with RealNetworks, Apple will probably put the kibosh on this project with a firmware upgrade or legal buffoonery. I don't know why so many Slashdotters like Apple; they do not support or sell Free Software and they do little to contribute to the FS/OSS community. For as much as they take from FreeBSD, they give nothing back. And if you start going on about Darwin being open-source, keep in mind that Darwin has no practical use beyond its basis for OS X.

    Apple is not our friend. You might like their fancy computers and software, but never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company.

    Now watch the Apple zealots mod this down for being anti-Apple. ::audible sigh::

    -Jem

    1. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by rzebram · · Score: 1

      In the article it sounds like the software uploads a hacked firmware to the iPod anyway, so perhaps a firmware fix will not be a way for Apple to kill this opportunity?

    2. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by ValourX · · Score: 1

      Until they do "version 2.0" of the iPod that has unhackable firmware or some other crap that prevents this project from working.

      Microsoft did a similar tactic to prevent Linux from working on the Xbox. Although it's unintentional, wireless LAN cards suffer from similar "versioning" problems with Linux drivers (thank goodness for ndiswrapper!).

      -Jem

    3. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Informative
      I don't know why so many Slashdotters like Apple; they do not support or sell Free Software and they do little to contribute to the FS/OSS community. For as much as they take from FreeBSD, they give nothing back. And if you start going on about Darwin being open-source, keep in mind that Darwin has no practical use beyond its basis for OS X.
      You might want to do a little research first, next time.
      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    4. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by ValourX · · Score: 1, Troll

      Okay, so with your link you have proven my point... look at how many projects Apple *takes from* and look at how many they *maintain or contribute to*. How useful are their OSS projects to non-OS X users?

      The APSL is also not compatible with the GPL.

      Look, justify your love for Apple any way you want, but your rationalizations don't change the fact that Apple does not give back what they take from Free Software. And it won't change the probability that Apple will try to kill this iPodLinux project.

      -Jem

    5. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has contributed alot to GCC (just one of the projects I know of) in their work with XCode. I think you would find that they contribute back bugfixes to most projects they borrow from. Besides, the whole point of using a BSD license is to allow people to do *whatever* they want with that code. If you don't like commercial companies taking your code and giving back nothing, why the f**k did you pick the BSD license?

    6. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmmm... Let's see...

      Safari, their own web browser... I seem to recall they took code from Konqueror, made it better in terms of rendering things better and more compatible... released Safari (closed-source), then gave their changes back to the Konqueror people

      Rendezvous. You may know this as ZeroConf. Yes, it existed before they did Rendezvous, but no one did it well. and they released their code back to the ZeroConf people to make the implementation and API better. They also made SDKs so people from every OS can use Rendezvous technology and work with Macs. Did MS help the Samba people?

      No company that shoots to make a profit is going to be 100% open source. No one has found a reliable business model on how to do it and stay alive more than a year. Apple does make closed software (and protects it, rightfully so, thats where their INCOME comes from. thats what keeps you on THEIR Unix, instead of taking their stuff and running off to any Linux distro that runs on PowerPC.) and ok, so you can't see the code, but the APIs are so well written, that just about anything Apple makes, I can plug into with my OWN software. How does MS let you plug into shit? With VB? Feh. They make things as easy as possible for developers, and give back to those they borrow from (the Watson thing was a load of crap, there was nothing "unique" about that, and the guy from Konfabulator is a whiny bitch cause someone else made widgets for OS X and did it in a way that doesn't eat up 95% of my CPU at idle.)

      While Apple IS a for-profit company, and they HAVE at times used legal threats to keep their products "safe" its mostly out of the purity of the mac "experience", not "shit, we're losing money on that".

      I don't see Apple getting too pissed off about this one though... If they aren't against people running Linux on their macs, why would they care about the iPods? Remember, the majority of the cash Apple sees is from hardware sales. The times when Apple gets pissy is when you meddle with their SOFTWARE. This keeps their software on the iPod intact (sort-of) so I don't see them getting their panties in a bind.

      But if you want to demonize Apple for trying to make a buck even though they've done more to try and help open source software than most of the other major players in the industry... go right ahead. it just make YOU look like the rabbid zealot for anything anti-Mac.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
    7. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Okay, so with your link you have proven my point... look at how many projects Apple *takes from* and look at how many they *maintain or contribute to*. How useful are their OSS projects to non-OS X users?
      Ok, so where's your list of projects you "maintain or contribute to", and how much shorter is that than the list of OSS projects you simply use?
      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    8. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Lank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...keep in mind that Darwin has no practical use beyond its basis for OS X.

      Most operating systems have no practical use except for running applications written for them. What's your point?

      --
      Gotta get me one of these!
    9. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      For as much as they take from FreeBSD, they give nothing back.

      Let's not forget high-paying jobs for all those core developers....

      And quite a bit of Darwin code that you're free to roll into your own "BSD for PPC" distro.

      And the wine, the wine goes without saying.

      And the aquaeducts.

      But apart from the wine, the medicine, the acqueducts, and the peace, what has Apple done for us?

    10. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Darwin is roughly equivalent to GNU Hurd in usability, which is to say that someplace, somewhere, there exists a definition of usable which will allow Darwin to slip-in under the wire and claim to be usable.

      In truth, standalone Darwin is a toy. If that's the best Apple can do, I'm not impressed.

    11. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      A better way of phrasing the above question:

      What projects do you maintain of contribute to, and what projects do you simply sell ? (which is a much more accurate picture of what Apple is doing)

      All of that aside however - Apple, as far as I know, has never broken any laws or violated any licences. So, both of your arguments don't really stand up. Why would any company in the right mind contribute to a non-profit project if they didn't see a profit coming out of it from somewhere else, indirectly?
      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    12. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one has found a reliable business model on how to do it and stay alive more than a year.

      sendmail.org
      sendmail.com

      'nuff said.

    13. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, 0 safari code IS IN KONQUERUROR. see kde blogs.

    14. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by swimin · · Score: 1

      This was supposed to be modded as funny. I am extremely dissapointed in these moderators. They missed an obvious Life of Brian (Monty Python film). This is completely unacceptable behaviour, and all mods who particpated in this should be decapited, or (even worse) banned from slashdot.

    15. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was supposed to be modded as funny. I am extremely dissapointed in these moderators. They missed an obvious Life of Brian (Monty Python film). This is completely unacceptable behaviour, and all mods who particpated in this should be decapited, or (even worse) banned from slashdot.

      The reference was obvious.

      They mod it "insightful/interesting" if there's an element of truth or insight to it. Being a funny smart-ass is easy, but offering some insight in the form of a funny comment takes some skill/effort.

      The mod system is working - relax!

    16. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by aldoman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Most of what you said is purely biased.

      They took the KHTML code, and improved it. They submitted their patches back, not as helpful, commented code, but instead mainly huge code dumps of uncommented, undocumented code that needs to be audited, understood and then finally intergrated. Most of the code Apple has submitted is still not intergrated, months after the dumps started coming in. Why? Because it's just so damn hard.

      I think you are also confusing the ZeroConf story. Name one software product outside of Apple that uses Apple's implementation - oh, next to none. Because it's buggy and undocumented, the open source one anyway. On OSX it may be a glorious, synergized, Jobs-thumbs-up development experience but outside of that it's basically a shitheap.

      The only reason Apple lets you 'plug into shit' is because they are desperate for developers to use their platform. You think they'd be oh-so-nice and happy if they had the monopoly like Microsoft has? Nope is the answer to that. I know we don't admit it on Slashdot, but .NET is a very nice programming enviroment, techincally. I wouldn't use it personally because I don't enjoy playing Microsoft politics, but then again I don't develop for OSX.

      Oh btw, I don't really see Apple as a hero in the OSS world. I see them very good at taking OSS techonology and using it to plug the gaps where they can't afford to write their own code.

    17. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Apple DID hand code back to them, this I know. They mentioned it at the Worldwide Developers Conference... had a guy from the Konq people too. They didn't implement it? *shrug* oh well. The homeless that turn down a free meal starve and have no right to bitch about hunger.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
    18. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

      I meant being totally open source. By the looks of that site they sell a sort of black box email solution. Closed source. Ok, they have an open source "entity" but no one has found a way to give away all the source code at once, while charging for it, and really made any headway in terms of corperate growth. Most companies either give up on making money or they're on the verge of getting their utilities cut off every month by the skin of their teeth.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
    19. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by AstroDrabb · · Score: 0, Troll
      Informative? All you did was list a link to OSS software that Apple _USES_. Most of those project Apple doesn't contribute to.

      I mean, come on. How much of an Apple Zealot are you. Did you look under the "Server" section? Apple lists:

      • Apache httpd
      • Axis
      • Berkeley DB4 for OpenLDAP & Cyrus
      • Cyrus IMAP mail server
      • JBOSS
      • mailman
      • MySQL
      • OpenLDAP
      • SquirrelMail
      • Tomcat
      I know that Apple has not contributed to all of those projects. I doubt Apple contributed to _any_ of them. I read the change logs for many of them, and Apple is not in them!

      It is pretty funny when Apple can post a link to a bunch of OSS software and an Apple Zealot somehow assumes Apple had _anything_ to do with those projects other then to take from them.

      All you did was _reinforce_ the GP's post about Apple taking more then they give.

      I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS. Sure they have taken OSS like KHTML and FreeBSD, but what has Apple really given of their own creation? What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?

      Heck, if you look through my posting history, you will know that I am not a big fan of the corporate tactics of MS. However, I will say with certainty that MS has given more of their own creations to OSS and even the poor "shared source" then Apple every has ever contributed back to the community from which they feed..

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    20. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      So your going to compare an individual with a billion dollar company? A company that would not have the OS X without the OSS that they used? Mac OS sucked until they built it on OSS. OS 9 was _really_ bad. Yes I _had_ to use it and it sucked. Apple didn't have a usable OS until they built it on the excellent FreeBSD kernel.

      It is pretty silly to compare the "contributions" of a signle person to the _potential_ contributions of a billion dollar company.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    21. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, obviously you have NO idea of where the Apple OS's have come from or of the OS's they have borrowed from. The OSS is definitely not a major contributing source anymore than to say Linus copied Unix (which for the most part he did) and all other OSS developers copy from other proprietary software (GIMP == Photoshop, etc).

    22. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      According to OSI, the ASPL is an open source license. And from the very document you linked to, the FSF "considers the APSL to be a free software license". It's just not GPL-compatible.

      Not an Apple fanboy by any stretch, but let's be fair.

    23. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Informative

      No company that shoots to make a profit is going to be 100% open source.

      I'm guessing you're not familiar with a little company called Red Hat, for one?

    24. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Apple IS a for-profit company, and they HAVE at times used legal threats to keep their products "safe" its mostly out of the purity of the mac "experience", not "shit, we're losing money on that".

      I think it is worth pointing out that "keeping the purity of the mac experience" and "shit, we're losing money on that" are one and the same.

    25. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Until they do "version 2.0" of the iPod that has unhackable firmware or some other crap that prevents this project from working.

      That's a possibility, of course you can always just not upgrade. Also unlike the Xbox it's not clear that Apple will be violently opposed to this, since they make far more profit on the iPod hardware than from iTMS downloads.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    26. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it won't change the probability that Apple will try to kill this iPodLinux project.

      Probability? would you care to show any reason why Apple should even care if a couple of dozen people run linux on an iPod? Would it in any way diminish the market for iPods or the iTMS?

      Sometimes you GNUts are right up there with the JFK conspiracy theorists.

    27. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by jcr · · Score: 1

      Apple sells millions of iPods, and hundreds of millions of songs on the iTunes music store.

      I can't see any likely scenario for Apple to ever *support* Linux on the iPod, but why should Apple care enough to try to kill it?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    28. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      what apple handed back to them was uselessly hobbled with patents. i don't blame the konq people for not touching it with a 10 meter pole.

    29. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

      not quite. the "mac experience" is all the fine details out of the box and how everything works together so well. When you cludge someone onto that, it ruins the experience. "Shit, we're losing money on that" would be the whole iTunes/sharing over the internet thing... that was ugly.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
    30. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are plenty of games, IM clients (Trillian? Adium? Proteus?), and even TEXT EDITORS that use Rendezous. Oh, and Apache does too now.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
    31. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, have you checked to see what kernel is actually used in OS X? Didn't think so if you believe it was the FreeBSD kernel. They actually use a variant of the Mach Microkernel (an entirely different beast than the monolithic kernels used in FreeBSD and Linux), entitled xnu.

      What was used from BSD was the userspace APIs. You know, all that nice POSIX stuff and the apps that help form a coherent command line environment that everything from Linux, to BSD use.

      I agree that OS 9 needed some serious work, which would require a re-write. OSS allowed them to do that re-write in a lot less time, and without having to reinvent parts of the wheel.

      They have attempted to contribute some useful technologies back in the development of Darwin (which since it is dismissed by people, seems to be slightly biased, considering how many OSS projects are dismissed because of marginal usefulness by some of the zealots, but are still considered to be contributing). IOKit is the big one for me, as it provides a method of writing drivers in C++ that seriously reduces code re-use and increases the readibility of the driver code.

      Should I start listing off their contributions to GCC (which includes a OS X-oriented fork which is merged into mainline every so often, which brought certain aspects of Objective-C support that are very welcome like Objective-C++ support), or KHTML and KJS (which included a rather long list of bugs that was on the KHTML to-do list at the time).

      Do you expect Red Hat to contribute to a project like bash? Not really. You expect them to contribute where contributions are needed. Research people, research.

    32. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      My apologies, the mods who participated have been sacked.

    33. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Thumpnugget · · Score: 5, Informative

      This has got to be a troll, since you're cheering about Microsoft's open source contributions, but I'll bite.

      First, Apple cannot possibly contribute to all the open source software projects that ship with their OS. Neither does Sun, or Red Hat, or IBM, or anyone else. It's simply not possible. Everyone takes more than they give. It's like asking a Linux user to contribute to every open source project they use. They can't. But that's part of the beauty of open source: there is a huge amount of high quality code out there with healthy developer communities that a software vendor (and end user) can put to good use without having to vet every single line of code themselves. And when all of those vendors each give back to a few of the projects they use, it feeds back into the health of the entire open source community. So, every company can't help every project, but every project can help every company (and user). That's a good thing, the way I see it.

      And, Apple does give back. Particularly to GCC, FreeBSD userland, KHTML, X.org, Postfix, and others. And they always publish source for any modifications according to the appropriate license. I'm too lazy to go look up specifics for all of those, but there's a quick writeup regarding KHTML at www.kdedevelopers.org. Examples of the others shouldn't be too hard to find. But, you're not likely to see much front-page press about it. "Vendor X gives some code back to project Y" won't capture people's attention like "Vendor X stole code from project Y and is violating the license". You can scan the Slashdot headlines for proof of that. :)

      I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS.

      Well, there is Quicktime Streaming Server. That should count for something. There's also OpenPlay, and Rendezvous. Anyway, there's a list on Apple's site, go take a look. It's not Apple's fault if none of the projects they have put out there are anything that you want to use.

      but what has Apple really given of their own creation?

      QSS, as just mentioned. Anyway, you can't make any money by just giving everything away. Ask Red Hat. Anyway, every vendor has to keep certain things for themselves to differentiate their product or there would be no reason to buy their specific product. That holds true for any vendor using open source code, be it Sun, IBM, SGI, Apple, or anyone else.

      What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?

      Quartz: I highly suspect there may be issues with IP from the display technology vendors. ATI and NVidia are stingy with their IP, which is why there are no real open source drivers for their display cards for any OS.

      Aqua: Apple's UI is their main point of product differentiation, besides the custom hardware. Giving away Aqua would be like giving the hardware away.

      iTunes/iTMS/Fairplay: They can't release the source to these because it would compromise the authentication/DRM scheme that allows them to sell RIAA music in the first place. But even so, who cares? DRM sucks anyway and I won't buy DRM encumbered music from anyone for any cost. And, if you want to use iTunes for library management, there's Crossover iTunes.

      Sorenson: Not Apple's IP to open source. Go talk to Sorenson.

      --
      Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
    34. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by scottgfx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Errr, ahhh. I believe that OS X is built on the Mach Microkernel. Yes, some of the underpinnings are FreeBSD, but the kernel was developed by Avi Tevanian... who came from NeXT and Jobs brought to Apple.

      BTW, I am a shareholder in Apple.

      --
      It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
    35. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Thumpnugget · · Score: 1

      Apple didn't have a usable OS until they built it on the excellent FreeBSD kernel.

      Well, Mac OS 9 and below weren't very modern, but they were at least usable. Apple didn't have a modern OS until they bought NeXT and it's operating system, NextStep, and turned it into Mac OS X. NextStep had been based on open source software from the beginning, and its crown jewel was a custom RAD toolkit based on Objective-C. The NextStep kernel was based primarily on the Mach microkernel and FreeBSD. Check out the Wikipedia article on NextStep. The application development toolkit lives on today as Cocoa and GnuStep.

      Apple's previous attempts at building a new, modern OS themselves failed. See Pink and Copland.

      --
      Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
    36. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The APSL is also not compatible with the GPL.

      If you don't want Apple to take YOUR stuff and either 1) release it closed-source or 2) release it under the APSL, then I suggest you choose to release your code under a license that won't permit Apple to do those things (e.g. GPL). If you DO want Apple to do those things, then choose a license that will permit that (e.g. BSD). If you don't actually write software yourself, why are you so upset that Apple is using code in a way they have been legally authorized by the original developers to use it?

      Notice that Apple releases source code for many projects under licenses other than the APSL - for example, WebCore (Safari's rendering engine, also used by many other apps) is LGPL.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    37. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, so Apple is the Big Evil because they sold code. Never mind that the coders gave them explicit permission to do exactly what they're doing.

    38. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      For as much as they take from FreeBSD, they give nothing back.

      Apart from ten times the amount of publicity that *BSD has ever had before.

      It might be that *BSD would prefer money to publicity, but somehow I don't think so. The whole philosophy of *BSD is people can take what they like and give back or not as they please. BSD is not Linux and its not GPL'd because people don't want it to be - if you want your code GPL's you release it under the GPL!

      Hell, Hollywood is full of people who have sold their souls to the devil for publicity. BSD is the only known example of the devil giving a soul back unharmed!

      Yay, though I walk though the valley of [Silly cones?], I shall fear no evil, cos ...

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    39. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

      I can't even explain how much I agree with you. Every time I see something on here about apple, or disney/pixar(yes I know, they're no longer together and somewhat unrelated to this,) it angers me a bit. I've been modded down quite a few times for posting things highlighting apple in a negative manner.

      see for example this comment of mine from 2002, where I'm saying something very similar to you. I don't get slashdot sometimes, so quick to bash on MS but as soon as any attack on apple is made it's like you get ambushed. As if apple is some perfect company which deserves such protection in the first place.

      They're on my boycott list. I see them just as bad as microsoft at this point, but then again I see most large companies in this same way. What can I say, corporate america is not my fancy. Instead of embrace and extend they kind of leech onto you like a parasite and suck your brain out while flashing pretty colors at you and talking about their latest breakthroughs in iNology. The only thing that remains is an army of apple fanboys, iPod in hand, ready for action.

      All jokes aside, any company with advertising tactics such as theirs is bound to piss me off, so this isn't saying much about their products as much as it is their strategies. And that's my real beef with apple anyway, strategies that is. They are using OSS stuff for the primary intent of making money, not really to give back to us. And even though some licenses like the GPL requires changes to be given back, assuming apple actually has modified something under them and returned such changes, would they have done so without those license requirements? That's the real question. And if so, how much? It just seems like apple's help has been bare minimum and not in areas that really count. Apple will keep the kind of stuff that makes a big difference to themselves, which is what I was saying in that old comment of mine.

      While I have my doubts that apple will try to banish linux from the iPod's existence, it doesn't change the fact that they don't do all that much for open source, and so far simply use it to their advantage. Improve their products for less money, and make more. Sure, sure, it's given away for free by them or what not as per license requirements or attempts to seem Less Evil but the fact is apple comes first, open source second.

      As such it means they can bundle it in free with the rest of their shit as long as they give a little back. What's not given back is the value it's adding to their proprietary product as a whole. Not to mention much of the "improvements" they give back will be apple-specific and useless to us non-apple folks to begin with. Basically they're making money from it indirectly and contributing back just enough as to not violate licenses, and to boot apple's loyal fanboys will stretch the whole thing to make it seem they're one of the good guys. It's quite the scheme.

      That's why I like the GPL better than BSD and LGPL and such, it prevents that kind of stuff from happening. It's been called restrictive but as you can see it's really meant to stop this kind of thing. I have to give some credit to the GNU folks, for realizing that kind of thing would happen and preparing for it ahead of time...I'd have been caught with my pants down.

      Well that was quite the rant...

      And so I don't like apple. And if I don't like something, I refuse to use it in any way, shape, or form. I don't like disney, so I don't watch disney movies. No difference with apple. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but you won't catch me going back on my word. Karma be damned.

      --

      If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    40. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by rufo · · Score: 1

      "Any company with advertising tactics such as theirs is bound to piss me off..."

      And what "advertising tactics" do you disagree with? Not sure what you mean by that.

      "They are using OSS stuff for the primary intent of making money..."

      Umm. Hate to break it to you, but I'd have to say that there's thousands of companies out there who're using open source to make money. Some do it by taking open-source software and providing services, as hosting providers or Google does. Some do it by taking open-source software and bundling it into a package, as Apple, Red Hat and Novell do. Some do it by taking open source software and programming for it, such as myself. But either way there's plenty of people making money off of open source.

      "It just seems like apple's help has been bare minimum and not in areas that really count."

      I don't know... the major patches to things like KHTML, CUPS and GCC seem like more then the bare minimum - they could've just forked it and thrown it on the server in some tarball, but instead they at least try and foster an open development community. They could've just taken the BSD-licensed code they use and never give back, but instead they've released it as a full open-source operating system, usable on both PCs and Macs. And they do have quite a few interesting open source projects grown in-house, such as QuickTime Streaming Server (which does much, much more then just stream QuickTime), OpenPlay and Rendezvous (which is an amazing piece of work that I wish more developers and hardware makers would seize on). Just because you don't use them doesn't mean they're not there.

      "That's why I like the GPL better than BSD and LGPL and such, it prevents that kind of stuff from happening...."

      I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. The GPL does NOT prevent this kind of thing from happening. Go look at www.apple.com/opensource/ - half the software on there is true blue GPL software. Just because it's GPL doesn't mean you can't include it in commercial software. The GPL just prevents you from taking open source and closed-sourcing it in any way, shape or form - if you make the source available you're not in any trouble.

      I dunno... I'm an Apple fan and I guess I don't disagree with you too much, I'm all for more open standards and open source software. And while I belive that the people in the trenches at Apple have their hearts in the right spot, I'm sure the marketing guys are seizing it and doing what's neccessary purely for the sake of profit. But I don't think that Apple is quite the demon you make them out to be. And Mac OS X really is quite nice.... you could always just pick up an iBook from eBay... ;-)

      --
      My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
    41. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by bwy · · Score: 1

      They're on my boycott list. I see them just as bad as microsoft at this point, but then again I see most large companies in this same way. What can I say, corporate america is not my fancy.

      And if I don't like something, I refuse to use it in any way, shape, or form.

      So basically, you own no automobile, no PC, basically no manufactured goods at all. You must live in a dirt hut and eat food you grow behind your hut using your own irrigation system since the local utilities company is also corporate America (and you don't like them, and when you don't like something you refuse to use it.) Additionally, you've never taken medication, never used electricity (damn utilities)... in fact, you've never done much of anything other than sit in your dirt hut and grow food and eat it, right? Certainly couldn't leave time to have any interest in something made by a big evil company, like say a PS2 or NES.

      Or let me guess- you're just like John Kerry. You verbally trash SUV's, and then when it turns up that you own one, you say it isn't yours, it belongs to your family. You indulge in all these things that have improved or made life more pleasurable, and then crucify them out the side of your mouth. Or maybe, you'll call them a "necessary evil", right? The big bad man has created a world where you can't survive without going against your morals and buying, using, and enjoying these products.

      Tell me, what type of work do you do? Well, actually I guess there isn't time for working, being that you're tied up growing your own food. Honestly, there are places in this world that people like you can live the way you say you want to live. There are places where corporation isn't in the vocabulary and there have never been any advances beyond the dirt hut. On paper, most countries in Africa seem to be exactly what you are after.

    42. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you asked the Konqueror devlelopers about this lately? Yes, Apple publicize their KHTML changes in Safari, but the KDE guys can hardly use anything because it is undocumented and not split out patches. It's just a big dumb tree sitting there. Not very useful. Yes, they could do better. Much better.

    43. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you only buy machines not made by corporations? So you only buy machines whose CPUs or other parts are not made by corporations? Why should you get any credit for picking some company to boycott whenever you're in some kind of mood? No organization of any significant size is without its sins. The irony in all this is that Steve Jobs is your standard issue California hard core leftist.

      If they do give back to the open software community with the primary intent of making money, so what? The open software community benefits while they benefit---that's smart, not immoral. Are you saying making money is immoral? Then what do you live off of? Or is it only immoral to make money if there's an extra benefit to others when you make that money? Why isn't also immoral for people from the open software community to take their contributions to gcc, khtml, and ZeroConf? Should only people with no profit motive leave the open source world? Do you also want to kick out SuSE, RedHat, HP, IBM and all the rest who plan to make a profit off of either support or hardware?

      Please don't consider these answers as being merely rhetorical. I'm interested in knowing your honest answers to these questions.

    44. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by aldoman · · Score: 1

      Rendezous is a standard. Just like HTML is a standard.

      Apple's implementation of it, for the most part, is terrible. It's great on OSX, but for anything else it's totally unworkable.

      Just because Apache uses a totally different implementation of Rendezous (aka Zeroconf) doesn't suddenly make Apple's implementation of it good.

    45. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

      wow way to take what I said vastly out of proportion.

      yes I stated I disagree with corporate bullshit however the ones I personally have something against is what I was clearly talking about. I don't like apple, disney, riaa, MS, etc, so I don't buy their products. Yes I don't like giant corporations in general but that does not mean I'm boycotting all of them. Don't be ridiculous. I can say I hate everything if I please, but you'd be a fool to assume I really mean everything.

      I'm not a huge fan of food corps and shit genetically modifying food or oil companies screwing such and such over and yes I don't like it, however I don't have a personal dislike for any of them, and that's because they haven't pissed me off yet. And it'd be a bit hard to stop using all of them, like you say. However there IS stuff you could do, for example hybrids or diesels when it comes to oil companies, organic foods, realistic approaches to medicine instead of the "miracle cure" most americans expect. There's solutions to most of those problems which you list which an individidual could take to try and ward of the damage that corporations have done. So not only did you take what I said out of proportion, your solutions are also.

      Funny you mention SUV's, I actually have covered this topic before in something I wrote previously...

      "All SUV's not being used for off-road or cargo transport are now renamed to CTV's for "Child Transport Vehicle" and are taxed for you being so stupid. Mini-vans are banned, especially pt cruisers."

      --

      If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    46. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

      I admit I was a tiny bit off topic with the advertising tactics comment. It really is something I dislike very much about apple, and it's specifically their tv commercials and exaggeration of their products, particularly in ways which promote some kind of elitist attitude. Those "Switch" commericals were full of that crap, the new iPod U2 commercials are just annoying. I can remember in the past they used to have these whacky photoshop benchmarks as proof that their G4 or whatever it was at the time was faster than a P4 or something, and it was just the biggest load of shit I'd ever seen.

      I know there are many companies that make money off open source, like red hat, but they provide services more than anything, and aren't doing what apple is doing which is indirectly making more money with proprietary products by supporting it with open source ones. I'm sure you could say redhat and other large open-source-using-companies do the same but apple is really sticking out in this situation, particularly because they're basing it around closed, proprietary software. While companies like redhat sell their "enterprise" versions all they're really selling is linux, with commercial software packages bundled with it, and service plans. It's not even close to what apple is doing, in fact it's the opposite. Free bundled with commercial vs commercial bundled with free.

      Indeed they have released much of what they gave, however as I said most of it is only useful to apple folks, I do believe much of the cups improvements they have made are specifically towards getting it to integrate into apple, but this is more of a guess, I haven't actually used it. Of course you COULD implement these things on other architectures but apple won't ever help with that. I'm sure much of it is so tied in with OS X that it'd be somehwat useless anyway.

      The GPL prevents people from taking code withoug giving the full source back, it tries to even out the playing field, to stop proprietary software from reeking the benefits as long as it's proprietary. I understand that some of the software on Apple's list-o-shit-we-use-in-some-way is GPL'd but more than anything how much of that have they actually given back to? They have things like grep and less on there. I mean come on. I'm basically just saying without the GPL's requirement of giving back changes, we'd be pretty screwed, so I'm thankful in that aspect.

      The apple fanboys are part of the marketing though, that's the whole thing. Create a userbase which worships you and promotes your ways, like some sort of whacky mini-religion. And while this is stretching it a little bit, it's not too far from what actually happens. I've not met many apple users who didn't, though I have to admit I have met a few. The majority outweighs the minority by far though.

      I'd rather not spend the money on apple products, especially since I don't have much to be tossing around, and because I don't want any of my money going towards their products. I'm quite happy with my linux desktop at the moment anyway.

      --

      If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    47. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

      see my replies to the other two posters, I basically cover your questions in them, if I missed something let me know...

      --

      If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    48. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Carthag · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against communists, but seeing as your slashdot nick is "Internet_Communist" I don't find it surprising that you don't like a capitalist company. Why do you even bother spending so much time on this? Honest question, genuinely interested.

    49. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Carthag · · Score: 1
      Huh? Their DRM was cracked in no time. Not releasing the code did nothing for them. So why can't they release specs for iTMS so all platforms can use the service? Being able to to purchase/download from iTMS isn't going to break their poor "FairPlay".

      RIAA would never let Apple sell music from the labels in that organization if they opened the specs. That's pretty simple.

      Apple is basically letting people crack the DRM, then they "stop" them by making amazingly simple changes to iTunes in order to satisfy RIAA.

    50. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      No, they're nothing. They're the Big 'Meh' as far as I am concerned - at least on that particular topic. If slashdotters actually used logic, and were to follow yours, IBM would be the Big Evil as well, since they also sell Free Software.

      You hit the nail right on the head; the developers did give them explicit permission, so they would be fools not to take advantage of that.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    51. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by Internet_Communist · · Score: 1

      you're asking that on slashdot. why would I spend so much time on anything like this if I didn't have the time to waste?

      my nick is somewhat of a joke on this

      though it does have some seriousness to it as well, on the political compass I am positioned far bottom left, so maybe I really am a commie.

      --

      If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    52. Re:Only cool until Apple lowers the axe by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 1

      Apple wrote an apache module for Rendezvous using their implementation.

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  19. Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by crazyphilman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, my GOD. It's almost like NetBSD. Next thing you know, there'll be Linux vibrators!

    Hmm...

    Suddenly I want to be a sysadmin!

    --
    Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    1. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean, my GOD. It's almost like NetBSD. Next thing you know, there'll be Linux vibrators!

      Where is this NetBSD vibrator of which you speak? I've always wanted to telnet in and see what's happening down there....

    2. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in this world there must be a Linux-powered cell phone with a vibration setting.

    3. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by n0dalus · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've always wanted to telnet in and see what's happening down there....

      Don't forget to use protection. SSH.

    4. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by crazyphilman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh... MY... GAWD! I just had the greatest idea!

      Two words: "wireless webcam".

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    5. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      Brings a whole new meaning to "Hey, baby, what's your number..."

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    6. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its more likely you will be an 'end user'.

    7. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      You mean these?

    8. Re:Holy crap. What DOESN'T Linux run on? by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      (Jeff Goldblum): "Is it possible to fall in love with a computer? Oooohhhhhh yes!"

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  20. ipodLinux, it's made out of... by fatwater · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...people!!!

    it's actually quite cool, and extremely easy to install. i just wish it was as easy to get IP over firewire so i could ssh (or telnet) into the thing. i know it is quite possible on linux, but on OSX it is tricky and that is my ipod connectivity.

    1. Re:ipodLinux, it's made out of... by blew_fantom · · Score: 1

      yes, but WHY, pray tell, would you want to do that?

    2. Re:ipodLinux, it's made out of... by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 4, Informative
      http://developer.apple.com/devicedrivers/firewire/ ip_over_firewire.html

      Now the IP over FireWire Preview Release adds support for using the Internet Protocol - commonly known as TCP/IP - over FireWire. With this software installed, Macintosh computers and other devices can use existing IP protocols and services over FireWire, including AFP, HTTP, FTP, SSH, etc. In all cases, Rendezvous can be used if desired for configuration, name resolution, and discovery.

      The preview release adds a new Kernel Extension that hooks into the existing network services architecture. Using the existing Network Preferences Pane, users can add FireWire as their IP network node to connect and communicate between two machines.

      Apparently it is still in a beta form, but, apple seems to be doing something about this.
      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    3. Re:ipodLinux, it's made out of... by remahl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IP over FireWire is out in a final release. It is part of Panther and not available separately (except in beta form). It is very easy to set up and works fine (with both Windows and Linux).

    4. Re:ipodLinux, it's made out of... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Because then you can install whatever you want on it....

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    5. Re:ipodLinux, it's made out of... by busonerd · · Score: 1

      The default IP over FW does not work as iPodLinux uses a modified protocol. [No hardware support for the full protocol]

      --David Carne [ex-ipodlinux dev]

  21. Progress by Cereal+Box · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a nutshell, the reviewer finds that the iPodLinux Project has progressed a long way from its early proof-of-concept days.

    Looks like it has support for the "back" and "stop" buttons. Support for the "play" button should be available shortly. But it plays OGG!

    1. Re:Progress by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Who needs play when you have PONG!
      and technically, it doesn't play ogg. It will play mp3's though. and play a number of games... but ogg support? no... it will make mp3s too, but play oggs? no. Guess they need more people working on it or something.

  22. Been There, Done That by cdcarter · · Score: 1

    Ipod Linux has been out for a long time. In fact, I think I'm gonna go boot it now. Ogg files run ok... but its got good FLAC support.

    --
    "Love is like a trampoline, first it's like "SWEET!!" then it's like *BLAMM!*"
  23. Beowulf cluster of these? by snuf23 · · Score: 1, Funny

    So if I run a thousand of these in parallel do I get a microcomputer instead of a supercomputer?

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
    1. Re:Beowulf cluster of these? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you would get 1+ year of MP3 playback, and still only 8-to-10 hour battery life, best case scenario.

  24. Question of OGG Support by Kalak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since every time a media player is mentioned on /., and this is an iPod running Linux, and 95% of my collection is in ogg, etc. I've karma whore by posting this link to the currently /.ed iPod Linux Wiki FAQ. In short, here's the answer, and there is no reason, from either the site or TFA to change it (TFA says nothing about ogg.) No mailing list or forums available.

    Note: Linux != ogg. If your iPod runs linux, that does not mean everything you can run in mplayer will suddenly work on your iPod as some seem to be suggesting.

    Short version (from the Wiki):

    Is there an OGG player?

    The Tremor (http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/) player is running at about 80% real-time.

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    1. Re:Question of OGG Support by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Tremor (http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/) player is running at about 80% real-time.

      First of all, an a/v codec that runs at 80% of real time is about as useful as an internal combustion engine that achieves 80% of the power needed to turn the crankshaft around for the next stroke. Ie not useful at all. Get tremor running fast, and then it's interesting.

      Secondly, few people understand exactly why ogg is so far behind mp3/wma/aac in terms of adoption. It's not because the commercial enterprises are "anti-OSS". It's because ogg was designed from the get-go to run on PCs and not embedded systems.

      I have personally looked at Tremor, with the goal of porting it to an embedded audio player, and found it to be very poorly designed in that it requires large amounts of fast on-chip memory, which is usually not present on embedded devices. Codecs like MP3 and WMA were carefully designed to work on embedded DSPs and this is one of many reasons why you'll find these codecs, and not Ogg, on all kinds of devices.

      Sorry ogg fans. It's not political. Your favorite codec kind of sucks.

    2. Re:Question of OGG Support by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Neuros version of Tremor runs on a TI DSP that has access to 64K of memory (total, for the code and data).

      It works fine. The source is available too.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    3. Re:Question of OGG Support by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      With apologies to the grandparent post, I just realized that "80% of realtime" could be taken to mean that either a) it gets 80% of the work done in the requisite time or b) it gets the requisite work done in 80% of the given time.

      I probably took it the wrong way. Nonetheless, quite a bit of detail about the particular architecture, and other system requirements has been omitted here, and I stand by my points regarding memory requirements.

      Memory bandwidth is a big issue with any kind of codec. Confining the high-bandwidth IO to a small area of (on-chip / L1) memory is an important requirement for it to be portable to embeeded DSPs. Not all codecs meet this requirement.

    4. Re:Question of OGG Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, well, thats certainly not the only reason.

      Microsoft's Windows Media was not designed at all for Embedded Devices either.

      I know: my cubicle neighbour is pulling his hair off trying to implement a WMV hardware decoder... He has to start all over again each time MS comes up with a new spec because some clever software engineer though that savings those 2 bits for some header was worth it... Easy to do when you are writing software...

      But anyway, the problem with OGG is: too late. Why bother with Ogg when almost all the market is using mp3.
      Unless there is some other external influence (eg Microsoft for WMA, Apple for AAC) it doesnt make much sense for a company to invest time in Ogg. The only interest of Ogg for companies building media player is the license.... But they still have to support MP3 anyway so...

      Theres a good reason common people (ie not lawyers or marketing people) calls them MP3 player, and not digital audio player, even when they play WMA or AAC .

    5. Re:Question of OGG Support by YggdrasilOS · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...It's because ogg was designed from the get-go to run on PCs and not embedded systems.

      So I guess iRiver missed the memo huh? They have support for OGG on almost all of their flash players, and all of their HDD players.

      Click here if you doubt.

      The MP3 codec was not, in fact designed to run on portable systems, indeed it was never intended to be used separately from the MPEG-1 Video codec at all! Fraunhofer IIs simply came up with an audio codec that would pair well with MPEG's high-level video compression, someone figured out how to separate the stream into its own file, WinAmp came along, and presto, new music format.

      In fact, because of its kludgy origin, the MP3 spec lacks many features that would make life easier, including (exemplia gratis) a proper indexing system--hence the seeking weirdness and sometimes fugly playback that plagues VBR-MP3 files.

      The OGG container-file format and Vorbis encoder were designed to address these issues, as well as to provide a Free (speech & beer) and Open alternative to MP3, which is after all, property of Fraunhofer IIs.

      OGG's non-popularity as a music format is attributable to two things:

      1. obscurity, and
      2. the "good enough" factor.

      As a FOSS-developed format, OGG hasn't got the corporate backing (and advertising) that MP3 and WMA/ASF have. Therefore, not many have heard of it, outside of techie circles.

      Even beside that, many who do hear of OGG Vorbis will often casually dismiss it, saying "MP3 is good enough for me". A heresy for the /. set, to be sure, but many people simply don't have the time/energy/interest to pursue a better alternative when a functional alternative is staring them in the face.

      OGG support is nowhere near as hard to do as you make out, it's simply not done as often. Please do at least a little checking before you post such flamebait. (hint: try looking here or possibly here

      --
      "We dwell within a silent country, beyond the reach of time and death" -Nothing Sophotech, The Golden Transcendence
    6. Re:Question of OGG Support by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      So I guess iRiver missed the memo huh? They have support for OGG on almost all of their flash players, and all of their HDD players.

      Click here if you doubt.


      I don't doubt at all. But "only on iRiver" is pretty damn obscure when you cosinder the myriad of aac/mp3/wma players out there,


      The MP3 codec was not, in fact designed to run on portable systems, indeed it was never intended to be used separately from the MPEG-1 Video codec at all! Fraunhofer IIs simply came up with an audio codec that would pair well with MPEG's high-level video compression, someone figured out how to separate the stream into its own file, WinAmp came along, and presto, new music format.


      Give Mircronas credit where due. In fact the whole portable mp3 player market was spawned by Rio's use of their MAS35xx chips in the first players. Those chips were originally designed for receiving satellite streams, so I'd give Rio credit for the portable concept despite the fact that most of the technology was invented elsewhere.


      In fact, because of its kludgy origin, the MP3 spec lacks many features that would make life easier, including (exemplia gratis) a proper indexing system--hence the seeking weirdness and sometimes fugly playback that plagues VBR-MP3 files.


      Fully agreed.


      The OGG container-file format and Vorbis encoder


      Yes, please excuse my misuse of these ridiculously confusing names,

      were designed to address these issues, as well as to provide a Free (speech & beer) and Open alternative to MP3,

      Alternative, yes. Better and "in time for maket", no.

      etc.

      Tired... going to bed.

    7. Re:Question of OGG Support by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The OGG container-file format and Vorbis encoder

      Yes, please excuse my misuse of these ridiculously confusing names,

      Yeah, Quicktime container and Sorenson codec are sooo much more transparent that I can tell what someone is talking about from the sound of it alone.

    8. Re:Question of OGG Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    9. Re:Question of OGG Support by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 1

      Is there an OGG player?

      yup, the iRivers play OGGs. Probably a bunch of other players too.

    10. Re:Question of OGG Support by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      There is a rumor that Quicktime will begin supporting OGG without needing a plug-in with the new version (supposedly) to be released at the macworld expo in a few weeks. If this happens, it is likely that support will be added to the iPod as well. Further, I have read that the hardware in the iPod can already support OGG decoding, it is just not implemented in the software. keep your fingers crossed as this could be a boon to OGG in general allowing playback on numerous windows and mac machines.

    11. Re:Question of OGG Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First of all, an a/v codec that runs at 80% of real time is [not useful].
      No shit, Sherlock? It's a friggin' progress report. Obviously they're targetting 100% or better. They're working on it, be patient. If you're not interested or able to offer assistance then go look at something shiny and let them work in peace.
    12. Re:Question of OGG Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the next update to the ipod/ itunes will support ogg and flac. this update will be in jan.

    13. Re:Question of OGG Support by HR · · Score: 1

      http://open.neurosaudio.com/extra/firmware.zip

  25. toaster firmware by scenestar · · Score: 0

    that is great, but when can i finally run linux on my toaster

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
  26. Does this installer work in Windows? by hussain · · Score: 0

    Is there a way to use the windows firmware updater to flash my ipod? I couldn't find any mention of a windows version.. even the screenshots are for a OSX gui..

  27. Camera downloads... by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    Unless Apple comes out with it soon this could be a huge feature for iPodLinux, iPod to iPod transfers are still being worked on however, maybe next year.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Camera downloads... by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      What, like this? Or maybe this?

      Been out for a while now.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  28. support linux companies instead by jeif1k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are several nice disk-based MP3/ogg players out there that already run Linux out of the box. You can save yourself a lot of trouble, get a more functional device, and support FOSS by buying one of those. Apple's iPod just isn't built for Linux and Apple clearly doesn't want you to run a FOSS OS on it (otherwise they would have shipped it with one).

    1. Re:support linux companies instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you recomend any?

    2. Re:support linux companies instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Rio Karma.. plays ogg, flac, and had other gimmickery you might be interested in.

    3. Re:support linux companies instead by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      Apple clearly doesn't want you to run a FOSS OS on it (otherwise they would have shipped it with one)

      Yeah, that's the reason.

    4. Re:support linux companies instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not the reason, it's an indication.

      The reason Apple isn't shipping an open operating system on it is because Apple still wants to kill open standards and open platforms. And that's also the reason you shouldn't support them.

  29. Re:But... by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

    No amount of buffering will help a source that cannot generate information as quickly as it is consumed. With a decoder running at 80% of real time, it needs to buffer at least 20% before starting to play (assuming that the UI and playback consumes no CPU power at all) to avoid gaps during a song. If all your songs are each 3 minutes long, you'll wait at least 36 seconds in between songs.

  30. There is one good thing about an Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An Apple running Linux is one step further from Microsoft then a PC running Linux.

    I wonder if this also means it's one step further from spyware/adware/malware/viruses etc then a PC. Seriously, It would seem that an Apple running Linux must be safer then either an Apple running OS X or a PC running Linux. The Apple/Linux virus would have to have binary compatability with the Linux OS and Apple hardware.

  31. Re:ebay by daskalou · · Score: 0

    At 128kbps, 4 minutes per song and 1,000,000 KB in a GB, you would be able to store 260 songs on a 1GB USB MP3 Player.

    If your iPod is 40GB you will be able to store over 10,000 songs.

    Now, both are portable and in both cases it is a piece of p1ss to plug your device into your computer and download/delete songs as you wish. I'm sure 260 songs (or over 17 hours (yes, I love google :) ) of play) should be enough for a PORTABLE music player (when you go on a short trip do you take your collection of 200 DVDs with you? No, you take just a few to get you through the trip).

    And when you factor in the difference in price ($119 compared to $408, BOTH including delivery), I don't see why you would waste your money on an iPod.

    -----------
    The world is full of stupid people.

    --
    The world is full of stupid people.
  32. Price drop by ananegg · · Score: 0, Troll

    Instead of making iPods work with Linux, why not Make them more accessible by lowering the price?

    --
    Insert Pithy Quote here.
    1. Re:Price drop by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Right, because these guys, who have no connection to Apple, and are themselves asking for donations to buy more iPods to add support, have the power to make that happen. :rolleyes:

    2. Re:Price drop by ananegg · · Score: 0, Troll

      So you don't agree with me? Or are you jsut upset you did not think of it 1st?

      --
      Insert Pithy Quote here.
    3. Re:Price drop by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did think of it first.

      When I was buying my iPod, I thought "Damn, I wish this was cheaper. Maybe those iPodLinux guys should do somehting about that."

      Oh wait. No, I didn't. Because that's dumb.

    4. Re:Price drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You know, instead of having these programmers who bought iPods take the trouble to reduce the price, you could have them make the iPods a little bit smaller, but with more capacity.

      That'd be cool.

    5. Re:Price drop by ananegg · · Score: 0, Troll

      I was not talking about Linux, I meant apple.......

      --
      Insert Pithy Quote here.
    6. Re:Price drop by eMartin · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

    7. Re:Price drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a fucking retard

      this article is about a group of people porting linux to ipod.. it has nothing to do with apple, these people have no influence over apples pricing

      your "Instead of making iPods work with Linux" comment is retarded, you sound like you're saying these hackers who are in their parent bedrooms coding have the power to make apple lower their prices.. your post has NOTHING to do with this article and you're just a retard now go FUCK YOURSELF

      god damn, ive never hated someone as much as i hate you right now

      PURE HATRED

    8. Re:Price drop by ananegg · · Score: 0, Troll

      Then we agree.

      --
      Insert Pithy Quote here.
  33. Friend to Open Source ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple is not our friend. You might like their fancy computers and software, but never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company.

    Since when is "friend" defined as non-commercial? Also are you incapable of having friends that do not share your religion? Most of us are not that narrow minded.

    Apple promotes Unix on the consumer desktop. Apple increases the acceptance of FreeBSD by using it for portions, Darwin, of their operating system. Although they do not have to, BSD license, they are "good citizens" and make their changes available to the public. Apple has open sourced it's formerly proprietary file system code. They provide a free development environment with their systems. They actively work with Terra Soft to make a version of Linux, Yellow Dog, available for Apple hardware.

    The fact that they do not open source all their code, their GUI in particular, does not make them an enemy. The fact that they do not support some people's pet music formats does not make them an enemy. The fact that their mission is not to promote all things open source does not make them an enemy. They seem happy to coexist, and to work with open source when appropriate.

    Now watch the Apple zealots mod this down for being anti-Apple

    Actually there is no shortage of legitimate reasons to mod you down.

    1. Re:Friend to Open Source ... by latroM · · Score: 1

      Apple is not our friend. You might like their fancy computers and software, but never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company.

      Since when is "friend" defined as non-commercial? Also are you incapable of having friends that do not share your religion? Most of us are not that narrow minded.


      He didn't even mention the word non-commercial. Apple is a maker of non-free software and of proprietary hardware. In that perspect it is not any better than Microsoft or nvidia.

      It is Free Software philosophy which brought you all the wonderful GNU libraries, tools and things.

    2. Re:Friend to Open Source ... by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      Apple is a maker of non-free software and of proprietary hardware. In that perspect it is not any better than Microsoft or nvidia.

      And yet...

      Apple's development tools are free. Visual Studio .NET, last time I checked, had a hefty price tag.

      A lot of its multimedia tools are free. There's a long tradition of not-too-polished-but-usable-and-FREE tools emanating from the Apple culture, which started back with the now extinct HyperCard (or further really, since they gave away the source code to Lemonade Stand in about 1979...)

      As for supporting the OSS community, the developments to make the Konqueror-descended Safari FAST were contributed back. As a parent poster has mentioned, a lot of Darwin is very useful too.

      Compare all this is Microsoft, which has so far open-source an *installer shell* and only that to pay lip-service to a concept that Ballmer & co in fact despise.

      Hmm.

    3. Re:Friend to Open Source ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company."

      "Since when is 'friend' defined as non-commercial?"

      Yeah, that was what he/she said.

    4. Re:Friend to Open Source ... by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 1
      Apple is not our friend. You might like their fancy computers and software, but never forget that they are a proprietary hardware and software company.
      Since when is "friend" defined as non-commercial? Also are you incapable of having friends that do not share your religion? Most of us are not that narrow minded.
      My friends will gladly give me a copy of whatever software they write, with source (in fact sometimes they insist I read it, just to show off -- but that's another issue). My friends do not keep secrets from me when it gives them a monopoly advantage, and they don't try to use whatever advantage they might have to exploit me for money. Sometimes I'll buy something from a friend, and when I do, he'll never charge me twice its cost, even if I can't get the thing from anyone else.

      Apple is not my friend.

    5. Re:Friend to Open Source ... by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 1
      Apple's development tools are free. Visual Studio .NET, last time I checked, had a hefty price tag.
      Don't think that this is owing to Apple's charitable nature. Apple can't make money selling development tools because there's much less market selling software for Apple platforms -- whatever they would be make would not be worth the cost of discouraging development for their platform. Note that Microsoft, in its kind benevolence, similarly distributes Internet Explorer free of charge to all who purchase Windows.

      Apple, like Microsoft, is as evil as it can be, but no eviler. Sorenson, price-gouging on a monopoly hardware platform, selling Netscape out to Microsoft in exchange for Office (and then bragging about Konqueror, my god!) -- Apple is not the moral corporation that the geek department of its PR strategy would have you believe. They just don't have as many monopoly advantages to exploit.
  34. RE: The other replies covered most points, but by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    please, tell me this? Why would you think "Slashdotters" wouldn't/shouldn't like Apple in the first place, considering the size and relative diversity of this "community"?

    The only machine I use anymore than runs Linux at all is my MythTV box in my home entertainment center, and I'm just about to can it (too much instability with my particular hardware configuration, and I lack time to fight with it any further right now). Nonetheless, I'm still pretty much a daily Slashdot reader.

    With your logic (Apple is not our friend, simply because they build/sell a proprietary product), absolutely none of us should ever tolerate a game console. Sega, X-Box, Playstation, GameCube... all the same. Evil, proprietary hardware and software bundled together in all of them!

    Considering my years and years of trying to run Linux, along with a long period of avidly using OS/2 Warp, a brief stint working with BeOS, and running pretty much every flavor of Windows (and DOS before that), I think I'm far from the stereotypical "Mac zealot" - yet I do own a total of 3 Macs now (one is an older beige G3 all-in-one, but it still runs!). I'd have to say my experience with the Macs and primarily OS X is more enjoyable overall than practically all the other operating systems I worked with. Sure, it's not "free software" and *far* from free/cheap hardware, but I feel like I got my money's worth.

    Linux was just the thing when I needed dedicated servers (web, ftp, etc.), but as a workstation, it's still lackluster for me. I have no problem paying out some money for a commercial (proprietary, even) product when it works as-advertised. Macs generally do.

  35. Re:ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have also have a very narrow vision of what I desire in a portable media player. I want a portable player that will play DVDs. It's what I use at home and it's what I want to use away from home. It is not too much to ask.

    Ask and ye shall receive! It turns out Apple makes a pretty sweet one of those, too. You can even run Linux on it, if you like.

  36. If only.. by sakusha · · Score: 1

    I notice it records 44.1 kHz uncompressed RAW, doesn't say how many bits, and it's only mono. If only the iPods could record CD quality stereo, it would be the ultimate concert bootleg tool. I suspect Apple deliberately built in this limitation, they knew someone would crack this device eventually.

    1. Re:If only.. by ksheff · · Score: 1

      You mean like a Neuros or the now EOL'ed Nomad Jukebox 3? I use a NJB3 and it's great!

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:If only.. by generic-man · · Score: 1

      No wireless. Less space than an iPod. Lame.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    3. Re:If only.. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      what's the point of crappy stereo? or stereo that would swing 180 randomly every now and then?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:If only.. by sakusha · · Score: 1

      No, you don't get it, just tape it to a wall up high where nobody will look for it, maybe use some black gaffer's tape so nobody notices it in the dark. Use an external mic with some foam padding for isolation from vibration if you want better quality.
      But it doesn't matter because the iPod can only capture mono. Hmm... maybe TWO iPods..

    5. Re:If only.. by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1

      I've got to agree with you that most mono bootlegs sound better, on headphones, than stereo ones.

      When I'm at a concert, it is generally loud enough, and the band is usually clumped togther enough, that I doubt I am getting any appreciable stereophonic effect anyways.

    6. Re:If only.. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      that's a bit more than just a regular unauthorized bootleg, and doable in just places where you got convinient access.. in which case you could just ask the mixer guy to record it for ya.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:If only.. by damiam · · Score: 1

      The iPod hardware can record at 96Khz; not sure how many bits (at least 16). There's a stereo line-in on the dock connector, so you could potentially get CD-quality recording out of it (though you'd have to hack up a cable). But I don't really see the use - if you're gonna carry around the mics and such to record a performance, a laptop doesn't seem like too much more to ask.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  37. Apple Insiders should help these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it would help these guy's out if an apple insider could help them out with figuring out the new hardware.

  38. My two cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read a lot of comments to this post that raise the question: "what's wrong with Apple being commercial?"

    In my view I'm not for Linux/OSS because I'm anti-commercial or anti-proprietary software. My concern is when my computing freedom and computing choices are at risk. The monopoly proprietary OS that Microsoft releases is a threat to genuine competition. Microsoft has vertical complete control over the software of PCs. If they want to destroy another company they can make a competing product and integrate it in their OS. Apple on the other hand while much smaller, has control over the hardware and the software. This makes me nervous. There is a theoretical threat to freedom here. Of course it's not a practical threat because Apple doesn't have the dominance that Microsoft does. I only wish people would have had the forsight to see Microsofts theoretical threat before it became a practical one.

    1. Re:My two cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where do you freedom people come from? Your "computing freedom?" OMG, is there a fuckin' Computer Bill of Rights somewhere I missed? It's a tool moron, a tool, a tool. Can I say it again. Your idiotic statement says just as much as if I'd say, damn that Stanley Tool Company, they're trashing my screwdriver freedom because the blade is flat and I wanted a round one and I can't change it... whaaaa! Fuckin' idiot, if you want a different computer, then buy one; if you want a different OS then use it; but don't force YOUR idea of what you like on the rest of us. I like MS/Apple for the generally reliable/compatible products they make. I can sit down at nearly any MS/Apple machine worldwide and find my way around and quickly become productive. That is not (yet) the case with Linux or other OSS software. But hey, I'm just an average user and not some "senior programmer" (ooooh, ahhhh) and computers are not my fuckin' religion.

      I think you need another layer of tinfoil for your hat.

  39. the unanswered question by the_non_geek · · Score: 1

    Why?

  40. osX only?!? where's the linux based installer? by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

    Their FAQ seems to be missing a serious question... Can I install this on my ipod without using a mac runnning osX? I'd be interested to check out their project, especially since a big drop fuxored my ipod hd requiring me to custom partition around the corruption in order to even use it as a small firewire drive. But, if I have to get access to somethign that boots osX just to install linux on my ipod I just don't think it's gonna happen. You'd think that they'd make the installer run under linux..

    --
    -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
  41. Recording audio and iPod-to-iPod sharing by Linuxathome · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Possible iPod-to-iPod file transfer. This is currently under development, and is very possible. Not only will the iPod be able to access other iPods, running Linux or not, but it will be able to read from and write to Firewire and USB 2.0 mass storage devices.


    Sounds like the iPod will trump the USB external master storage device that slashdot just recently mentioned to us. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to move media from a USB all-in-one media reader to the iPod directly without the need of a computer? You could be taking pictures with a 16megapixel Canon and not worry about storage space as long as you have your iPod around. I'm gonna keep my eye on the development of this program. On top of that, recording audio with the left earphone bud is also another cool feature.
    1. Re:Recording audio and iPod-to-iPod sharing by SplasPood · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, Belkin (I believe) already sells such a device... Its listed in the ipod accessories section of the apple website..

    2. Re:Recording audio and iPod-to-iPod sharing by aveng0 · · Score: 0

      Check out the IRiver H320... acts as an external usb mass storage device, and supports usb on-the-go.

      www.iriver.com
      www.misticriver.com

    3. Re:Recording audio and iPod-to-iPod sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On top of that, recording audio with the left earphone bud is also another cool feature.
      Because, you know, it's always important to hear what the inside of your left ear sounds like.
    4. Re:Recording audio and iPod-to-iPod sharing by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, what you are thinking of is the Belkin iPod Media Reader: back up digital images to your iPod, and take them with you on the road. Your iPod's abundant storage handles thousands of digital photos and frees up your camera's disk space so you can take more pictures. Simply connect the Belkin Media Reader to your iPod, and insert any of the six supported media types. Using software support that's already built into your iPod (with software version 2.1 or later), transfer the pictures quickly via FireWire technology and you're ready to start shooting again. When you get home, simply connect your iPod to your computer to retrieve the images.

      Doesn't support iPod Mini (only 4GB anyway.)

  42. Mac, Windows, Linux... by Otto · · Score: 1

    There's an easy to use installer for Mac and Windows. For Linux it's currently in the stage of "we assume you know what you're doing" sort of thing. Basically it's a simple as building a disk image with the right stuff and dd'ing it to the thing. I suggest reading the forums at the ipodlinux site.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Mac, Windows, Linux... by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      I made the mistake of looking for info on the sourceforge page linked in the headline. After locating the wiki I found all the info I needed... Too bad it won't work in my situation since the first 8 gigs of my hard drive won't read meaning the IPOD won't boot any OS from the HD since it's firmware tells it to start looking at the begining of the disk, nto the begining of the first partition... C'est La Vie

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
  43. The short version... by Otto · · Score: 4, Informative

    The short version of the state of iPodLinux: It does work, and shows a lot of potential, but it's not quite useful as the sole OS for your iPod yet.

    A lot of development has been focused on the eye candy. Games, interface, that sort of thing.

    What is really needed is some kernel and hardware hacker type guys who can get stuff working underneath all the interface and eye candy so as to make it actually useful for everyday use. Case in point: The iPod has a dual processor sort of thing. In the Apple firmware, the secondary processor is more or less devoted to audio decoding. That's not yet working on the iPodLinux kernel, instead the second processor is heavily underused and thus it's basically incapable of playing back high bitrate MP3s or AACs or things along those lines. Sorting that out would be a big step.

    Looks and such are easy to program (hard to get right, but easy to actually do). Getting the thing to live up to its maximum potential is the hard part.

    Help is gladly accepted, BTW. :)

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:The short version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of them (gasp!)

  44. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by momus_radar · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No it doesn't. I was about to buy one, but then I found out it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support.

    The iPod doesn't need to have Ogg support just because you want it to.

  45. Re:But... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    Where did all the demoscene coders go ? Did they all go out and get jobs ? Honestly, those guys could have the iPod playing .ogms with subs.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  46. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I'm a dirty hippie you insensitive clod.
    Ogg rules, too bad an ipod doesn't have the
    processing power to play them.

  47. Re: The other replies covered most points, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we are supposed to listen to a mac zealot ? I use linux everyday with nary a problem. I pick my hardware to match linux to avoid a lot of heartaches. I also use windows just about everyday with nary a problem, but only because I am a voracious updater/scanning/antivirus/firewall person. I don't use apples because they are overpriced and in general the user base is a bit snotty; although there are a few exceptions

  48. "it still runs" by bani · · Score: 1

    well I have a 386sx/25 from around 1989 - "it still runs", but I wouldnt exactly call that a major feature.

    G3 hardware is considerably more fragile than PC hardware and is lucky to still run after a few years?

    1. Re:"it still runs" by scottgfx · · Score: 1

      I have a G3 mini-tower system that "still runs". In fact it runs 24/7 every day. It's actually used as a file server and as a workstation, every day. So, what are you using those 386sx/25 systems for?

      --
      It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
  49. Re:But... by SlashdotMeNow · · Score: 0

    Ogg is for dirty hippies. This software was created by dirty hippies. Therefore, all dirty hippies like ogg. Simple logic, my friend.

    Haha! It's funny because it's true.
    No seriously, OGG falls under 'it ain't broke, don't fuck with it' department when compared to MP3. So OGG is slightly more efficient than MP3. So What. Nobody outside of the dirty hippy community gives a shit if their player supports OGG. Hell 95% of the general public have never even heard of OGG.

  50. Re:Price drop -1 TROLL by SlashdotMeNow · · Score: 1

    You, sir, are an idiot.

  51. LOL? by SlashdotMeNow · · Score: 1

    Slashdot readers using 7 year-old kiddie-txt shorthand? When did this happen?

    1. Re:LOL? by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Slashdot readers using 7 year-old kiddie-txt shorthand? When did this happen?

      lol omgwtf u meen u dont use this? rotflol u suxors bcuz evry1 talk liek this on teh internet.

      note: please don't hurt me for that.

  52. will it work with this notes 'programs'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone know if it will work with programs that use the notes feature? like this freeware bible for ipod

    pedro

  53. Re:My review by Irashtar · · Score: 0

    which part? the project? how usable it is? the Ipod itself? for me, ipod's are overhyped. If you want a good hard drive player compatable with linux, I recommend the iriver Ihp-100 series, or if you would like a color screen, Ihp-300 series. just plug them into your usb slot, and they appear as a new drive!

  54. Apple software flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no! Remember, in the Apple world, software only flows towards the Mac, not away from it. here it is in graphical form:

    Linux/OSS/GPL/etc ---> OS X

  55. So now I'm an abuser by Xenna · · Score: 1


    Slashdot Has Been Blocked Due To Abuse
    Donate
    The best way to show your appreciation for the project is to make a donation. Funds are used to purchase newer iPods for the development team to port linux onto. Your contributions will help expand ipodlinux onto Apple's latest innovations such as the iPod mini, the click wheel iPod (4th gen) and iPod photo.

    Please try again later.

    If your servers can't handle the load, say so.
    Don't accuse newssites and innocent surfers of being 'abusers'...

    1. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent? You clicked the link right? Your actions have reactions. Cause & effect and all that. I for one think it IS the fault of slashdot when they post links to personal webpages or other places without even going through the motions of asking for permission. I know if my personal page is ever slashdotted(god forbid slashdot starts covering marijuana law) and they fry my database in basically a DoS flood I will be suing them. And yes I already talked to my lawyer, he'll sue anything with money!

    2. Re:So now I'm an abuser by zpok · · Score: 0, Troll

      "If your servers can't handle the load, say so.
      Don't accuse newssites and innocent surfers of being 'abusers'..."

      Hi there,

      I love to pay for traffic of people who are too lame to link to the google cache.

      That's how I am. Not only do I work for free, I'm pleased to pay for everything people throw at my feet, including traffic.

      Thank you please, can I have some more?

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    3. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Xenna · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one who works for free here. Just host your stuff on sourceforge if you can't handle the attention. SF can handle slashdotting perfectly, that's why I hosted my own project there before it was 'slashdotted'. No problems, of course.

      Working for free is no excuse for being rude.

    4. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually we had to take this measure, because even tho that server runs on a dual xeon and is only dedicated to the ipodlinux.org site, httpd was using 340% CPU out of a possible of 400%, there was also about 10GB transfered in less than 1 hour.

      We hoste the site to support open source software, and we ask for nothing in return. What we did was so that we did not have to pay high bandwith costs for people who are to lazy to type in the URL, as it only blocks the slashdot referers.

      just my 'Server Admins's 2 cents.'

    5. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Synapsys · · Score: 1

      Fair enough too. Think about it, as good as publicity is for a project, running into huge bandwidth bills is not. Basically, this weeds out people just going to the site for a sticky beak. I'm sure if you all donated to the project, they would open the floodgates because they could afford the bill.

    6. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Xenna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What we did was so that we did not have to pay high bandwith costs for people who are to lazy to type in the URL, as it only blocks the slashdot referers.
      That must be our fundamental disagreement then. I happen to think clicking on links is normal behaviour on the web. I understand that you had to do something, but I'm offended when you start using the word 'abuse' when someone links to your site or just clicks on a links.

    7. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously then you have not been on the server side of a slashdotting.

    8. Re:So now I'm an abuser by zpok · · Score: 1

      What's rude about calling a spade a spade? You have a nice solution for your project, but that doesn't excuse linking directly to someone's homepage without asking if he can take the load. That's rude. The guy says so. You don't like it. No problem. But you're wrong to be offended. Or maybe needlessly sensitive.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
    9. Re:So now I'm an abuser by pherris · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Don't accuse newssites and innocent surfers of being 'abusers'...

      I really don't think they mean to label visitors as being "abusers". It seems more like a poorly worded statement written in great haste (no doubt as their server was smoking and their ISP was freaking out). The site is cohosted hosted with theplanet.com and I'm pretty sure ipodlinix.org will either have to pay for the extra bandwidth use caused by this /. article or atleast shut down for a while. Money I'm sure they don't have. To add insult to injury their front index page is dynamically generated via php causing an extra, much unneeded load on the server.

      Since /. is a commercial site and attempts to generate revenue from advertising IMO the responsible and moral thing to do would be to try to do something to minimize it's impact on smaller sites. Maybe offer to mirror the site for a few days. In short, is it fair for /. to make money for every page view while the FOSS project site in question loses what little money they have for every corresponding page view? IMO, no.

      /. atleast needs to think about warning sites that they will be "featured" in an article and offer to use a site caching service like Coral. Or warn the site to "Coralize" themselves quickly to minimize damage.

      --
      "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
    10. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Yosho · · Score: 1

      If your servers can't handle the load, say so.

      Do you honestly think that Slashdot would listen if they said they couldn't handle the load? I don't believe they ever have before. Slashdot doesn't care if it burns somebody's little web server to the ground -- the editors know that any site they link to will be ground to a halt, but they do it anyway, without asking for permission or linking to a cached page of it. That's why it's abuse.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    11. Re:So now I'm an abuser by Krojack · · Score: 1

      After reading all this I still don't see any reason to call it "abuse". Why not say it was takin down due to a /. article and to take bandwith cost and try back later?

      Its not like slashdot said "hey lets post an article and on this project and links to it to bring down the server and rack up bandwith cost for the person!"

  56. Re:But... by MrBlint · · Score: 1

    99% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

    --
    That's very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton and rather unexpected in a G Major
  57. Re:ebay by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    Maybe you're just trolling, but do you have any idea how many companies have been selling portable DVD players for several years now?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  58. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    The iPod doesn't need to have Ogg support just because you want it to.

    Which is exactly why this is a useful project.

    An OSS project like this is about being freed from Apple's self-interest.

    You are right, Apple doesn't need to provide Ogg support because they are doing fine without providing it.

    But if someone else wants Ogg support and is willing/capable of making it happen, they can.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  59. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

    What's your point?

    --
    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
  60. EULA? by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

    a EULA for hardware? I've never seen one of those before. All the hardware I've seen is intended to be purchased, not licensed.

    Also, EULAs are for End Users. Maybe Apple has some methods at its disposal to prevent third parties from writing alternative OS's, but those methods have nothing to do with any EULAs.

    --

    Don't you hate meta-sigs?
  61. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hehe apples self interest ? most consumers wouldn't know what the fuck ogg vorbis is , let alone care that they can't play it.

  62. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by Hackeron · · Score: 1

    OGG is gaining popularity very quickly. Have a search on $YOUR_FAVORITE_P2P_NETWORK for ogg, and have a look how many people care about it.

    In comparison to wma, even musepack is more widely used. Ogg is easily the second most popular codec after mp3, beating aac in popularity on the typical desktop.

    Apple *needs* ogg support to satisfy those people and for the record flac as well. The Karma has flac support as well as ogg, so I know what I and pretty much anyone who cares about sound quality will be getting.

  63. Your sig makes no sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822.3.

    ----

    Your joking right. Yoda seems more acurate.

  64. iPodLinux Project Site by reclusivemonkey · · Score: 1

    They can't have a very high opinion of slashdot readers... slashdot referrals are blocked! Mind you they can't be far off; the site is still up so it seems to be thwarting enough of us ;-)

  65. Evil sig alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent down for evil sig.

    It's nothing more than an wailed pyramid scheme with evil info gathering goals.

  66. Why? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Yes, its been asked several times but I still don't see a good answer beyond ' its cool ', or ' because we can'.

    With the site being pounded into oblivion at the moment, what is the PRACTICAL reason for this?

    What does it get me? New formats? ( I only use MP3 format now.. ) Better interface? ( that would be a hard one to accomplish )

    If you tell me its going to 'make it into a real computer', then no thanks.. my PDA does that now and has INPUT ....

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. OT: I like cheese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do like cheese.

  69. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    hehe apples self interest ? most consumers wouldn't know what the fuck ogg vorbis is , let alone care that they can't play it.

    That is not what this is about.

    It is about the people who do know what the fuck ogg vorbis is, and want it on their iPod. Instead of whining about it, they are hacking away so that they can have it.

    Apple doesn't give a shit about ogg, that's what I meant about Apple's self interest - if they needed ogg to sell more, they would include it. They don't, so they don't include it.

    Oh wait, I forgot that I'm not supposed to feed the trolls....

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  70. A better idea: booting linux off an iPod by zapp · · Score: 1

    We at Terra Soft (Yellow Dog Linux, Y-HPC) have managed to get our OS booting off an iPod connected as a firewire drive. We plan to sell them someday... we just haven't gotten around to it.

    It's great, cuz you don't have to mess with your internal hard drive to try Linux.

    --
    no comment
  71. Re:it doesn't have Ogg Vorbis support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple will announce FLAC and OGG playback for both iTunes and iPods at MWSF on 1/11.

  72. Makes me wish by piznut · · Score: 1

    ...that I knew enough about programming in linux to create some nice DJ tools for the iPod, and/or had the time to learn it. Nothing super fancy but a "press the middle button to the beat" BPM calculator, live queuing and some sort of pitch/tempo control. Two of those hooked up to a mixer and BLAM.

    Im sort of disappointed that Apple didn't add some more dj-friendly features but then I guess dj's arent really the target market.

  73. Re:ebay by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    You misunderstand... I see DVD-video players often. I see portable CD-players often... and portable cd-mp3 players often. I have not seen portable audio disc players that read DVDs. I.e. a portable DVD player with no video screen.

    I have seen car DVD decks that can do DVD but I'm not sure how well you can operate them without an external screen.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  74. Nobody's going to put X on an iPod by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 1

    OK, I guess it's theoretically possible, but iPodLinux uses the Linux framebuffer device, which the free BSD unixes do not have.

  75. It's ucLinux, not Linux proper by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ucLinux (microLinux) is a version of Linux designed specifically for embedded applications. Linux is pretty light-weight anyway, but ucLinux can run on a 286. What would you recommend as free alternative? There aren't many, and kernel performance seems to be perfectly sufficient here. (Note that the machine sports a corpulent 32MB of RAM).

  76. Re: The other replies covered most points, but by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 1
    please, tell me this? Why would you think "Slashdotters" wouldn't/shouldn't like Apple in the first place, considering the size and relative diversity of this "community"?

    Almost nobody who understands the business model of a proprietary software vendor (e.g., Microsoft) considers this model to be anything but evil -- the exceptions are mostly neo-liberal assholes*. Slashdot is special in that a good portion of its denizens do understand this business model (a small but influential portion). This is ironic because Slashdot's business model is not dissimilar, at least in terms of economics, but Slashdot is not comparable for other reasons.

    Apple's business model is not less evil than Microsoft's, but they do less evil because they have less power. They also produce a far superior product, and this is why slashdotters, capable of recognizing it, flock to them. However, making a superior product does not excuse evil. Your argument is therefore entirely moot. Microsoft's product is only getting better, and I think it is reasonable to expect it to be the technical equal of GNU/Linux within the next few years. They will still be evil, though, and not worthy of support. Buying from Microsoft -- or even Apple -- is like crossing a picket line. Viewed in isolation, it's a fair trade, labor for wages, money for software. Viewed from a global perspective, it only gives power to a group that will use it for exploitation -- including the exploitation of the individual who believes he benefits. Thus, even if Apple or Microsoft produces a superior product, and even if you apparently benefit from buying it, in the end you detriment the world of software users as a whole.

    Now I will be concrete. It is because of people like you that I cannot play quicktime movies. Cut it out, jerkface.

    * Not all neo-liberals are assholes, and not all neo-liberal assholes are pro-Microsoft. But all pro-Microsoft neo-liberals are assholes.

  77. RE: "evilness" of the MS/Apple business model? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Ok, I follow your logic - but I vehemently disagree with it!

    I suppose we'll have to simply agree to disagree here -- but IMHO, the lifeblood of our nation's economic system DEMANDS that people building superior products (and offering superior services) be free to earn as much money as they can make. (That includes the consumer feeling free to spend his/her money on said products and services.)

    By buying and benefiting from the products companies like Apple (or even Microsoft) build and sell, I'm hardly causing "detriment" to the world of software users as a whole. Au contraire, I'm helping a LARGE number of people retain gainful employment in the field of software development and hardware design!

    I fully agree that large companies (Microsoft being one of the top offenders) often end up making less than ethical business decisions. The right way for a "free country" to handle this is to address the specific issues, without tossing out the "baby with the bathwater". Microsft deserves legal punishment for specific laws they break, when and if they break them. Same goes for Apple or anyone else. That doesn't mean consumers should feel "guilty" for buying their products. Several of my personal friends held jobs at Microsoft, including one guy who raised and supported his entire family by helping write software for them. I fail to see what's so inherently "evil" about that!

  78. Re: "evilness" of the MS/Apple business model? by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 1
    I suppose we'll have to simply agree to disagree here -- but IMHO, the lifeblood of our nation's economic system DEMANDS that people building superior products (and offering superior services) be free to earn as much money as they can make. (That includes the consumer feeling free to spend his/her money on said products and services.)
    You have completely missed the point. If slaves are used to manufacture a superior product, its superiority does not make its means of manufacture less exploitative.

    A capitalist economy is built around the premise of competition. Apple's business strategy is fundamentally at odds with this economic model -- their strategy is based to the core around monopoly. This monopoly is not complete, but that only means it is less successfully exploitative -- not less exploitative.

    Apple hardware does not need to be superior to succeed -- in fact, in terms of price performance it is massively inferior. It succeeds owing to monopoly. Our economic system would collapse if all industries supported the type of monopoly tactics that are available to proprietary software vendors. (The retail market is open to similar exploitation, and the results are becoming progressively more devastating).

    I fully agree that large companies (Microsoft being one of the top offenders) often end up making less than ethical business decisions.
    This is not a matter of business decisions or even strategy, but of the fundamental business model. Apple makes money by using software to create a hardware monopoly. That is their business model. Without the hardware monopoly, they could not be profitable.
    The right way for a "free country" to handle this is to address the specific issues, without tossing out the "baby with the bathwater". Microsft deserves legal punishment for specific laws they break, when and if they break them. Same goes for Apple or anyone else.
    They aren't breaking the law. However, there is absolutely no reason, in a free market, to allow certain corporations to withhold the information necessary to allow any competing products to be created. Doing so allows them to make more money, but at the expense of everything that is good about a free market.

    If I wanted to invest $10M into making a much-improved version of Mac OS X, or Windows XP, this would simply be illegal. Meanwhile, Apple and Microsoft, respectively, are free to do such things. This is not free competition in any meaningful sense. The consumer does not have a free choice of who will patch bugs in his operating system, etc. This is not a free market.

    Free markets work for commodities. Free markets don't work for monopolies, because in a monopoly there is no market -- there is one supplier. Allowing this one supplier to be free does not provide any of the benefits of allowing an entire market of suppliers to be free.

    That doesn't mean consumers should feel "guilty" for buying their products. Several of my personal friends held jobs at Microsoft, including one guy who raised and supported his entire family by helping write software for them. I fail to see what's so inherently "evil" about that!
    That can be said about any corporation, any government, or any army.
  79. Re:Really? by damiam · · Score: 1
    No and no. iPod Linux is not a viable replacement for the Apple software even if you stick to MP3s - playback skips occasionally, and you can only play one song at a time (no albums or playlists). Neither Ogg nor FLAC decoding is close to realtime yet (although they will be supported eventually; the iPod chip has the power). Battery life is terrible (no one's really worked on buffering from the HD), and it doesn't yet run on 4th generation iPods (so it won't work with any iPod currently being sold).

    It's a great achievement, and fun to play with, but it's not quite there yet. Maybe in a few months.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  80. Re: "evilness" of the MS/Apple business model? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    No, I don't think I really did "entirely miss the point". I still beg to differ.

    While you couldn't just "invest $10M into making a much-improved version of Mac OS X or Windows XP" - you're entirely free to invest that money in development of a *competing OS* that runs on the same hardware. That's exactly what "free competition" is all about! There was a time, not all that long ago, when IBM held "all the cards" for computer operating systems, and Microsoft was the "little guy" building an alternative. In the computer industry, there appears to only really be room for one or two "top dogs" at a time. (Probably becausse most people value interoperability/compatibility very highly.) If you build the "favorite OS" and achieve market dominance, you'll get to keep it for a while - until someone can truly build the "better mousetrap" and unseat you. I'm convinced that OS/2 could have unseated Windows and taken that market back over if IBM put a little more money and focus towards it. I'm also convinced that Linux isn't destined to unseat Windows any time in the forseeable future, because its greatest strengths lie more in the "server side" than the "workstation side" of things. (If anything, it'll eventually swallow up Novell Netware though.)

    The popular statement that Apple's or Microsoft's business model is about being a "monopoly" seems flawed to me, really. They're both doing what all companies want to do; grow as big and popular as possible. When you build PC hardware and/or software, that often means keeping a tight rein on code changes/fixes. If they let just anyone have the source code and apply patches, the product might become more solid/stable - but it'd open up a whole can of worms about receiving payment for their work. (Imagine all the lawsuits from folks claiming MS or Apple owed them some portion of profit on future sales, because they benefited from their patch or rewrite of part of the code.)

    Finally, I still say I see more benefits a corp. like Microsoft brings than negatives. (I fully understand it also has negatives... but we're talking about weighing the plusses and minueses here.) The jobs they create, both directly and indirectly ... the money donated to charitable causes by Bill and Melinda Gates .... even the mere fact that they push others to do better... (Say what you like about their products, but I still find it "interesting" that so much effort and interest was generated in the Linux community over finding a way to make a satisfactory "clone/work-alike" of Outlook, and to achieve inter-operability with Microsoft Exchange server. If the MS product was so "evil" or even "poor quality", why try so hard to clone it or work along-side of it?)

  81. Re: Ogg Vorbis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you silly open-source devotées. Open source doesn't make it good. AAC outperforms Ogg, and is available for any system that iTunes and iPod work with. Not to mention, the likelihood of finding an Ogg player anywhere but your machine is woefully small.

  82. Cool but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does it run Linux - oh wait...