So was I, the previous chips and drivers used that HAL to prevent out of spec tuning of the software radio i believe, so are they doing this in hardware now?
No firmware, no HAL, open driver. Either they can't be tuned out of spec by software, or they are hard locked at manufacture time.
BCM supports linux for other chipsets directly, go look on their website they provide GPL'd drivers for a bunch of stuff, just not the BCM94311 cores for some reason, probably licensing.
iPods are non-live content devices, and a good amount of the content available on satellite radio is likely not available for download freely anyway. So as a content delivery model they couldn't be more different.
In other words, you expand the definition of alternative that wide and anything that makes sound counts.
I don't care if they are profitable or not, if no one really wants satellite radio service it should die. Simply joining 2 failed companies isn't going to magically make people want the service.
Monopolies are relevant for discussion within a market, and satellite radio is a market distinct from other audio formats, so yes this is a 100% monopoly. Simply because buyers can find other things to listen to doesn't mean this isn't a monopoly or that the impact on consumers won't matter if they merge. Your argument amounts to "no one really wants this market anyway so why don't we let one company have the entire thing, you won't even notice, you can still buy iPods!"
Sally has 6 slices of bread, 12 pieces of ham and 6 pieces of cheese. How many sammiches can sally make before the man of the house gets home from work?
I don't really like what Apple is doing, i think its unnecessary given their state purpose (malware). However, you are looking at things different than i do. To me the software source code is the most important thing. As long as I still have the source, can modify it (no EULA), can redistribute it including my modifications, then all my freedoms are intact.
Of course if Apple decides that distributing source code with calls to the API on the iPhone to be in violation of some NDA, then there is a clear conflict there, but i don't think the modify in place stuff is a real conflict until you get into GPLv3 stuff, which will likely never happen just like it won't happen with Tivo, they'll just avoid v3 software.
I like how whenever the discussion of open source comes up, someone always tries to slip in "freedom to modify in place" as one of the rights you have with free software, that link up top about the SDK being incompatible with the GPL even links here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
in an attempt to say that freedom to modify in place is one of the four freedoms, and it isn't.
"Thus you could in theory place your work under GPLv2, as long as it was either entirely original or derived only from code licensed under GPLv2 and earlier. But the result still would not qualify as free software, since no one could alter your source code and run the modified result on their phone."
The link they provide to the FSF doesn't even remotely say that, it talks about being able to see, modify, and distribute the source. Code signing doesn't threaten any of those rights, if you don't want to use the software on such a locked down device, don't buy one, and don't use it. You still have the software and the freedom to use it anywhere else you want.
I like how you assume Apple is losing massive sales, because clearly the entire market thinks like you do and has refused to buy a mac because of the things you stated.
That chip is the SMC, the only thing they do is grab an encryption key out of the chip and use it to decrypt protected binaries. The key can be read out by some simple code, its not even protected.
Thats a low standard for things, if we are reducing everything to "need" then lots of things can go.
In any case 'pretty pictures' is a perfectly valid reason even though there are other more important uses of the framebuffer. You can trivialize it if you like but the fact remains, the hardware supports framebuffers, so should the driver.
Slashdot Mirror
I know why it's done and i have no problem with it actually. I'm just curious why its no longer an issue anymore with the 802.11n chips Atheros makes.
So was I, the previous chips and drivers used that HAL to prevent out of spec tuning of the software radio i believe, so are they doing this in hardware now?
No firmware, no HAL, open driver. Either they can't be tuned out of spec by software, or they are hard locked at manufacture time.
BCM supports linux for other chipsets directly, go look on their website they provide GPL'd drivers for a bunch of stuff, just not the BCM94311 cores for some reason, probably licensing.
iPods are non-live content devices, and a good amount of the content available on satellite radio is likely not available for download freely anyway. So as a content delivery model they couldn't be more different.
In other words, you expand the definition of alternative that wide and anything that makes sound counts.
I don't care if they are profitable or not, if no one really wants satellite radio service it should die. Simply joining 2 failed companies isn't going to magically make people want the service.
I love when children get on Slashdot. Thanks so much for that.
Monopolies are relevant for discussion within a market, and satellite radio is a market distinct from other audio formats, so yes this is a 100% monopoly. Simply because buyers can find other things to listen to doesn't mean this isn't a monopoly or that the impact on consumers won't matter if they merge. Your argument amounts to "no one really wants this market anyway so why don't we let one company have the entire thing, you won't even notice, you can still buy iPods!"
Everyone knows Anonymous Coward is male, so, no points for you Mr Coward.
Out with those servers for my machines then....
Bigot eh....
Sally has 6 slices of bread, 12 pieces of ham and 6 pieces of cheese. How many sammiches can sally make before the man of the house gets home from work?
And soon, Tivo subscribers as well.
No, i want the entire pie and will picket your house until you produce the missing piece.
I can wait all day folks....
I don't really like what Apple is doing, i think its unnecessary given their state purpose (malware). However, you are looking at things different than i do. To me the software source code is the most important thing. As long as I still have the source, can modify it (no EULA), can redistribute it including my modifications, then all my freedoms are intact.
Of course if Apple decides that distributing source code with calls to the API on the iPhone to be in violation of some NDA, then there is a clear conflict there, but i don't think the modify in place stuff is a real conflict until you get into GPLv3 stuff, which will likely never happen just like it won't happen with Tivo, they'll just avoid v3 software.
I like how whenever the discussion of open source comes up, someone always tries to slip in "freedom to modify in place" as one of the rights you have with free software, that link up top about the SDK being incompatible with the GPL even links here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
in an attempt to say that freedom to modify in place is one of the four freedoms, and it isn't.
"Thus you could in theory place your work under GPLv2, as long as it was either entirely original or derived only from code licensed under GPLv2 and earlier. But the result still would not qualify as free software, since no one could alter your source code and run the modified result on their phone."
The link they provide to the FSF doesn't even remotely say that, it talks about being able to see, modify, and distribute the source. Code signing doesn't threaten any of those rights, if you don't want to use the software on such a locked down device, don't buy one, and don't use it. You still have the software and the freedom to use it anywhere else you want.
OEMs already modify Windows after installation, they put all sorts of crapware on the machine that significantly alters the way it functions.
I like how you assume Apple is losing massive sales, because clearly the entire market thinks like you do and has refused to buy a mac because of the things you stated.
Apple is going to argue that the retail copies are upgrades that cannot be used without a full license, which only comes with their hardware.
That chip is the SMC, the only thing they do is grab an encryption key out of the chip and use it to decrypt protected binaries. The key can be read out by some simple code, its not even protected.
Yea, well MY other box is in moms basement. It is totally immune to your "real world" problems.
Thats a low standard for things, if we are reducing everything to "need" then lots of things can go.
In any case 'pretty pictures' is a perfectly valid reason even though there are other more important uses of the framebuffer. You can trivialize it if you like but the fact remains, the hardware supports framebuffers, so should the driver.
greatgreat
No but he can run lin....ah fuck it
"one and only source of revenue."
Other than advertisers and crapware?
"Anyway, does anyone have suggestions of good places to get pre-built PCs without supporting this kind of anti-consumer behavior?"
I hate to be "that guy" but, maybe Apple? I haven't ever tried on my Mini so I don't know if there is a way to record the mixer output.
The U.S government executive branch would disagree, they like reinterpreting laws to fit their goals.
The majority of the people don't understand the subject, for that matter neither do the legislators.
That holds true for drug laws as well btw.
Morally, and in the upper arms.