UNIX = Commercial way of thinking and doing business from a software standpoint, extended to the hardware aspect (by tieing the commercial, closed software to certain hardware). The old way, it is no doubt dying.
Unix started as a way to run a non-vender-supported OS on cheap PDP-11s. Unix eventually became highly commercialized and proprietized, but it started life as a hobbyist project (of sorts).
We tested Karma with Vorbis bitrates up to 256Kbits/s VBR. Anyone using Vorbis at higher bitrates than that should IMO be using Flac.
Is the Karma likely to handle anything above 256kbit/s or will that cause it grief? I doubt anything in my collecion is encoded that high, but I'll need to run ogginfo over it to be sure.
And, as long as I'm pestering a Rio employee, how is the ethernet support going to work? Will it be something simple like FTPing tunes onto the device or will extra software be required? (preferably not Windows-only)
Agreed that the support is less than 100%. This wouldn't be a problem if bitpeeling were available, but no one on the Vorbis team seems willing to take on that project.
Vorbis bitrate peeling seems to be an April Fools joke that's gotten way out of hand. The idea is apparently interesting, but the Vorbis format just isn't well suited to being "peeled" to lower bitrates, and so nobody is working to make it a reality:(
Sadly the Vorbis support in Neuros is very much still in beta, and completely unlistenable on any tunes above quality "5". Unfortunately, this covers nearly all my Vorbis collection and so the wait for a finalized firmware update is frustrating. I hope Neuros will get that firmware finished and add some FLAC support in the process (which should be considerably easier than Vorbis, since FLAC is all integer-ops already).
If this new Karma player can handle all the Vorbis quality rates and FLAC - out of the box - I'll be picking one up.
Of course, Ogg is good for Sonic|BLUE since they don't have to liscense an MPEG decoder for each player they sell, correct?
All their players still have mp3 support, so some sort of MPEG decoding license is necessary. But the Vorbis support costs them nothing extra in licensing.
I mean come on. You can't be sued for implementing something , distributing it, have the other company KNOW that its in there, and never say a word until it wants to.
Unlike trademarks, which have to be vigorously defended, a patent holder can decide to sue or not to sue at any time without risk of losing the patent. But patents don't last for twenty years, last I checked - unless SCO didn't mean two *whole* decades, which would be a bit odd.
But IBM can steamroller SCO with patents any time they like, even if they've seen such infringing code and let it slide in the past.
Anyhting having to do with USB or Firewire support
Interesting. My USB keyboard, mouse, game controller, printer, scanner, hubs and external hard drives all run just fine - with little or no effort required - on a RH9 box. Could you be a bit more specific about what's annoying you?
IBM isn't moving away from the Linux kernel, because the Linux kernel is our best bet for a non-proprietary Unix-like OS on both commodity x86 boxes all the way up to big iron servers. And the Linux kernel isn't moving away from GPL, because most of the code isn't IBM's.
If SCO doesn't like that arrangement, tough. Most (all?) of the Linux kernel isn't theirs. And if any is, it'll be replaced once SCO's extortion scheme is dealt with. The license is what makes Linux work, because contributions to it remain non-proprietary. It isn't going away, but SCO is.
which means a team of highly paid attorneys will argue the viability of GPL. If this makes it to court, then GPL will have its test.
If the GPL isn't a viable license (for reasons I cannot fathom, since the copyright holder gets to determine the conditions of its copying), ownership of the code reverts to the original copyright holders. This means SCO would still have no legal right to charge money for the Linux kernel since most (all?) of the code isn't theirs to sell.
what I am wondering is if all of the people who have contributed to the kernel code can sue SCO for not following the GPL in its distribution of Linux? There's a lot more non-SCO code in the kernel than SCO-code, I am sure.
My Ask Slashdot regarding this exact same issue was rejected this morning. In short, SCO is trying to require a license for code they have no rights to (i.e. all the kernel code other than SCO's). If they want to distribute a binary-only Linux kernel, they'll have to remove all the GPLed parts of it first. Anything else is using copyrighted code without permission. I don't think a class-action suit is out of the question.
In short, SCO's copyright isn't any more important than any of the other kernel developers.
Emminent Domain also requires the government to compensate the individual/goup from which they seize the property...
Linus Torvalds and most of the kernel developers clearly believe their work should be available free-of-charge to those that want it. If the government wants to claim emminent domain, I'm sure everyone but SCO would be happy if they'd simply honor the existing GPL license.
CTO: OK then, when you find someone willing to defend us legally for our technical decisions, remove linux from all corporate machines.
I hear Red Hat has set up a defense fund for such a purpose. And Red Hat is much larger than SCO is by a considerable margin. But if your company wants to dink around and waste time and money changing OSes without the slightest shred of evidence, you have my sympathies.
I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.
Prepare for a long winded fight in which SCO will do ANYTHING in it's power to smear Red Hat.
In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....
In this case, countersuing looks better to the consumer than simply allowing SCO's original claims to go largely uncontested in the court of public opinion. It might cost cash, but so does advertising. And in this case, both expenses accomplish largely the same purpose. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.
Well, since all this only seems to affect only the people and companies who have commercial interests in Linux, I say let them foot the bill.
This suit started as a contract dispute with IBM and has since escalated to ridiculous proportions. SCO has hinted that no OS with even the most remote Unix ties will be exempt from their legal flailing. So unless you're running Unixware or are willing to tithe to SCO, expect to be next.
What about the Neuros' built-in low-power FM transmitting capability? Are those illegal to use in the UK also? It all seems a bit excessive to me, considering the tiny range.
Actually, the Gamecube is doing better than the X-Box is now - due in no small part to its price and improving software selection. So doing "no so well" is all relative, really. But Sony is making a killing with the Playstation 2 in no small part to its ability to leverage the large, pre-existing Playstation 1 software selection. And, because Nintendo can leverage the old Gameboy software selection, the Gameboy Advance is a success for much the same reason.
Sony won't have any handheld market to leverage to try and tackle the GBA. This will be quite a disadvantage, especially when one considers the GBA is outselling the PS2 and has all the momemtum on its side. The "all in one" aspect of Sony's portable might help it somewhat, but I don't think it'll be able to leverage the user's existing media (DVD/CD/etc.) collection either - which cancels out those advantages.
I don't see battery life listed in the specs. If the rechargable battery only lasts a few hours, this simply isn't going anywhere. And I'm not hopeful this will have much due to the spinning disc media and the sheer volume of chips. Despite technical superiority, the Lynx, TG-Express, Game Gear, Nomad have all had a good library of titles (the Nomad, in particular, had the entire Genesis library at its disposal) but none could match the Gameboy's battery life or portability. And, in the end, all faded quickly from the market.
Perhaps Sony can pull of a miracle and make this thing successful, but I think it'll be too much, too soon, for too much money and without enough software to challenge the GBA's expanding library.
I've been told Python does everything Java does and better.
Whats to believe?
Python can do everything Java can do (Turing-completeness, and all that) but better is far too subjective a claim. Python is a higher level language than Java is and offers more powerful language constructs. But, Java's current implementation tends to run faster than Python's for much the same reason. Python offers scores of standard libraries to perform useful tasks, but those libaries tend toward one-off minialism. Java also offers scores of standard libararies, but Java's take a "implement everything and the kitchen sink" approach.
Btw, why does this test compare only proprietary formats and not free (as speech) formats like Ogg Vorbis or FLAC ?
What would be the point of a FLAC listening test? The only thing it would do is give us the opportunity to pummel any "expert" who says it sounds different from the original.
Since this test is only for different AAC encoders, any Vorbis comparison will be the subject for a different test.
How come no one saw this coming? The mixing of GPL and proprietary code, open source or not is bound to cause problems. Looks as if people like Red Hat and Debian had it right all along in trying to keep all non-GPL or LGPL code out of the main distribution.
The problem is, SCO isn't telling what code is tainted, or how. If SCO actually wanted Linux users to stop infringing on the use of this hypothetical code, they would tell us what it is so that we could remove it. But that's not what SCO wants; instead, it's in their best interests to spread FUD and extort what money they can from IBM and anyone else who's willing to pay.
There isn't any proprietary code in the Linux kernel. Anything that goes in it is owned by the copyright holder and released under the GPL. If IBM put violated some license agreement with SCO and put code in the kernel that doesn't belong (highly unlikely indeed), SCO's suit is against IBM for whatever damages that releasing such code is worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Unix started as a way to run a non-vender-supported OS on cheap PDP-11s. Unix eventually became highly commercialized and proprietized, but it started life as a hobbyist project (of sorts).
...here. It features a web server and Java applet for tune addition (along with other methods) - looks extremely cool.
Is the Karma likely to handle anything above 256kbit/s or will that cause it grief? I doubt anything in my collecion is encoded that high, but I'll need to run ogginfo over it to be sure.
And, as long as I'm pestering a Rio employee, how is the ethernet support going to work? Will it be something simple like FTPing tunes onto the device or will extra software be required? (preferably not Windows-only)
I'm really starting to want one now...
Vorbis bitrate peeling seems to be an April Fools joke that's gotten way out of hand. The idea is apparently interesting, but the Vorbis format just isn't well suited to being "peeled" to lower bitrates, and so nobody is working to make it a reality :(
Then encode to FLAC, which this new player also supports. FLAC is CD quality (completely lossless) at half the space and is a completely open format.
If this new Karma player can handle all the Vorbis quality rates and FLAC - out of the box - I'll be picking one up.
Unlike trademarks, which have to be vigorously defended, a patent holder can decide to sue or not to sue at any time without risk of losing the patent. But patents don't last for twenty years, last I checked - unless SCO didn't mean two *whole* decades, which would be a bit odd.
But IBM can steamroller SCO with patents any time they like, even if they've seen such infringing code and let it slide in the past.
If SCO doesn't like that arrangement, tough. Most (all?) of the Linux kernel isn't theirs. And if any is, it'll be replaced once SCO's extortion scheme is dealt with. The license is what makes Linux work, because contributions to it remain non-proprietary. It isn't going away, but SCO is.
If the GPL isn't a viable license (for reasons I cannot fathom, since the copyright holder gets to determine the conditions of its copying), ownership of the code reverts to the original copyright holders. This means SCO would still have no legal right to charge money for the Linux kernel since most (all?) of the code isn't theirs to sell.
My Ask Slashdot regarding this exact same issue was rejected this morning. In short, SCO is trying to require a license for code they have no rights to (i.e. all the kernel code other than SCO's). If they want to distribute a binary-only Linux kernel, they'll have to remove all the GPLed parts of it first. Anything else is using copyrighted code without permission. I don't think a class-action suit is out of the question.
In short, SCO's copyright isn't any more important than any of the other kernel developers.
Linus Torvalds and most of the kernel developers clearly believe their work should be available free-of-charge to those that want it. If the government wants to claim emminent domain, I'm sure everyone but SCO would be happy if they'd simply honor the existing GPL license.
Don't forget PSpice.
I hear Red Hat has set up a defense fund for such a purpose. And Red Hat is much larger than SCO is by a considerable margin. But if your company wants to dink around and waste time and money changing OSes without the slightest shred of evidence, you have my sympathies.
In this case, countersuing looks better to the consumer than simply allowing SCO's original claims to go largely uncontested in the court of public opinion. It might cost cash, but so does advertising. And in this case, both expenses accomplish largely the same purpose. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.
This suit started as a contract dispute with IBM and has since escalated to ridiculous proportions. SCO has hinted that no OS with even the most remote Unix ties will be exempt from their legal flailing. So unless you're running Unixware or are willing to tithe to SCO, expect to be next.
What about the Neuros' built-in low-power FM transmitting capability? Are those illegal to use in the UK also? It all seems a bit excessive to me, considering the tiny range.
Sony won't have any handheld market to leverage to try and tackle the GBA. This will be quite a disadvantage, especially when one considers the GBA is outselling the PS2 and has all the momemtum on its side. The "all in one" aspect of Sony's portable might help it somewhat, but I don't think it'll be able to leverage the user's existing media (DVD/CD/etc.) collection either - which cancels out those advantages.
Sony has an uphill battle ahead of them, I think.
Perhaps Sony can pull of a miracle and make this thing successful, but I think it'll be too much, too soon, for too much money and without enough software to challenge the GBA's expanding library.
Which is better depends on what you need.
What would be the point of a FLAC listening test? The only thing it would do is give us the opportunity to pummel any "expert" who says it sounds different from the original.
Since this test is only for different AAC encoders, any Vorbis comparison will be the subject for a different test.
The problem is, SCO isn't telling what code is tainted, or how. If SCO actually wanted Linux users to stop infringing on the use of this hypothetical code, they would tell us what it is so that we could remove it. But that's not what SCO wants; instead, it's in their best interests to spread FUD and extort what money they can from IBM and anyone else who's willing to pay.
There isn't any proprietary code in the Linux kernel. Anything that goes in it is owned by the copyright holder and released under the GPL. If IBM put violated some license agreement with SCO and put code in the kernel that doesn't belong (highly unlikely indeed), SCO's suit is against IBM for whatever damages that releasing such code is worth.
man xwd
It's not a well-advertised little tool, but it does the job of taking screenshots nicely. As for Gnome, I never use it so I can't answer that one.