I visited Rio de Janerio, Brazil, and the cost of a nice restaurant meal is about 1/3 what it is in the US, with most other costs I noticed scaled similarly.
On the whole, if I could earn even half what I do in the US, I'd be much better off in Rio. And there are still fine restaurants, great shopping, wonderful ocean views, etc.
When I did a search for "Kung Pao Chicken" (with the quotes), nine out of the top ten search results were recipes.
The odd man out was a reference to a movie of that name.
I tried a couple more dishes and for some reason all of them came out with recipes. Then I tried some super-obscure things like "Fong Wong Chicken" and "Subgum Fried Wonton". I got a recipe for Fong Wong on the top, followed by a couple of menus. For Subgum Fried Wonton, I got two menus, no recipes and no other results.
I was hoping to say that searching for
dishname recipe
i.e.
"fong wong chicken" recipe
would have fixed your problem.
I know that searching for
jvc hd10
gives me lots of places to buy the JVC HD10 (JVC's flawed but interesting attempt at prosumer high definition), while searching for
jvc hd10 review
gives me a nice selection of reviews of the camera.
So just making your search a little more specific tends to fix the problem.
Either you're a troll, or something's wrong with your system.
I've passed gigabytes from my PowerBook G4/1ghz to my LaCie 200gb FireWire drive in less time than that, and generally I've found performance of internal drives is much better than external.
I would bring your system to an Apple Store and ask the Genius Bar people to take a look at it.
That being said, in my experience, the speed of a Mac isn't much different from PC speed one way or the other, and the aesthetics are a great deal more attractive. I find it more enjoyable to use a Mac, and that pretty much closes off debate for me.
The most important thing is that Final Cut is a much better designed application. There are about 50 different ways to do anything, it's extremely flexible, and the keyboard shortcuts make it easy to get work done.
As I remember, Premiere has better titling, but Final Cut has an extensive colour correction system that I believe is included in FCE.
But the most important thing is simply a far superior design and user interface, something even Premiere's defender (see his message) will admit.
I have never heard anyone defend Premiere before as anything other than awful. I tried it, briefly, and quickly realized that any other video editing program had to be loads better.
I thought you could do all the layering you would ever want on FCP. From version 1, FCP had "segments", sort of like subroutines of video that you'd already edited. You can easily prepare and combine in any way you wanted with other segments, which is an enormously powerful feature that was only added to Premiere with the advent of Premiere Pro (this new Windows-only version).
FCP also has extensive keyboard shortcuts that make you a lot more efficient. Again, Premiere Pro brags about this, but FCP did it first.
Could you give an illustration on something you could do in Premiere that you couldn't do in FCP?
I know you can do wonderful things in After Effects, although it's about as fast as a drugged slug. But Premiere? You've roused my curiosity:-).
There's only one catch to your argument: Unlike Photoshop and After Effects, Premiere was hopelessly bad compared to Final Cut Pro.
Premiere's creators were interviewed at Digital Video Editing.com. I can't link easily to the article since DVE is using frames heavily, but go to the page and read part 1 of the interview. They use corpspeak and evasiveness where they can, but there's no question they were very much aware that Premiere was horribly inferior to Final Cut, in feature set, user interface and pretty much everything else.
The situation with Photoshop and After Effects could not be any more different. Both are applications beloved by their users, that have received quality updates. As a result, sales are split about 30/70 Mac/PC, instead of Premiere's 10/90 Mac/PC. Because of this, it's profitable for Adobe to produce a Mac version of these programs, especially with the new G5 offering the needed processor oomph.
In short, I would not call Apple's purchase of Final Cut betraying Adobe. I would consider it Apple's acknowledgement that they needed a high-quality video editing program, and Premiere wasn't going to do the job.
I really don't think Adobe is going to get rid of Photoshop or After Effects for the Mac, because we tend to be a pretty free-spending market. Isn't it interesting that Macs have something like 5% of the market, but 30% of Adobe sales. That's a nice contribution indeed, that can't be written off lightly.
D
Quick Review of SoundTrack (as used with FCP 4)
on
Apple Releases Soundtrack
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I made a short film of my vacation in Rio and decided to use it to learn SoundTrack.
I am absolutely clueless about music, and what I composed to go with my movie is nowhere close to being a great work of art.
At the same time, the movie with music is a great deal more entertaining than the movie without, so I think it achieved its purpose. (I would do this now, but I can't do it from work).
The main problem I found with SoundTrack is that it seems severely weighted towards precussion and specific types of music (vaguely sad-sounding piano jazz, rock of various types), and the selection of loops outside of those categories is extremely limited. So I had literally thousands of precussion choices, about 10-20 of which would have done well with my film, but only three good horn selections, all of which I used, and one of which I used repeatedly. I really wanted to have some good horn selections that would blend together, but I didn't see anything like that.
I'd certainly pay good money for a few hundred horn loops I could use with the already extensive precussion. And I understand Soundtrack is really a version of an already existing sound system, but I don't know where to find the loops.
If I get a couple of replies asking for it, I will put the movie on the web and a link to the movie here, so you can see what a neophyte can do with SoundTrack after about a day or so of fooling with it.
This all being said, it would be nice to learn something of music theory. Can anyone recommend a good book, suitable for complete beginners?
If nothing else, SoundTrack is going to increase people's interest in music composition, which can't be a bad thing. I think it could also be used to provide a draft sound track which could then be worked on with a real composer. Timing issues are very difficult with SoundTrack since the tracks are generally of fixed lengths. You can loop them, but generally you can't reduce their length and get good results.
They wanted the satisfaction of getting on Slashdot, and so they did.
Nothing wrong with that.
I think it's kinda cool, in a "once in a lifetime" sort of way.
I went to the same Apple Store opening, getting there at 6:00, and there was such a horrible line I just walked away. As others have said, there are plenty of other Apple Stores in LA, and this one isn't even particularly exceptional from what I could see.
It looked from the outside like another regular-sized Apple Store. To tell the truth, I was a bit disappointed - I wanted it to be one of the upscale urban Apple Stores like the one in The Grove.
The line stretched around the block for most of the day, only slowing down around 9:30pm. I thought of going in, but even then I would have had to wait about 15 minutes, and I was tired.
I guess I'm a big Apple fan but not quite that fanatical:-).
No, you wouldn't, because that itself is an editorial part!
I thought it was pretty well done in setting out the various arguments. It was a little repetitious in its claims that Linux would be entirely uneffected, but it's difficult not to come to that conclusion in any event.
I believe Linux would in fact be affected by one specific scenerio. If IBM put SCO's code into Linux, and that code was copied on to millions of machines through distributions such as Red Hat, there would be a genuine copyright infringement, and Red Hat et al would be liable. Companies using Linux might also be liable, but only until they upgraded their distributions to ones without the infringing code.
You could theoretically put Red Hat et al out of business that way, and make SCO the only legal Linux distribution. But I don't think SCO would bother, simply because the Linux distribution companies never had enough money to matter. The potential reward wouldn't even cover the costs of litigation.
However, I think by far the most likely version of events is that IBM copied old BSD code, and that was a perfectly legal act. IBM may be a conservative, stuffy, blue-nosed company filled with lawyers, but, well, sometimes it's actually GOOD to be a conservative, stuffy, blue-nosed company filled with lawyers, and this is one of those times.
What a strange story this is. I didn't think I'd ever hear of a case where open-source programmers are rooting unapologetically for gigantic International Business Machines Corporation and its lawyers to make mincemeat out of a tiny outfit that probably doesn't have the total annual revenues of IBM's legal department.
And - even stranger - they are absolutely right to do so.
Go, IBM legal, go!
(I never thought I'd ever hear myself make that kind of statement!)
Premiere actually earned the inverse of loyalty with version 4.2, which among other things had horrible lip synch problems which showed up even in relatively short productions. Premiere has only had genuine built-in DV support (instead of tacked on capture programs) since version 6.0, introduced about a year ago. Final Cut had built-in DV support since Day One.
When I first reviewed the state of the video editing software market before FCP was introduced, I was horrified by that problem with Premiere and selected EditDV for the Mac instead.
When Final Cut Pro was introduced about three years ago, it introduced nested sequences, sort of like subroutines for video editing. So you could work on a lengthly and complex sequence, and then use or re-use it in other sequences, making it possible to build a project in a very natural and intuitive way.
Adobe Premiere only just introduced this feature in the new (Windows-only) version.
That's how far behind Premiere has been. It does look like the all-new version is starting to catch up, but the features it's bragging about have been in Final Cut Pro (and even Final Cut Express!) for over a year now.
I'd say most of the loyalty to Final Cut is loyalty to the program itself. It really is that good.
However, loyalty to Final Cut strengthens people's loyalty to Apple; we know Final Cut would have been dead and buried if Apple had not had the guts to complete its development.
If you didn't notice, they don't even mention Final Cut Express, which is bound to devastate whatever market share they have.
Final Cut Pro has decimated Premiere, which is quite a feat considering that it's a $999 program and Premiere was $695.
Final Cut Express would have dealt the killer blow at $299. Now Premiere doesn't even have price to recommend it.
I think Apple's market share has been low because Apple owners are waiting for the breakthrough in speed that just happened with the G5. I know I have a PowerMac G4/450 dual processor system I'm still using, and I plan to buy a G5 later this fall to replace it. There are a lot of people like me around, based on discussions I've seen on various message boards. With the G5, we've been given the "red meat" we need to get a new system.
I expect Apple's market share to improve a point or two when the new machines are available - and most of them are going to be that US$2,999 dual processor model.
Finally, Apple users are happy to spend money on software. I don't see mainstream commercial support vanishing for the platform any time soon. We're just too inclined to spend money for this to happen.
Consider Premiere's sales numbers before Final Cut. By Adobe's own admission, Mac users had 30% of sales. Those sales vanished because people love Final Cut. But a 30% market share for software purchases, coming from a platform that only has 3% of sales, is pretty impressive, no?
They're still getting results like that for Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects, and that's why the Mac version of those products will continue.
Premiere is simply not a very good product compared to the competition. I think Adobe should have risen to the challenge, but it's possible that Final Cut is just too well loved for them to have a chance. I well remember the standing ovation for Final Cut's founders at a users group meeting I attended. FCP users are a rabidly loyal bunch, and we are VERY well treated by Apple.
It's not about the Apple faithful using an Apple product just because it is an Apple product.
It's about Final Cut being a much, much, much, much better product than Premiere.
If I had to guess, I'd say maybe FCP took 1/2 of the business from Premiere, and FC Express took the other half. There's no reason I can think of to use Premiere on the Mac anymore. It was always the weakling of Adobe's product line, which is exactly why they have an entirely new codebase.
I don't think it's much of a loss. Avid is sufficient competition to keep Apple on its toes. And Premiere continues to be competition for Apple since people could always switch to the PC if Premiere became overwhelmingly better.
I doubt that Premiere on the Mac is profitable in its current state, and so I don't blame Adobe for getting rid of it. But I don't think they will do the same for Photoshop because it remains profitable on the platform.
He's speaking for his own efforts, which he loves passionately, and not for the efforts of others. So he phrased things in such a way that he's just speaking for himself, not for Linus. I don't think his attitude is "F--- Linus"; I think his attitude is "Linus can make his own statement, but this one's mine".
I've met RMS too, and I remember his intensity well. But I don't see what he wrote as an anti-Linux diatribe at all; it clearly opposes SCO and clearly states that GNU's programming is in compiliance as far as he knows, and will be made in compliance in any discovered cases where it is not already.
It's easy to hate Windows, primarily because Microsoft has been so aggressive in marketing it that it's all but impossible to prevent it from touching your life, even if you do your darndest to actively avoid it.
However, in realistic terms, you are absolutely right:-). Windows has its place, thanks to the huge hardware and software variety it offers. But as you say, at least now we have alternatives, and can use the best tool for the task. And that's an enormous improvement over how the world was looking a few years back.
I will defer to the other chap who replied about the nature of the motherboards, which really isn't that important anyway; you could always get different ones, and the point of three fast systems for the price of one very fast system is certainly valid. Even Steve, when demonstrating the new compiler features, is using distributed computing to make compiling faster, which is very good.
That being said, I think most of the buyers for the PowerMac want a packaged solution that works. Your system is going to require hours of enjoyable tinkering or wretched pain, depending on your attitude and how dependent you are on the system being up and running. And then it still won't run Final Cut Pro or even iPhoto.
These markets are so different that I wouldn't even consider one system competition against the other; the person buying your cluster doesn't want a PowerMac, and the person buying the PowerMac wouldn't want your cluster.
I don't see the Mac as threatening Windows, since Apple does not make a $550 computer. Windows vendors make tons of them, and they sell tons of them. Linux is now in the $199 WalMart computer possible, and quite honestly, more power to it, and even to WalMart.
Linux IS going to pass Apple's market share, because Apple doesn't even compete in the low end of the market. What I protest about the Slashdot posting is the idea that Apple is going to be harmed by this.
I think Apple is going to increase its share in the high end of computing, which is its natural habitat. If you considered market share of computers costing $2,999 or more, I think you'd find Apple has an excellent chunk of that market, probably around 1/3.
Apple has laid the groundwork for this by buying up high-end applications like crackerjacks. Want Shake? Final Cut Pro? Logic? Mac time!
The main thing holding Apple back in this space was wimpy processors and high prices. But now that they have a processor that competes with $4,000 Xeon systems for performance, and all the software a digital art fanatic could ever want, I see them ready to make dramatic inroads in this space. If they're 30% now, they'll be 55% in six months.
There's little point in Linux trying to compete in this space; in the mainstream, Linux is about saving money, and you're not going to save people money selling a $4,000 Linux box when a $3,000 Mac's a better experience.
So Linux is going to do fine, and so is MacOS X. I wish I could say they'd all unite and destroy Windows, but Microsoft has enough loyalists that I don't think that's possible. But I do think we're heading towards a world with a lot more viable options, and quite honestly that's the best outcome for everyone involved.
Perhaps you shouldn't, assuming you feel your PC-based systems are serving you well.
Probably the best reason considering your stable of applications is that Final Cut Pro is the best video editing application made, bar none. Unless you're an Avid fanatic, but I didn't notice that mentioned.
The other major advantage is that the Mac is simply a nicer environment than XP. It's more attractive, operation is smoother, and it's just plain fun to have around. From a utilitarian perspective, that sounds like nonsense. But I find that I personally enjoy myself more in an Apple environment than anywhere else.
There's a reason why Apple users have such fanatical loyalty and are willing to spend huge sums on their systems, and I think that's it: A beautifully designed environment.
Fairly or not, the rules are always a little different for the underdog. That's why Apple hasn't faced antitrust prosecution despite having a 100% monopoly on Apple hardware.
We defend Apple because, first and foremost, we care.
The stakes are high for us, since if Apple doesn't deliver, we might have to (gulp) become Windows users. And surely that's worth making a sacrifice or two.
So we'll cut Apple some slack on questions like this.
My understanding is that MacOS X simply changed the flatfile configuration to configuration via XML. I'm not sure what I think of that - I don't see that much point to changing something that already works and can be manipulated easily enough. But it's certainly not a big problem since you can still write programs fairly easily to take the XML, throw it into a database, change it and write it back out again. And those programs will work for every configuration tool around, which is actually pretty cool if you think about it for a bit.
Quality dead trees publication is incredibly complex, and I don't think it's something that satisfies geeks all that much. They generally like reading stuff on the screen.
You will note that even people who don't mind learning its user interface don't think of the GIMP as a print publishing tool, because it lacks many of the features needed for print publication. I think it's going to be a long time before we see really high quality print software for Linux. Look at how long it took us to get any kind of print driver system; it seems that it's only happened in the last release or two of Linux.
And the basic install of the new Final Cut Pro is half a gigabyte. Plus 13 gigabytes of extra media files. I don't think people in the open source world have the time or inclination to emulate something like that.
About six months ago, I tried to get some of the people in my company to try OpenOffice; they came back saying their old documents looked like hash. And they were right. And the documents they were creating weren't that complex.
At this rate, I think it will be a long time before Linux/Unix client systems migrate past the Web. For that, our best home remains MacOS X. I think it's up to the job, but my company (perhaps typical of many family-owned companies) doesn't want to buy PCs costing over $550. So Apple's frozen out. Unlike others, I can't blame them for not making a $550 PC, because they need the margins from pricier units to develop interesting stuff.
What makes Linux/Unix/MacOS X better for many things is that at base it's simple. If you generate web sites using a Linux CGI, you just tell your program to type the HTML, and it appears on the screen on the other end.
If you generate web sites using Windows tools, they might be a little easier to create initially, but you're using a very complex framework that can break in ways very difficult to understand. So if you get unlucky and find a bug, it's very frustrating to determine whether it's your bug or someone else's you have no clue how to fix. That sense of disempowerment, of dealing with a system that's far too complex for most people to understand, is the big reason I hate programming on Windows.
I think GUIs work best as front-ends for command line tools, because then you can get the best of both worlds. Otherwise, people who have to do administrative tasks often are stuck in mind-numbing routines. For example, I'd love to make our Windows NT 4 servers (installed long before I joined the company) automatically generate users when I create users on the Linux box. But I can't, because there's no simple command line add user utility.
Since there are a great deal more stupid people than smart people, what limiting systems to smart people does is ensure their extinction. This is exactly what has happened with Unix-based systems, and only intense effort has started to turn the situation around.
This is a pretty interesting problem, but remember that the system can be fed inputs from the steering as well. So the radar can constantly adjust to check the angle at which you are driving. That's still not good enough for twisty roads, on which it would probably shut itself off.
I think most people can stay awake when they're on twisty roads; the big hazard is the freeway. Most drivers spend a lot of time on freeways, and a lot of it is spent when tired. In those conditions, the system can quite literally be a lifesaver, so I think it's a cool idea even though it won't work in all conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
I visited Rio de Janerio, Brazil, and the cost of a nice restaurant meal is about 1/3 what it is in the US, with most other costs I noticed scaled similarly.
...
On the whole, if I could earn even half what I do in the US, I'd be much better off in Rio. And there are still fine restaurants, great shopping, wonderful ocean views, etc.
Something to think about
D
When I did a search for "Kung Pao Chicken" (with the quotes), nine out of the top ten search results were recipes.
The odd man out was a reference to a movie of that name.
I tried a couple more dishes and for some reason all of them came out with recipes. Then I tried some super-obscure things like "Fong Wong Chicken" and "Subgum Fried Wonton". I got a recipe for Fong Wong on the top, followed by a couple of menus. For Subgum Fried Wonton, I got two menus, no recipes and no other results.
I was hoping to say that searching for
dishname recipe
i.e.
"fong wong chicken" recipe
would have fixed your problem.
I know that searching for
jvc hd10
gives me lots of places to buy the JVC HD10 (JVC's flawed but interesting attempt at prosumer high definition), while searching for
jvc hd10 review
gives me a nice selection of reviews of the camera.
So just making your search a little more specific tends to fix the problem.
Hope that helps.
D
If you have access to a Macintosh, or can squeeze out the budget for one, consider Keynote, Apple's fancy presentation program.
The files are in XML, so they would be a snap to generate them through scripts, and the display engine produces stunningly beautiful graphs.
The graphs are so much prettier than Excel's it isn't even funny.
If you play with it at an Apple Store, I think you'd get sold on it pretty quick.
Hope that helps.
D
I knew there was something phony about his post, but you nailed him.
Great work!
D
Either you're a troll, or something's wrong with your system.
I've passed gigabytes from my PowerBook G4/1ghz to my LaCie 200gb FireWire drive in less time than that, and generally I've found performance of internal drives is much better than external.
I would bring your system to an Apple Store and ask the Genius Bar people to take a look at it.
That being said, in my experience, the speed of a Mac isn't much different from PC speed one way or the other, and the aesthetics are a great deal more attractive. I find it more enjoyable to use a Mac, and that pretty much closes off debate for me.
Hope that helps.
D
The most important thing is that Final Cut is a much better designed application. There are about 50 different ways to do anything, it's extremely flexible, and the keyboard shortcuts make it easy to get work done.
As I remember, Premiere has better titling, but Final Cut has an extensive colour correction system that I believe is included in FCE.
But the most important thing is simply a far superior design and user interface, something even Premiere's defender (see his message) will admit.
Hope that helps.
D
I have never heard anyone defend Premiere before as anything other than awful. I tried it, briefly, and quickly realized that any other video editing program had to be loads better.
:-).
I thought you could do all the layering you would ever want on FCP. From version 1, FCP had "segments", sort of like subroutines of video that you'd already edited. You can easily prepare and combine in any way you wanted with other segments, which is an enormously powerful feature that was only added to Premiere with the advent of Premiere Pro (this new Windows-only version).
FCP also has extensive keyboard shortcuts that make you a lot more efficient. Again, Premiere Pro brags about this, but FCP did it first.
Could you give an illustration on something you could do in Premiere that you couldn't do in FCP?
I know you can do wonderful things in After Effects, although it's about as fast as a drugged slug. But Premiere? You've roused my curiosity
D
There's only one catch to your argument: Unlike Photoshop and After Effects, Premiere was hopelessly bad compared to Final Cut Pro.
Premiere's creators were interviewed at Digital Video Editing.com. I can't link easily to the article since DVE is using frames heavily, but go to the page and read part 1 of the interview. They use corpspeak and evasiveness where they can, but there's no question they were very much aware that Premiere was horribly inferior to Final Cut, in feature set, user interface and pretty much everything else.
The situation with Photoshop and After Effects could not be any more different. Both are applications beloved by their users, that have received quality updates. As a result, sales are split about 30/70 Mac/PC, instead of Premiere's 10/90 Mac/PC. Because of this, it's profitable for Adobe to produce a Mac version of these programs, especially with the new G5 offering the needed processor oomph.
In short, I would not call Apple's purchase of Final Cut betraying Adobe. I would consider it Apple's acknowledgement that they needed a high-quality video editing program, and Premiere wasn't going to do the job.
I really don't think Adobe is going to get rid of Photoshop or After Effects for the Mac, because we tend to be a pretty free-spending market. Isn't it interesting that Macs have something like 5% of the market, but 30% of Adobe sales. That's a nice contribution indeed, that can't be written off lightly.
D
I made a short film of my vacation in Rio and decided to use it to learn SoundTrack.
I am absolutely clueless about music, and what I composed to go with my movie is nowhere close to being a great work of art.
At the same time, the movie with music is a great deal more entertaining than the movie without, so I think it achieved its purpose. (I would do this now, but I can't do it from work).
The main problem I found with SoundTrack is that it seems severely weighted towards precussion and specific types of music (vaguely sad-sounding piano jazz, rock of various types), and the selection of loops outside of those categories is extremely limited. So I had literally thousands of precussion choices, about 10-20 of which would have done well with my film, but only three good horn selections, all of which I used, and one of which I used repeatedly. I really wanted to have some good horn selections that would blend together, but I didn't see anything like that.
I'd certainly pay good money for a few hundred horn loops I could use with the already extensive precussion. And I understand Soundtrack is really a version of an already existing sound system, but I don't know where to find the loops.
If I get a couple of replies asking for it, I will put the movie on the web and a link to the movie here, so you can see what a neophyte can do with SoundTrack after about a day or so of fooling with it.
This all being said, it would be nice to learn something of music theory. Can anyone recommend a good book, suitable for complete beginners?
If nothing else, SoundTrack is going to increase people's interest in music composition, which can't be a bad thing. I think it could also be used to provide a draft sound track which could then be worked on with a real composer. Timing issues are very difficult with SoundTrack since the tracks are generally of fixed lengths. You can loop them, but generally you can't reduce their length and get good results.
D
You are not allowed to sell them individually or as part of a library. You can only sell your own compositions made with the samples.
D
They wanted the satisfaction of getting on Slashdot, and so they did.
:-).
Nothing wrong with that.
I think it's kinda cool, in a "once in a lifetime" sort of way.
I went to the same Apple Store opening, getting there at 6:00, and there was such a horrible line I just walked away. As others have said, there are plenty of other Apple Stores in LA, and this one isn't even particularly exceptional from what I could see.
It looked from the outside like another regular-sized Apple Store. To tell the truth, I was a bit disappointed - I wanted it to be one of the upscale urban Apple Stores like the one in The Grove.
The line stretched around the block for most of the day, only slowing down around 9:30pm. I thought of going in, but even then I would have had to wait about 15 minutes, and I was tired.
I guess I'm a big Apple fan but not quite that fanatical
D
In a beautiful irony, I work for a company called International Laser Group, which remanufacturers laser toner cartridges.
We once dabbled in international commerce (thus the name) but haven't done so in years due to the shipping charges and hassle.
D
No, you wouldn't, because that itself is an editorial part!
I thought it was pretty well done in setting out the various arguments. It was a little repetitious in its claims that Linux would be entirely uneffected, but it's difficult not to come to that conclusion in any event.
I believe Linux would in fact be affected by one specific scenerio. If IBM put SCO's code into Linux, and that code was copied on to millions of machines through distributions such as Red Hat, there would be a genuine copyright infringement, and Red Hat et al would be liable. Companies using Linux might also be liable, but only until they upgraded their distributions to ones without the infringing code.
You could theoretically put Red Hat et al out of business that way, and make SCO the only legal Linux distribution. But I don't think SCO would bother, simply because the Linux distribution companies never had enough money to matter. The potential reward wouldn't even cover the costs of litigation.
However, I think by far the most likely version of events is that IBM copied old BSD code, and that was a perfectly legal act. IBM may be a conservative, stuffy, blue-nosed company filled with lawyers, but, well, sometimes it's actually GOOD to be a conservative, stuffy, blue-nosed company filled with lawyers, and this is one of those times.
What a strange story this is. I didn't think I'd ever hear of a case where open-source programmers are rooting unapologetically for gigantic International Business Machines Corporation and its lawyers to make mincemeat out of a tiny outfit that probably doesn't have the total annual revenues of IBM's legal department.
And - even stranger - they are absolutely right to do so.
Go, IBM legal, go!
(I never thought I'd ever hear myself make that kind of statement!)
D
Premiere actually earned the inverse of loyalty with version 4.2, which among other things had horrible lip synch problems which showed up even in relatively short productions. Premiere has only had genuine built-in DV support (instead of tacked on capture programs) since version 6.0, introduced about a year ago. Final Cut had built-in DV support since Day One.
When I first reviewed the state of the video editing software market before FCP was introduced, I was horrified by that problem with Premiere and selected EditDV for the Mac instead.
When Final Cut Pro was introduced about three years ago, it introduced nested sequences, sort of like subroutines for video editing. So you could work on a lengthly and complex sequence, and then use or re-use it in other sequences, making it possible to build a project in a very natural and intuitive way.
Adobe Premiere only just introduced this feature in the new (Windows-only) version.
That's how far behind Premiere has been. It does look like the all-new version is starting to catch up, but the features it's bragging about have been in Final Cut Pro (and even Final Cut Express!) for over a year now.
I'd say most of the loyalty to Final Cut is loyalty to the program itself. It really is that good.
However, loyalty to Final Cut strengthens people's loyalty to Apple; we know Final Cut would have been dead and buried if Apple had not had the guts to complete its development.
D
If you didn't notice, they don't even mention Final Cut Express, which is bound to devastate whatever market share they have.
Final Cut Pro has decimated Premiere, which is quite a feat considering that it's a $999 program and Premiere was $695.
Final Cut Express would have dealt the killer blow at $299. Now Premiere doesn't even have price to recommend it.
I think Apple's market share has been low because Apple owners are waiting for the breakthrough in speed that just happened with the G5. I know I have a PowerMac G4/450 dual processor system I'm still using, and I plan to buy a G5 later this fall to replace it. There are a lot of people like me around, based on discussions I've seen on various message boards. With the G5, we've been given the "red meat" we need to get a new system.
I expect Apple's market share to improve a point or two when the new machines are available - and most of them are going to be that US$2,999 dual processor model.
Finally, Apple users are happy to spend money on software. I don't see mainstream commercial support vanishing for the platform any time soon. We're just too inclined to spend money for this to happen.
Consider Premiere's sales numbers before Final Cut. By Adobe's own admission, Mac users had 30% of sales. Those sales vanished because people love Final Cut. But a 30% market share for software purchases, coming from a platform that only has 3% of sales, is pretty impressive, no?
They're still getting results like that for Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects, and that's why the Mac version of those products will continue.
Premiere is simply not a very good product compared to the competition. I think Adobe should have risen to the challenge, but it's possible that Final Cut is just too well loved for them to have a chance. I well remember the standing ovation for Final Cut's founders at a users group meeting I attended. FCP users are a rabidly loyal bunch, and we are VERY well treated by Apple.
I don't see that changing any time soon.
D
It's not about the Apple faithful using an Apple product just because it is an Apple product.
It's about Final Cut being a much, much, much, much better product than Premiere.
If I had to guess, I'd say maybe FCP took 1/2 of the business from Premiere, and FC Express took the other half. There's no reason I can think of to use Premiere on the Mac anymore. It was always the weakling of Adobe's product line, which is exactly why they have an entirely new codebase.
I don't think it's much of a loss. Avid is sufficient competition to keep Apple on its toes. And Premiere continues to be competition for Apple since people could always switch to the PC if Premiere became overwhelmingly better.
I doubt that Premiere on the Mac is profitable in its current state, and so I don't blame Adobe for getting rid of it. But I don't think they will do the same for Photoshop because it remains profitable on the platform.
D
I think you're overreacting.
He's speaking for his own efforts, which he loves passionately, and not for the efforts of others. So he phrased things in such a way that he's just speaking for himself, not for Linus. I don't think his attitude is "F--- Linus"; I think his attitude is "Linus can make his own statement, but this one's mine".
I've met RMS too, and I remember his intensity well. But I don't see what he wrote as an anti-Linux diatribe at all; it clearly opposes SCO and clearly states that GNU's programming is in compiliance as far as he knows, and will be made in compliance in any discovered cases where it is not already.
A good statement, that needed to be made.
D
It's easy to hate Windows, primarily because Microsoft has been so aggressive in marketing it that it's all but impossible to prevent it from touching your life, even if you do your darndest to actively avoid it.
:-). Windows has its place, thanks to the huge hardware and software variety it offers. But as you say, at least now we have alternatives, and can use the best tool for the task. And that's an enormous improvement over how the world was looking a few years back.
However, in realistic terms, you are absolutely right
D
I will defer to the other chap who replied about the nature of the motherboards, which really isn't that important anyway; you could always get different ones, and the point of three fast systems for the price of one very fast system is certainly valid. Even Steve, when demonstrating the new compiler features, is using distributed computing to make compiling faster, which is very good.
That being said, I think most of the buyers for the PowerMac want a packaged solution that works. Your system is going to require hours of enjoyable tinkering or wretched pain, depending on your attitude and how dependent you are on the system being up and running. And then it still won't run Final Cut Pro or even iPhoto.
These markets are so different that I wouldn't even consider one system competition against the other; the person buying your cluster doesn't want a PowerMac, and the person buying the PowerMac wouldn't want your cluster.
D
I don't see the Mac as threatening Windows, since Apple does not make a $550 computer. Windows vendors make tons of them, and they sell tons of them. Linux is now in the $199 WalMart computer possible, and quite honestly, more power to it, and even to WalMart.
Linux IS going to pass Apple's market share, because Apple doesn't even compete in the low end of the market. What I protest about the Slashdot posting is the idea that Apple is going to be harmed by this.
I think Apple is going to increase its share in the high end of computing, which is its natural habitat. If you considered market share of computers costing $2,999 or more, I think you'd find Apple has an excellent chunk of that market, probably around 1/3.
Apple has laid the groundwork for this by buying up high-end applications like crackerjacks. Want Shake? Final Cut Pro? Logic? Mac time!
The main thing holding Apple back in this space was wimpy processors and high prices. But now that they have a processor that competes with $4,000 Xeon systems for performance, and all the software a digital art fanatic could ever want, I see them ready to make dramatic inroads in this space. If they're 30% now, they'll be 55% in six months.
There's little point in Linux trying to compete in this space; in the mainstream, Linux is about saving money, and you're not going to save people money selling a $4,000 Linux box when a $3,000 Mac's a better experience.
So Linux is going to do fine, and so is MacOS X. I wish I could say they'd all unite and destroy Windows, but Microsoft has enough loyalists that I don't think that's possible. But I do think we're heading towards a world with a lot more viable options, and quite honestly that's the best outcome for everyone involved.
D
Perhaps you shouldn't, assuming you feel your PC-based systems are serving you well.
Probably the best reason considering your stable of applications is that Final Cut Pro is the best video editing application made, bar none. Unless you're an Avid fanatic, but I didn't notice that mentioned.
The other major advantage is that the Mac is simply a nicer environment than XP. It's more attractive, operation is smoother, and it's just plain fun to have around. From a utilitarian perspective, that sounds like nonsense. But I find that I personally enjoy myself more in an Apple environment than anywhere else.
There's a reason why Apple users have such fanatical loyalty and are willing to spend huge sums on their systems, and I think that's it: A beautifully designed environment.
D
Fairly or not, the rules are always a little different for the underdog. That's why Apple hasn't faced antitrust prosecution despite having a 100% monopoly on Apple hardware.
We defend Apple because, first and foremost, we care.
The stakes are high for us, since if Apple doesn't deliver, we might have to (gulp) become Windows users. And surely that's worth making a sacrifice or two.
So we'll cut Apple some slack on questions like this.
D
My understanding is that MacOS X simply changed the flatfile configuration to configuration via XML. I'm not sure what I think of that - I don't see that much point to changing something that already works and can be manipulated easily enough. But it's certainly not a big problem since you can still write programs fairly easily to take the XML, throw it into a database, change it and write it back out again. And those programs will work for every configuration tool around, which is actually pretty cool if you think about it for a bit.
Quality dead trees publication is incredibly complex, and I don't think it's something that satisfies geeks all that much. They generally like reading stuff on the screen.
You will note that even people who don't mind learning its user interface don't think of the GIMP as a print publishing tool, because it lacks many of the features needed for print publication. I think it's going to be a long time before we see really high quality print software for Linux. Look at how long it took us to get any kind of print driver system; it seems that it's only happened in the last release or two of Linux.
And the basic install of the new Final Cut Pro is half a gigabyte. Plus 13 gigabytes of extra media files. I don't think people in the open source world have the time or inclination to emulate something like that.
About six months ago, I tried to get some of the people in my company to try OpenOffice; they came back saying their old documents looked like hash. And they were right. And the documents they were creating weren't that complex.
At this rate, I think it will be a long time before Linux/Unix client systems migrate past the Web. For that, our best home remains MacOS X. I think it's up to the job, but my company (perhaps typical of many family-owned companies) doesn't want to buy PCs costing over $550. So Apple's frozen out. Unlike others, I can't blame them for not making a $550 PC, because they need the margins from pricier units to develop interesting stuff.
D
What makes Linux/Unix/MacOS X better for many things is that at base it's simple. If you generate web sites using a Linux CGI, you just tell your program to type the HTML, and it appears on the screen on the other end.
If you generate web sites using Windows tools, they might be a little easier to create initially, but you're using a very complex framework that can break in ways very difficult to understand. So if you get unlucky and find a bug, it's very frustrating to determine whether it's your bug or someone else's you have no clue how to fix. That sense of disempowerment, of dealing with a system that's far too complex for most people to understand, is the big reason I hate programming on Windows.
I think GUIs work best as front-ends for command line tools, because then you can get the best of both worlds. Otherwise, people who have to do administrative tasks often are stuck in mind-numbing routines. For example, I'd love to make our Windows NT 4 servers (installed long before I joined the company) automatically generate users when I create users on the Linux box. But I can't, because there's no simple command line add user utility.
Since there are a great deal more stupid people than smart people, what limiting systems to smart people does is ensure their extinction. This is exactly what has happened with Unix-based systems, and only intense effort has started to turn the situation around.
D
This is a pretty interesting problem, but remember that the system can be fed inputs from the steering as well. So the radar can constantly adjust to check the angle at which you are driving. That's still not good enough for twisty roads, on which it would probably shut itself off.
I think most people can stay awake when they're on twisty roads; the big hazard is the freeway. Most drivers spend a lot of time on freeways, and a lot of it is spent when tired. In those conditions, the system can quite literally be a lifesaver, so I think it's a cool idea even though it won't work in all conditions.
D