Most of that $4B was stashed away in the 1980s when Macs had 50% margins. Look it up. Last quarter, Apple had only $46M income on $1.91B revenue, which is barely above break-even. They do have huge margins, but they also have huge R&D and marketing overhead.
I had a similar problem with FC1 on IDE and WinXP on SCSI -- Booting to the IDE disk would fail.
I think it was a issue with grub not detecting the drive order correctly and ignoring the settings you told it (Grub thought IDE was 0 and SCSI was 1 even though the machine was set to boot from SCSI.) Eventually I found a post which suggested using the barely documented "d" option while installing grub:
install/grub/stage1 d (hd1,0)/grub/stage2...
Which will force grub not to second-guess your settings.
This seems entirely unrelated to the CHS IDE issue which hoses Windows installs. (Also, you can see that that's hanging in grub, so its not a Windows issue like the root post implies.)
I don't see any "Windows Zealots" around here, so who was that comment directed at? If not me, I apologize. but please can it with all the paranoia about "FUD" and "Zealots" -- your tone is way too hostile and accusatory and you are concerned about a propaganda war that simply does not matter. If you are truely concerned about FUD and Zealtory, don't take that position yourself.
(Also, just offhand, I've never known a 'Windows Zealot' to give a flying fuck about Macs. Microsoft seems to be frying other fish.)
Feel free to look at the numbers. iPod margin is about 20%, with almost no R&D behind it. Mac margin is 27% with tons of R&D. Apple themseves credit their number to iPod sales.
Getting called a "Zealot" by a fruitloop like you is kinda funny. Especially since I've been a Apple user for 25 years. Your spastic, assholish advocacy hurts Apple's business more than it helps, so please STFU for the good of your own cause.
Again, you entirely failed to understand that "security" is not measured by virus counts. Or do you pretend that OS 9 is "secure"?
Furthermore, since a simple, working demo exploit exists, you'd have to delusional to believe that someone hasn't put it into practice somewhere.
(Should I reply to a FUD-crying astroturfer with an OSX advert in his sig? Well, OK...)
In general, there's two types of security issues: (1) Implemenation issues -- eg buffer overflows in MSRPC or OpenSSH or Outlook MIME parsing.
(2) Design issues -- such as auto-installing ActiveX, HTML preview that automatically runs scripts, and so on. These are the typical Microsoftish Ease-Versus-Security issues.
Windows has hit hard by both, so it's easy to confuse the two.
The thing is, Apple really isn't better at #2 than anyone else. They seem to have made similar funky "desktop integration" decisions as Microsoft, and that leads to consequences such as this. Come on, a "disk:" protocol handler? Why? There's nothing FUDish about pointing this stuff out.
(Another good example is the plug-n-play directory service that gives another machine root powers over your OS X box with a simple DHCP command.)
There still are no worms, no viruses attributed to OSX.
Security is only measured by a worms/viruses count on the lowest level. I don't think anyone would disagree there's other factors there, such as size and concentration of the userbase, number of 'hostile' users, opinion of the vendor, etc. Classic MacOS had almost no viruses and it was not because of a secure design.
Do you really think Apple could sustain itself on the (relatively small) profit margins of the iPod alone?
iPods currently have a much larger profit margin than Macintoshes (which are barely above break-even).
Do you think Apple could sustain itself making only unprofitible Macs forever? (As they aren't really doing anything to increase market share.)
The long-term digital music/movies business is not a "one trick pony" -- in the future it's bound to be integrated into every cell phone, PDA, car stereo, home stereo, cable box, and television set. I guess the development of an 'iPod' division indicates that Apple is looking at the big picture and not just the trick pony.
Everyone thought Macs sucked. Lots more starry-eyed Linux advocacy. People took ESR seriously, always cited his Bazaar book. Witty trolls ruled the site, people bit on anything, no matter how ridiculous. Story selection, karmawhoring, BSOD jokes, crapflooding, in-jokes, and so on were about the same.
The thing that's always been interesting to me about working in software development and IT is how intellectually inflexible people can be.
Well, since I'm already past my flamebait quota for today -- An old project manager of mine made an observation: Indian programmers have this attitude of "Yes, right away. However you want it." American programmers will argue about technical minutia as if they're lives depended on it. Sometimes I wonder how much of this outsourcing trend is just that management is sick of pushback from IT Nerds.
I guess it's important to make your case when you think it's critical, but there's a lot of people in IT who have no sense of perspective, some religious bent for a product, and of course no social skills.
Slashdot is great fun-n-games, but wow, some of these guys are really serious.
Another example would be "Team OS/2" -- who had some whackos that would actually make death threats against computer journalists. And they wondered why nobody covered OS/2...
(Even today, you hear people talk about "Steve Bartko", some MS employee that posted a handful of times on a compuserve board 12 years ago. Sorta a legend in the OS/2 and Anti-Microsoft Zealot community.)
Back in the 1990s, there was a real effort among the Linux Community to encourage "good advocacy". Flamers were pointed to a Advocacy HOWTO document and there was a real effort to keep discourse polite in the Usenet tradition. It seemed like they might have learned the lesson of Team OS/2 & Macinsitas. However, now days with a proliferation of web forums, and Linux accumulating all of the OS/2, Amiga, and M$ Hater wackos, things have degenerated.
The thing to realize, in the real world of IT Dept Politics, zealous advocacy often hurts one's cause more than it helps. People tend to think "This guy is not objective, I don't like him, therefore I disagree with whatever he says." Yes, that's not logical like Mr Spock, but its how the real world works outside of internet boards. God forbid people have to work with a lot of you folks.
OK. In my understanding you aren't really selling "indemnification" or "insurance", but instead some legal assistance in the case there is an IP problem with open source software. Is this correct? If so, why go that route? It seems to offer little tangible benefit other than the "FUD Protection" angle.
Why not just pro-actively sell the legal assistance -- for example if a company wants to use OSS Project X, you would perform research and certify that the IP in Project X is "clean" and the project is freely redistributable.
(My IP fears aren't with Linux-Kernel or the big name projects -- its that I would use some guy's random open source PHP app only to find that he ripped the code off from a former employer or another project.)
Also you say: "Let me see the insurance policy that covers you if you have to pay out this indemnification, because I want to know that you can pay a claim, or multiple claims, that are as large as the damages I might have to bring to you."
OK, where's your insurance? Why would anyone believe that you have the ability to pay out any claims?
A lot of people are making comparisons with OS/2, but they only fit to a certain extent:
(1) Back in 1992, there essentially no Windows applications and no OS/2 applications. It could have gone either way.
In 2004, there's millions of Windows applications worth trillions of dollars. It would be an impossible task to port all of this software to Linux.
There's also already a large, established developer base for Linux (unlike OS/2). Gnome/KDE developers aren't going to switch to Win32/Wine.
(2) OS/2 was designed as the explicit Successor to Windows, and was marketed as Windows++. It had to be compatible with Windows or it would have cratered.
Linux was designed as the Successor to Solaris/other proprietary Unix, where it's done very well.
So, the question is if you view Linux as a replacement or successor to Windows. If you do, Wine is an critical piece of the puzzle. If you don't, then Linux is a nice workstation OS, but it become impossible or ridiculously expensive most desktops.
From a developer point of view, Wine can be used to cheaply support Linux for existing Win32 applications. Corel did it, and rumors have it that Macromedia is going to do it. Is having commercial applicaiton support bad for Linux?
The problem with these warez is that the core userbase is ultra-conservative and doesn't want anything changed. The graphing in Excel is basically the same as it was 15 years ago, for example. The core userbase is Finance people, and it will never expand to Engineering, Academics, etc.
When Lotus ruled the spreadsheet heap with 1-2-3, they had the same problem. They came out with Improv and a couple other spreadsheets because they were scared to change how the flagship worked.
First they bring back "SuperNOS" (NetWare running on a *nix kernel), and now this:
Novell Brewing a New 32-Bit GUI Environment (PC Week)
>From PC Week for April 25, 1994 by PC Week Staff
Novell Inc. is developing a low-cost, 32-bit multitasking operating environment based on a "freeware" version of Unix that sources said will run Windows, DOS, NetWare, and Unix applications.
Novell is expected to demonstrate the software -- which it is developing under tight security at an off-site warehouse -- to a few select users at next week's NetWorld+Interop trade show, said sources close to the Provo, Utah, company.
The new system, code-named Expose', is not a derivative of Novell's own UnixWare; it is based on Linux, a full-featured Unix clone for PCs that is distributed under a free GNU Public License, sources said. Linux 1.0, which shipped in March, runs on 386- and 486-based ISA and EISA computers.
Expose' will be based on a graphical X Window System environment called Looking Glass, which Novell licensed from Visix Software Inc., of Reston, Va. It is expected to use an advanced 3-D desktop metaphor to allow users to easily navigate through it, sources said.
Expose' "is not as much an applications environment as it is a front end to many environments, [including] NetWare, Unix, and Windows applications," said a source who has been briefed on the project. Users also will be able to run Expose' as a front end to the Internet, possibly through the Mosaic GUI, sources said.
Basically, this was a X11 terminal server sort of thing that could also redirect Windows apps. The project was eventually killed, and Ray Noorda picked up the Linux pieces and formed Caldera (later SCO).
I do find it kinda funny that Microsoft has all these information-at-your-fingertips, grand-unified, SQL-filesystem, Google-killer Search plans, but they haven't even got simple email searching going after all these years.
There was some reason for that I used Integer BASIC instead of AppleSoft for a program -- I want to say that IBASIC had PRINT USING and AppleSoft did not, but that could be wrong about that.
There was also the much better MBASIC if you had the CP/M Softcard.
Yeah, I kinda wonder about that myself. Although I personally can type something up a lot faster than it would take to dictate it or write longhand. Email makes a lot of the formatting issues a moot point anyway.
I suspect the "cultural shift" was more along the lines of: + Gender equity made harder to hire for subordinate secretarial jobs + Computerization made it more expensive to hire trained people + A trend towards "knowledge workers" -- so you get a bunch of Marketing Assistants rather than typists.
Also, the few Executive Secretary jobs left pay a lot more than $20K. I worked with one who was making $50K and that was 10 years ago.
The first real corporate job I had was right when they were transitioning to Windows 3.1.
The DOS/Novell system used a "Boot Menu" shell as a program launcher, and had a DOS File Manager that everyone used. (In otherwords, nobody really used COMMAND.COM.) It turned out that Windows was cheaper to license than the Boot Menu/File Manager combination, even if they weren't planning on using any Windows programs.
It wasn't long after that until people were passing around MS Office diskettes to free themselves from the tyrrany of DOS apps. (The place had a lot of ex-Mac users, so Windows was a natural fit.)
Nothing to do with the point, Mr. ABM -- there was much easier to use word processors than WordPerfect, even under DOS. WP was sorta like emacs in that it was designed to be super-efficient for the trained user rather than easy-to-use. (For example, there were about a half-dozen ways of scrolling the document.) WordStar, for example, was much easier -- the commands were onscreen rather than taped on your keyboard.
But since you mentioned it, WordPerfect is more of a case of "wouldn't" rather than "couldn't" -- dragging over their print drivers and fonts to the Windows world, for example.
IIRC, you couldn't just type "[B]" and have your text turn bold -- you did have to insert a special "binary" command.
The early versions of WPWin were basically unusable unless you had "Reveal Codes" enabled and made an extra effort to preserve the tags. Otherwise it was too easy to delete the invisible codes while editing text and the entire formatting of your document would randomly change.
Word was never technically superior, it merely appealed to a broader (and simpler) audience
It's important to remember that businesses used to run on personal secretaries and typing pools. WordPerfect had an "expert" blank-screen UI that appealed to these users. They could remember Ctrl+F7 (rather than a printer icon) because they really had few other professional responsibilities. Knowing the WP command set warranted a significantly higher pay for secretaries in those days.
The shift to GUI PCs and MS Word allowed companies to force their PHBs to type their own memos. They then could dismiss/reassign most of the admin staff for considerable cost savings. This wasn't so much a "cultural shift" but a matter of pure $$$.
That being said, as far as SQL security goes, PHP fares far better than its competitor, ASP.
ADO has Command and Parameter objects which automatically handle quoting issues, datatype checking, and prevents injection attacks almost entirely. [Of course, you need to use a SQL dialect which supports parameterization (not MySQL?).]
Flaming ASP here is entirely inappropriate becuase it provides a real, non-hacky solution built-in and PHP does not.
The problem with many DRM solutions before Apple's fairplay was they were too restrictive...
Thanks for proving my point, AppleBot. Rather than handwaving, provide a reference showing that iTunes is less restrictive than the competition. The RIAA was very clear in saying that Apple got the same deal as everyone else.
Sorry, but downloading movies, music, software and not paying for it is stealing folks
Nobody is talking about "stealing" music -- they are talking about removing the DRM from songs that you paid for. Since you failed to grasp the most important part of the discussion, maybe you should go back and reread everything before posting advertisements for Apple.
Years ago, I read a book by Stewart Brand about the MIT Media Lab.
offtopic, but is that book called "II Cybernetic Frontiers"?
If so, there's a relevant quote in there:
Since huge quantities of information can be computer digitalized and transmitted, music researchers could , for example, swap records over the Net with "essentially perfect fidelity." So much for record stores (in present form).
Slashdot Mirror
Most of that $4B was stashed away in the 1980s when Macs had 50% margins. Look it up. Last quarter, Apple had only $46M income on $1.91B revenue, which is barely above break-even. They do have huge margins, but they also have huge R&D and marketing overhead.
I had a similar problem with FC1 on IDE and WinXP on SCSI -- Booting to the IDE disk would fail.
/grub/stage1 d (hd1,0) /grub/stage2 ...
I think it was a issue with grub not detecting the drive order correctly and ignoring the settings you told it (Grub thought IDE was 0 and SCSI was 1 even though the machine was set to boot from SCSI.) Eventually I found a post which suggested using the barely documented "d" option while installing grub:
install
Which will force grub not to second-guess your settings.
This seems entirely unrelated to the CHS IDE issue which hoses Windows installs. (Also, you can see that that's hanging in grub, so its not a Windows issue like the root post implies.)
I don't see any "Windows Zealots" around here, so who was that comment directed at? If not me, I apologize. but please can it with all the paranoia about "FUD" and "Zealots" -- your tone is way too hostile and accusatory and you are concerned about a propaganda war that simply does not matter. If you are truely concerned about FUD and Zealtory, don't take that position yourself.
(Also, just offhand, I've never known a 'Windows Zealot' to give a flying fuck about Macs. Microsoft seems to be frying other fish.)
Feel free to look at the numbers. iPod margin is about 20%, with almost no R&D behind it. Mac margin is 27% with tons of R&D. Apple themseves credit their number to iPod sales.
Getting called a "Zealot" by a fruitloop like you is kinda funny. Especially since I've been a Apple user for 25 years. Your spastic, assholish advocacy hurts Apple's business more than it helps, so please STFU for the good of your own cause.
Again, you entirely failed to understand that "security" is not measured by virus counts. Or do you pretend that OS 9 is "secure"?
Furthermore, since a simple, working demo exploit exists, you'd have to delusional to believe that someone hasn't put it into practice somewhere.
(Should I reply to a FUD-crying astroturfer with an OSX advert in his sig? Well, OK...)
In general, there's two types of security issues:
(1) Implemenation issues -- eg buffer overflows in MSRPC or OpenSSH or Outlook MIME parsing.
(2) Design issues -- such as auto-installing ActiveX, HTML preview that automatically runs scripts, and so on. These are the typical Microsoftish Ease-Versus-Security issues.
Windows has hit hard by both, so it's easy to confuse the two.
The thing is, Apple really isn't better at #2 than anyone else. They seem to have made similar funky "desktop integration" decisions as Microsoft, and that leads to consequences such as this. Come on, a "disk:" protocol handler? Why? There's nothing FUDish about pointing this stuff out.
(Another good example is the plug-n-play directory service that gives another machine root powers over your OS X box with a simple DHCP command.)
There still are no worms, no viruses attributed to OSX.
Security is only measured by a worms/viruses count on the lowest level. I don't think anyone would disagree there's other factors there, such as size and concentration of the userbase, number of 'hostile' users, opinion of the vendor, etc. Classic MacOS had almost no viruses and it was not because of a secure design.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Why don't you take your own advice, asswipe? I didn't say anything about about a 'VideoPod'. Either that or kill your penishead sig.
If they really wanted to do that, they would have created a "consumer electronics" division.
Can you prove they didn't?
Do you really think Apple could sustain itself on the (relatively small) profit margins of the iPod alone?
iPods currently have a much larger profit margin than Macintoshes (which are barely above break-even).
Do you think Apple could sustain itself making only unprofitible Macs forever? (As they aren't really doing anything to increase market share.)
The long-term digital music/movies business is not a "one trick pony" -- in the future it's bound to be integrated into every cell phone, PDA, car stereo, home stereo, cable box, and television set. I guess the development of an 'iPod' division indicates that Apple is looking at the big picture and not just the trick pony.
Everyone thought Macs sucked.
Lots more starry-eyed Linux advocacy.
People took ESR seriously, always cited his Bazaar book.
Witty trolls ruled the site, people bit on anything, no matter how ridiculous.
Story selection, karmawhoring, BSOD jokes, crapflooding, in-jokes, and so on were about the same.
The thing that's always been interesting to me about working in software development and IT is how intellectually inflexible people can be.
Well, since I'm already past my flamebait quota for today -- An old project manager of mine made an observation: Indian programmers have this attitude of "Yes, right away. However you want it." American programmers will argue about technical minutia as if they're lives depended on it. Sometimes I wonder how much of this outsourcing trend is just that management is sick of pushback from IT Nerds.
I guess it's important to make your case when you think it's critical, but there's a lot of people in IT who have no sense of perspective, some religious bent for a product, and of course no social skills.
Slashdot is great fun-n-games, but wow, some of these guys are really serious.
Another example would be "Team OS/2" -- who had some whackos that would actually make death threats against computer journalists. And they wondered why nobody covered OS/2...
(Even today, you hear people talk about "Steve Bartko", some MS employee that posted a handful of times on a compuserve board 12 years ago. Sorta a legend in the OS/2 and Anti-Microsoft Zealot community.)
Back in the 1990s, there was a real effort among the Linux Community to encourage "good advocacy". Flamers were pointed to a Advocacy HOWTO document and there was a real effort to keep discourse polite in the Usenet tradition. It seemed like they might have learned the lesson of Team OS/2 & Macinsitas. However, now days with a proliferation of web forums, and Linux accumulating all of the OS/2, Amiga, and M$ Hater wackos, things have degenerated.
The thing to realize, in the real world of IT Dept Politics, zealous advocacy often hurts one's cause more than it helps. People tend to think "This guy is not objective, I don't like him, therefore I disagree with whatever he says." Yes, that's not logical like Mr Spock, but its how the real world works outside of internet boards. God forbid people have to work with a lot of you folks.
OK. In my understanding you aren't really selling "indemnification" or "insurance", but instead some legal assistance in the case there is an IP problem with open source software. Is this correct? If so, why go that route? It seems to offer little tangible benefit other than the "FUD Protection" angle.
Why not just pro-actively sell the legal assistance -- for example if a company wants to use OSS Project X, you would perform research and certify that the IP in Project X is "clean" and the project is freely redistributable.
(My IP fears aren't with Linux-Kernel or the big name projects -- its that I would use some guy's random open source PHP app only to find that he ripped the code off from a former employer or another project.)
Also you say: "Let me see the insurance policy that covers you if you have to pay out this indemnification, because I want to know that you can pay a claim, or multiple claims, that are as large as the damages I might have to bring to you."
OK, where's your insurance? Why would anyone believe that you have the ability to pay out any claims?
A lot of people are making comparisons with OS/2, but they only fit to a certain extent:
(1) Back in 1992, there essentially no Windows applications and no OS/2 applications. It could have gone either way.
In 2004, there's millions of Windows applications worth trillions of dollars. It would be an impossible task to port all of this software to Linux.
There's also already a large, established developer base for Linux (unlike OS/2). Gnome/KDE developers aren't going to switch to Win32/Wine.
(2) OS/2 was designed as the explicit Successor to Windows, and was marketed as Windows++. It had to be compatible with Windows or it would have cratered.
Linux was designed as the Successor to Solaris/other proprietary Unix, where it's done very well.
So, the question is if you view Linux as a replacement or successor to Windows. If you do, Wine is an critical piece of the puzzle. If you don't, then Linux is a nice workstation OS, but it become impossible or ridiculously expensive most desktops.
From a developer point of view, Wine can be used to cheaply support Linux for existing Win32 applications. Corel did it, and rumors have it that Macromedia is going to do it. Is having commercial applicaiton support bad for Linux?
The problem with these warez is that the core userbase is ultra-conservative and doesn't want anything changed. The graphing in Excel is basically the same as it was 15 years ago, for example. The core userbase is Finance people, and it will never expand to Engineering, Academics, etc.
When Lotus ruled the spreadsheet heap with 1-2-3, they had the same problem. They came out with Improv and a couple other spreadsheets because they were scared to change how the flagship worked.
rest here
Basically, this was a X11 terminal server sort of thing that could also redirect Windows apps. The project was eventually killed, and Ray Noorda picked up the Linux pieces and formed Caldera (later SCO).
Try Lookout for searching in Outlook.
I do find it kinda funny that Microsoft has all these information-at-your-fingertips, grand-unified, SQL-filesystem, Google-killer Search plans, but they haven't even got simple email searching going after all these years.
There was some reason for that I used Integer BASIC instead of AppleSoft for a program -- I want to say that IBASIC had PRINT USING and AppleSoft did not, but that could be wrong about that.
There was also the much better MBASIC if you had the CP/M Softcard.
Yeah, I kinda wonder about that myself. Although I personally can type something up a lot faster than it would take to dictate it or write longhand. Email makes a lot of the formatting issues a moot point anyway.
I suspect the "cultural shift" was more along the lines of:
+ Gender equity made harder to hire for subordinate secretarial jobs
+ Computerization made it more expensive to hire trained people
+ A trend towards "knowledge workers" -- so you get a bunch of Marketing Assistants rather than typists.
Also, the few Executive Secretary jobs left pay a lot more than $20K. I worked with one who was making $50K and that was 10 years ago.
The first real corporate job I had was right when they were transitioning to Windows 3.1.
The DOS/Novell system used a "Boot Menu" shell as a program launcher, and had a DOS File Manager that everyone used. (In otherwords, nobody really used COMMAND.COM.) It turned out that Windows was cheaper to license than the Boot Menu/File Manager combination, even if they weren't planning on using any Windows programs.
It wasn't long after that until people were passing around MS Office diskettes to free themselves from the tyrrany of DOS apps. (The place had a lot of ex-Mac users, so Windows was a natural fit.)
Nothing to do with the point, Mr. ABM -- there was much easier to use word processors than WordPerfect, even under DOS. WP was sorta like emacs in that it was designed to be super-efficient for the trained user rather than easy-to-use. (For example, there were about a half-dozen ways of scrolling the document.) WordStar, for example, was much easier -- the commands were onscreen rather than taped on your keyboard.
But since you mentioned it, WordPerfect is more of a case of "wouldn't" rather than "couldn't" -- dragging over their print drivers and fonts to the Windows world, for example.
IIRC, you couldn't just type "[B]" and have your text turn bold -- you did have to insert a special "binary" command.
The early versions of WPWin were basically unusable unless you had "Reveal Codes" enabled and made an extra effort to preserve the tags. Otherwise it was too easy to delete the invisible codes while editing text and the entire formatting of your document would randomly change.
Word was never technically superior, it merely appealed to a broader (and simpler) audience
It's important to remember that businesses used to run on personal secretaries and typing pools. WordPerfect had an "expert" blank-screen UI that appealed to these users. They could remember Ctrl+F7 (rather than a printer icon) because they really had few other professional responsibilities. Knowing the WP command set warranted a significantly higher pay for secretaries in those days.
The shift to GUI PCs and MS Word allowed companies to force their PHBs to type their own memos. They then could dismiss/reassign most of the admin staff for considerable cost savings. This wasn't so much a "cultural shift" but a matter of pure $$$.
That being said, as far as SQL security goes, PHP fares far better than its competitor, ASP.
ADO has Command and Parameter objects which automatically handle quoting issues, datatype checking, and prevents injection attacks almost entirely. [Of course, you need to use a SQL dialect which supports parameterization (not MySQL?).]
Flaming ASP here is entirely inappropriate becuase it provides a real, non-hacky solution built-in and PHP does not.
The problem with many DRM solutions before Apple's fairplay was they were too restrictive...
Thanks for proving my point, AppleBot. Rather than handwaving, provide a reference showing that iTunes is less restrictive than the competition. The RIAA was very clear in saying that Apple got the same deal as everyone else.
Sorry, but downloading movies, music, software and not paying for it is stealing folks
Nobody is talking about "stealing" music -- they are talking about removing the DRM from songs that you paid for. Since you failed to grasp the most important part of the discussion, maybe you should go back and reread everything before posting advertisements for Apple.
offtopic, but is that book called "II Cybernetic Frontiers"?
If so, there's a relevant quote in there:
This was written in 1974, 30 years ago.