The ogg-vorbis codec itself is better than the mp3 codec, but what gives the most advantage is not the codec itself, but the fact that ogg-vorbis is variable bitrate by nature and also encourages users to stop thinking in bitrates and start thinking in quality.
For example 128kbps/mp3 is really good enough for most songs, but there are maybe 10% which are hard to encode - so a lot of people use 160kbps, 192kbps or even 256kbps which is a huge waste for most songs. MP3-VBR exists but is rarely used and is still bitrate based (you choose an average bitrate, not a quality)
With ogg-vorbis, you can get the same quality by a much lower average bitrate.
Actually, the more demanding and the less forgiving a user is, the bigger the difference becomes between bitrate-based mp3 and quality-based ogg-vorbis.
Like it or not, Microsoft is doing fine. They have good profits for the forseeable future.
Like it or not, Microsoft is overpriced. If I would take Microsoft's market capitalization (259 billion $) and put the money into low risk investments at 5% interest, I would make 259 * 0.05 = 12.95 billion in profits per year.
Microsoft makes only about 10 billion in profits, so it's severly overpriced, especially considering the fact that stocks are very risky.
Microsoft has just recently raised licensing costs (through Licensing 6.0) but does on the other hand give huge discounts to all major customers if they may go to Linux. I'd say that in the future there is not much room anymore to bleed their customers.
Actually Gates and Ballmer constantly sell shares, ironically at a higher rate since the stock collapse (MSFT used to cost 120$, now it's 50$ (or 25$ after the split)
Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles).
Microsoft, the stock will certainly go down in the next years.
Re:But wouldn't this apply to the GPL too?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
By this logic, Vendor B still retains the BSD-licensed Linux kernel, and can build a closed-source proprietary OS around it?
No, Vendor B would stop distributing the product and possibly has to offer users a non-IP-violating upgrade.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Granted, they rarely prosecute ignorant people, but they are expected to return the goods...
"Returning the goods" would mean for distributors "release new version, offer non-violating upgrades on website".
Not more, not less.
It's certainly not the end of the world as some MS supporters might want us to believe.
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
It definitely makes sense, but since w/ Linux/OSS the "consumers" are also frequently making copies, could their ability to make copies be undermined?
No.
Only the person/organization which violated the license is breaking the law, nobody else does. As long as there is no proof of some violating code being in an GPLed project, as long you have the right to make as many copies as you want and use it in any way you choose (within the constraints of the GPL of course).
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Not exactly. I can't speak to the issue of the end user of a single copy bought from Red Hat -- that'd be complicated. However, the liability would be inherited by anyone who made an infringing copy of the work in question. Thus, Red Hat, IBM, and VA Linux would unquestionably be liable.
Wrong. A distributor has to resolve the infringement, which means it has to offer upgrades to non-infringing versions on it's website and stop distributing infringing code. Nothing more, nothing less.
So in real life the distributors would release a new version and that would be about it.
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In fact I was very bothered by the suggestion because if it was it would threaten the hoarde of Linux systems in my office and home.
Then SCO has already achieved their goal.
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, even if they bought it unaware.
Let's please realize the difference between theory and praxis.
Let's also realize that the chance Linux contains relevant SCO code is nil.
With that in mind - In theory you would have to upgrade to a newer version if some infringing code is found. However, in real life it won't matter because: 1) The courts are so slow that the infringing software would be out of date long before you would have to upgrade, 2) Nobody cares. 3) Nobody knows. Neither MS nor SCO have the registration information of SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake customers, many customers don't register and for those who use debian or Gentoo, such registration information doesn't even exist. They might force their own users to upgrade, but quite frankly they can't even prove that they haven't already jumped to another distribution.
Sorry for overreacting in my last post, but I feel very frustrated and sad that SCO is so successful with this pure FUD campaign.
They already got the money. (from MS) And they will get more.
Either from IBM (to shut the fuck up) or from MS (to continue to spread FUD)
They don't have any proof, but the damage they can do with their FUD is still incredible.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The person who did the paste would certainly be guilty of copyright infringement,
Exactly.
but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?
No, it isn't.
No matter how much you or SCO's CEO wishes it to be, there is no liability passed to the end user, period.
Wouldn't make any sense or would it? Just because some vendor is guilty of a crime, suddently all users shall be guilty of that crime, too? What nonsense.
Re:considered the father of Linux?
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What if someone has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Linux systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation?
What if Microsoft has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Windows systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation?
There are no implications for the user, period. If someone uses code he is not allowed to, it's his problem and nobody else's. And this applies to all licenses and all development models equally.
If your code violates the license of another code, you will have to resolve the issue.
With any license, you will have the possibility to just remove the other code (and possibly pay damages if that code is sold for mone), no matter what license that other code is under. The GPL cannot and does not prvent you doing that. The GPL is exactly like any other license in this respect
The GPL just offers you another additional option - opening your code. But that is not forced upon anybody.
If your linked to GPL code your code is GPL, or you have to take out the GPL code. Thats forced GPL and theres no way around it.
You write the way around it "or you have to take out the GPL code", then you claim that there is no way around it?
So far, not a single line of code was forced to be made GPL.
If you use GPLed code inappropriately, you have to resolve the licensing problem. You can just remove the GPLed code which you weren't allowed to take in the first place and everything is fine. Of course you can also open up your code if you choose to, but nobody is forcing you to do that. Also, nobody is forcing you to use GPLed code in the first place.
It's so damned obvious that this is just a FUD-campaign.
Why doesn't SCO tell us what part of the source are in violation? Simply because these parts don't exist.
SCO is either paid for spraying FUD (by MS) or will be payed for stopping spraying FUD (by IBM, simply because the damage this FUD is inflicting is higher than the sum SCO will want to shut up) - or both.
First, all those "64-Bit" ports were for Itanium and won't even run on Opteron. Currently there is not a single Microsoft product optimized for Opteron. With SuSE's Opteron Linux being available and other distros underway (AFAIK Gentoo and debian should be ready about now), it is safe to say that Linux is indeed first on Opteron.
Second, we all know how Microsoft's 64-Bit ports are. Windows/Alpha was pretty much a 32 Bit OS running on a 64 Bit CPU. The complete lack of reviews and benchmarks about 64Bit Windows does make me very suspicious about their offerings. Both Itanium and Opteron are backwards-compatible, I just wonder how much of their 64-Bit version is in reality just the same old code.
Based on past history, the deciding factor will not be whether or not Microsoft succeeds, but rather whether or not the competition falters or dithers long enough for Microsoft to come through with a credible bodge-job that can woo potential customers.
Well, the rules have changed. When Intel made the 16 to 32 Bit transition, Microsoft was too incompetent to supply a 32Bit OS for half a decade. But there was basically no 32Bit alternative to MS DOS and later Windows on x86, so Microsoft got away with their incompetence.
Now things are different. Linux is a viable alternative for many tasks and SuSE has already finished the Opteron port. Linux will not only available for x86-64, it will be the *first* OS available (never happened before: Linux was always late on the market - not this time) and Linux will be officially supported by AMD.
On servers, this will hurt MS a lot and Linux will be #1 on servers within 3 years from now because the situation on Itanium is similar.
Sure, Linux will not take Windows' place on the desktop after the 64-Bit transition, but I think it is realistic that Linux will go from neglectible marketshare to significant (maybe 10% - 20%), which will be enough for hardware makers to support it by themselves.
Why does everyone insist on claiming that linux has taken over the embedded market?
I work in the embedded market and it is the standard.
Our partner-company was a 100% Microsoft-shop and Linux is forbidden in the corporate LAN - yet they still chose Linux as their platform for *ALL* their new devices.
What about VXworks? PalmOS? QNX? Are these people quaking in their boots?
Yes they are. You can get big discounts from everybody.
What about all the special purpose real time OSes that many companies use.
Used in many existing devices, but for most new developments, a real OS is chosen for shorter development time. (the hardware is fast enough already)
Linux isn't the standard in the embedded market any more than it is the standard on the desktop.
Laughable. According to this study: here
Linux (+ BSD) was running on 11% of existing systems in 2001, but was used for 50% of new projects.
I can only confirm these developments, Linux is already the de-facto standard on embedded systems.
Ok then, what shall we do in 10 years when OpenOffice is the de-facto standard and it comes pre-installed on every machine and has 99% of the market. In that case OpenOffice's price will almost certainly "stifle competition."
No, it's open source. As such it is guaranteed to be available from multiple sources such as SuSE, Mandrake, debian, Sun, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, it's like COMDEX suing a typewriter company that claims in public that computers cause cancer without the slight sign of proof.
Does this really make you a Linux-leader?
For example 128kbps/mp3 is really good enough for most songs, but there are maybe 10% which are hard to encode - so a lot of people use 160kbps, 192kbps or even 256kbps which is a huge waste for most songs. MP3-VBR exists but is rarely used and is still bitrate based (you choose an average bitrate, not a quality)
With ogg-vorbis, you can get the same quality by a much lower average bitrate.
Actually, the more demanding and the less forgiving a user is, the bigger the difference becomes between bitrate-based mp3 and quality-based ogg-vorbis.
Like it or not, Microsoft is overpriced. If I would take Microsoft's market capitalization (259 billion $) and put the money into low risk investments at 5% interest, I would make 259 * 0.05 = 12.95 billion in profits per year.
Microsoft makes only about 10 billion in profits, so it's severly overpriced, especially considering the fact that stocks are very risky.
Microsoft has just recently raised licensing costs (through Licensing 6.0) but does on the other hand give huge discounts to all major customers if they may go to Linux. I'd say that in the future there is not much room anymore to bleed their customers.
Ballmer now sold 40 Million shares, compared to that Bill Gates sold 400 Million or about 40% of his shares in the last years.
If Gates and Ballmer don't know where MSFT-stock is headed, who does?
Actually Gates and Ballmer constantly sell shares, ironically at a higher rate since the stock collapse (MSFT used to cost 120$, now it's 50$ (or 25$ after the split)
Microsoft executives know that Microsoft has a lot to lose and not much to gain. The only market where they are strong (the desktop) they have no room to grow, everywhere else they are losing (servers, embedded systems, gaming consoles).
Microsoft, the stock will certainly go down in the next years.
No, Vendor B would stop distributing the product and possibly has to offer users a non-IP-violating upgrade.
"Returning the goods" would mean for distributors "release new version, offer non-violating upgrades on website".
Not more, not less.
It's certainly not the end of the world as some MS supporters might want us to believe.
No.
Only the person/organization which violated the license is breaking the law, nobody else does. As long as there is no proof of some violating code being in an GPLed project, as long you have the right to make as many copies as you want and use it in any way you choose (within the constraints of the GPL of course).
Wrong. A distributor has to resolve the infringement, which means it has to offer upgrades to non-infringing versions on it's website and stop distributing infringing code. Nothing more, nothing less.
So in real life the distributors would release a new version and that would be about it.
Then SCO has already achieved their goal.
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, even if they bought it unaware.
Let's please realize the difference between theory and praxis.
Let's also realize that the chance Linux contains relevant SCO code is nil.
With that in mind - In theory you would have to upgrade to a newer version if some infringing code is found. However, in real life it won't matter because: 1) The courts are so slow that the infringing software would be out of date long before you would have to upgrade, 2) Nobody cares. 3) Nobody knows. Neither MS nor SCO have the registration information of SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake customers, many customers don't register and for those who use debian or Gentoo, such registration information doesn't even exist. They might force their own users to upgrade, but quite frankly they can't even prove that they haven't already jumped to another distribution.
Sorry for overreacting in my last post, but I feel very frustrated and sad that SCO is so successful with this pure FUD campaign.
They already got the money. (from MS) And they will get more.
Either from IBM (to shut the fuck up) or from MS (to continue to spread FUD)
They don't have any proof, but the damage they can do with their FUD is still incredible.
Exactly.
but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?
No, it isn't.
No matter how much you or SCO's CEO wishes it to be, there is no liability passed to the end user, period.
Wouldn't make any sense or would it? Just because some vendor is guilty of a crime, suddently all users shall be guilty of that crime, too? What nonsense.
What if Microsoft has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Windows systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation?
There are no implications for the user, period. If someone uses code he is not allowed to, it's his problem and nobody else's. And this applies to all licenses and all development models equally.
To be legally questioned, there has to be a little bit more than some wild unproven claims by some dying company.
Maybe it's time for SCO to tell us what exactly they think is violating their IP... if they know themselves, that is...
If your code violates the license of another code, you will have to resolve the issue.
With any license, you will have the possibility to just remove the other code (and possibly pay damages if that code is sold for mone), no matter what license that other code is under. The GPL cannot and does not prvent you doing that. The GPL is exactly like any other license in this respect
The GPL just offers you another additional option - opening your code. But that is not forced upon anybody.
If your linked to GPL code your code is GPL, or you have to take out the GPL code. Thats forced GPL and theres no way around it.
You write the way around it "or you have to take out the GPL code", then you claim that there is no way around it?
This is just bullshit. Plain and simple.
So far, not a single line of code was forced to be made GPL.
If you use GPLed code inappropriately, you have to resolve the licensing problem. You can just remove the GPLed code which you weren't allowed to take in the first place and everything is fine. Of course you can also open up your code if you choose to, but nobody is forcing you to do that. Also, nobody is forcing you to use GPLed code in the first place.
What? What precious IP did they lose?
Oh. Right. That's a secret.
Why doesn't SCO tell us what part of the source are in violation? Simply because these parts don't exist.
SCO is either paid for spraying FUD (by MS) or will be payed for stopping spraying FUD (by IBM, simply because the damage this FUD is inflicting is higher than the sum SCO will want to shut up) - or both.
So please don't consider SCO seriously, they don't have a case.
Second, we all know how Microsoft's 64-Bit ports are. Windows/Alpha was pretty much a 32 Bit OS running on a 64 Bit CPU. The complete lack of reviews and benchmarks about 64Bit Windows does make me very suspicious about their offerings. Both Itanium and Opteron are backwards-compatible, I just wonder how much of their 64-Bit version is in reality just the same old code.
However, a larger and larger share of embedded devices use a CPU and a larger and larger share of those use an OS.
Well, the rules have changed. When Intel made the 16 to 32 Bit transition, Microsoft was too incompetent to supply a 32Bit OS for half a decade. But there was basically no 32Bit alternative to MS DOS and later Windows on x86, so Microsoft got away with their incompetence.
Now things are different. Linux is a viable alternative for many tasks and SuSE has already finished the Opteron port. Linux will not only available for x86-64, it will be the *first* OS available (never happened before: Linux was always late on the market - not this time) and Linux will be officially supported by AMD.
On servers, this will hurt MS a lot and Linux will be #1 on servers within 3 years from now because the situation on Itanium is similar.
Sure, Linux will not take Windows' place on the desktop after the 64-Bit transition, but I think it is realistic that Linux will go from neglectible marketshare to significant (maybe 10% - 20%), which will be enough for hardware makers to support it by themselves.
I work in the embedded market and it is the standard.
Our partner-company was a 100% Microsoft-shop and Linux is forbidden in the corporate LAN - yet they still chose Linux as their platform for *ALL* their new devices.
What about VXworks? PalmOS? QNX? Are these people quaking in their boots?
Yes they are. You can get big discounts from everybody.
What about all the special purpose real time OSes that many companies use.
Used in many existing devices, but for most new developments, a real OS is chosen for shorter development time. (the hardware is fast enough already)
Linux isn't the standard in the embedded market any more than it is the standard on the desktop.
Laughable. According to this study: here Linux (+ BSD) was running on 11% of existing systems in 2001, but was used for 50% of new projects.
I can only confirm these developments, Linux is already the de-facto standard on embedded systems.
No, it's open source. As such it is guaranteed to be available from multiple sources such as SuSE, Mandrake, debian, Sun, etc.