The first versions of Windows were released in the late 80's. Not very many people saw those, because they were sold alongside the first versions of Excel (which not very many people saw either). There was some serious MacOS copying going on in those Windows-es IIRC, except they didn't work very well. Then there was Windows 3.11 (3.1 was so buggy it was quickly replaced by a much needed upgrade version; I doubt anyone here actually used Win 3.1 proper). Then 95 and the (usable, if unstable) upgrades for that. At the same time, MS experimented with a DOS-free OS as well (NT), which, in its 5th incarnation, actually turned into a usable, stable system (Win2K). Windows XP marks the end of the DOS-based 9x series; the consumer friendly aspects of these OSes got bolted onto the Win2k (=NT 5) kernel. By most accounts, it's a pretty decent OS. A resource hog and riddled with security holes, but pretty much as stable as Linux or any other decent OS. I had to use it for a month or so, and it never crashed on me once during that time.
Agreed. Sure, Bill and his minions may usually end up the last people to "get it" (*starting* to think about the internet in 1995? sheesh), but like you said, once they've put it into their heads to do something, they'll get it done. Just don't expect results any time soon (witness the tediously long time it took to turnn MSIE into something useful, or how many versions of windows were released before they managed to build one that didn't suck).
I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX
I also don't think Linux, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX. After all, once you start up KDE/GNOME and start working with apps written specifically for KDE/GNOME, you, as an ordinary user, will hardly ever come across evidence of there being a traditional UNIX architecture running your system.
Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.
Maybe Apple doesn't *want* to compete on the commodity desktop. I think with all the flashy gadgets they've been releasing, focussing on looks as well as content, it's obvious they're interested in a different market entirely: luxury items. Most of their customers don't care about the technical side of things, nor do they need to because Apple takes care of that quite nicely, they just want something that works and looks good.
So Powerpoint was too dumb to properly scale the JPEGs? Why am I not surprised...
In the same way that your browser is too dumb to scale down JPEG's even if you've explicitly stated in the code that you want them to do so once displayed? C'mon, this is just an example of a Stupid User Bug.
Unfortunately, this is broken if the menus change (e.g. MS's idea of hiding items and them bringing them back, moving them around etc.).
NTBAMAB (not to be a microsoft apologist but... ) There was a reason for this. Usability studies reveal that, at most, humans can remember 7 or 8 menu options, no more. So, in their infinite wisdom, MSFT decided to write an app that looks out for which 7 or 8 options a given user actually, well, uses. The other ones get hidden.
It's not a bad idea, the execution is just a bit sucky.
Because I don't, but I was considering buying one of his books today, choosing not to because in true Anglosaxon fashion, it refused to divulge information on what it was about (got A&R instead).
And, you're forgetting, Stanislaw Lem is also one of the funniest SciFi writers. I used to reread stories from the "Trurl" + "Klapautius" (sorry, I read them in my native language) once every two months before I was stupid enough to lend my copy to a "friend". Fighting wars by hurling babies at an enemy planet must be the coolest idea in any SciFi story ever...
Apple's going to be out of business within 5 years
WTF? Last time I checked, all those fanatical mac zealots (working in graphics, publishing) that have kept Apple going all along have yet to see the light and get rid of their stinkin' systems that piss me off so much just because I can't seem to work on them;)
Apple gained *new* converts in the Yuppies-who-want-a-cool-looking-computer department when they put out the iMac, and it would seem they're about to get a few new ones with their newly revealed revamped iMac. Even I myself admit to getting a hard on as soon as I saw that beast (see above for my objective and impartial assessment of Apple's merits). So, no, I don't think Apple is going out of business any time soon, they've discovered a completely new audience of gadget freaks to please and their hardcore supporters are kept more than happy by their technical prowess (OSX). It's a bit arrogant to claim that just because *you* (and me, once the infatuation wears off) may never own an Apple, the company will go out of business.
I'm not proud of it, but I used to work for PCChips (or PC Shit as we used to call them), and I've heard it whispered a lot of times that most of what you say sounds familiar. In fact, I even have it on good authority a few senior staffers in their European distribution center were prosecuted for filing away serial numbers on CPU's, so they could sell them as higher end models than they really were.
The chipset naming issue (my absolute favorite example has to be the slogan "rember, it's BXtoo!") you bring up, however, isn't PC Chips' fault per se: a lot of these get made by shady Chinese plants and slapped on PCShit mobo's just because they're cheap.
I am sooo glad computer translation sucks as bad as it does (I work as a translator, though not from German, that's why). Both the Google translator and Babelfish still fail to yield proper English texts instead of translated single words stuck together, even after years and years of research. This is not a complex article requiring in-depth knowledge of German customs and culture, mind you, it's a simple narration of facts.
I stand corrected, thanks (misread "Rechtsanwalt" for "Reichsanwalt" and assumed it to mean sth like "Attorney General". Guess I should've paid more attention in German class way back when).
After Samba and kIllustrator, yet another open source program is in trouble. A regional court in Munich granted attorney general v. Gravenreuth a preliminary injunction against German Linux distributor SuSE. Apparently, the reason has to do with one of the open source programs contained in the SuSE distribution. The injunction forbids SuSE to continue distributing their product until the name of this program is changed. This could lead to SuSE suffering a substantial financial loss, as they can no longer sell CD's they've already manufactured.
Attorney general v. Gravenreuth confirmed he was requested to file suit on behalf of a third party, but declined to give further details, at the request of said third party. Christian Eagle, head of public relations at SuSE, stated his company will provide more information at a later date.
ok, so it's not shakespeare, but it's readable at least.
Let the RIAA mofos do what they want, let them waste their money, I couldn't care less.
My thoughts exactly. Until they came after me and willfully broke not some lame country soundtrack album, but a cd I was genuinely interested in. Just wait till that happens to you: you'll find you're very pissed off at not being able to play your lovely new purchase any way you want to.
This would explain why we've had copy protected cd's in Europe for about two years now (in the Netherlands, anyways) but, apparently, none in the US until last september. Guess they figured it doesn't matter if they only go after them stinkin' Yurpians or something.
One played it, the other one didn't. Bad enough for me. Ordinary cd's play in *both* drives (interestingly enough, the newer drive, a burner I sometimes use to play damaged cd's, failed to see there was an audio cd present at all, while the older drive played the disk just fine except for a few extra glitches which weren't supposed to be there.)
This happened in Windows ME (work, sorry) *and* Linux.
I didn't, because 1)I like the band, if not for their music just because they were the first to come up with the idea that the sound of failing hard disks and skipping cd-rom drives was music (in 1993!)
2)The band (actually, it's a one guy outfit) probably didn't have anything to do with this, as it's a reissue of older material on a slightly bigger label
I did, however, mention in the review that these copy protection measures are Evil (tm), if only because the artist involved (oval) has always been about exploring how random digital information can become digital music.
And disillusioned customers stop buying music, so the record companies have the worst year in a long time...
OK, I shouldn't really do this, but wtf...
Over the past two years or so, over here in the Netherlands at least, more and more "music afficionado's", meaning: "kids who bother to shell out bucks for music other than major label schtick", have been drifting towards more-independent-than-thou electronica, foregoing their usual diet of avantpop and guitar noise etc.
Why? Lemme take a guess...
Like it or not, every form of guitar music excepting the most specialist garage thrash that gets recorded on two track cassette recorders as a matter of principle (as you can see, my own credentials are perfectly in order as well... I remember the Donnas back when they didn't suck... do you?) needs some form of label support to pay the atrocious bills of a studio that knows what it's doing.
On the other hand, for modern day electronica, all you need is a fairly average desktop PC (running Windows or MacOS, I'm sorry to say*), a cd burner and a few thousand EUR or so to press vinyl copies. No record label *ever* gets involved.
The result is that all truly original music nowadays gets made on a desktop computer, not by some geeky fellows in a mouldy practice space. Why bother with the latter if you can have near perfect sound quality and a near perfect materialisation of your musical vision at a tenth of the cost?
Support these independent electronica artists by buying their albums, eschew major label shit, and sooner or later you'll have turned the entire musical landscape around just because there's no more need for out of the ordinary equipment to make out of the ordinary music.
*Maybe some open source sound app developers should take a few pointers from Win/Mac freeware/shareware developers on how to develop music software? Please? I'd love to switch over completely to Linux, but unfortunately, most audio apps suck
Actually as far as CDR's are concerned you are free to avoid paying the tax, just buy Data CDRs instead of Music CDRs.
Uhm, no, I think you're mixing up two different things.
There's audio-only cd-r's which only work in standalone audio cd burners. These are hideously expensive because the market for them is limited.
The ones you can use in computer cd burners (either the 74 minute/650 MB audio type or the 80 minute/700 MB type older stand alone cd players choke on) are cheaper because everyone wants them.
IIRC, for both you'll have to pay some sort of copyright tax.
...which is why I'm as pissed off about it now as I am, whereas just a week ago I simply shrugged and thought: "well, that's for people who want to copy Britney records is all".
Today I got a review copy of an Oval (raise your hands if you've heard about them... right, didn't think so) disk in the mail. Guess what? I couldn't review it until I remembered there was a half broken diskman up in the attic somewhere because it was copy protected and couldn't be played on a cd-rom drive (I don't have - or didn't think I had - a regular cd player, it's either cd's in cd-rom drives or records for me, thank you). This is an album that will sell poorly by major label standards, even if it sells extremely well (two thousand copies at most). No one on Napster++ is going to be interested in mp3's I rip off it (not that I do, but...). Finally, it's something that will appeal primarily to a somewhat technophile audience likely to play it on a cd-romplayer - why the fuck do they do this? Is this worth alienating the 1000 or so fans Oval has? Don't think so...
They must be, and this (which I, like many other/.-ers, apparently, hadn't thought of before even though it makes perfect sense) proves it.
Or does it? It's still possible to make *analog* copies of cd's, just not *digital* ones. Does the law state anything about allowing analog (imperfect) but not digital (perfect) copies?
Slashdot Mirror
< feed the troll ... must feed the troll ... >
The first versions of Windows were released in the late 80's. Not very many people saw those, because they were sold alongside the first versions of Excel (which not very many people saw either). There was some serious MacOS copying going on in those Windows-es IIRC, except they didn't work very well. Then there was Windows 3.11 (3.1 was so buggy it was quickly replaced by a much needed upgrade version; I doubt anyone here actually used Win 3.1 proper). Then 95 and the (usable, if unstable) upgrades for that. At the same time, MS experimented with a DOS-free OS as well (NT), which, in its 5th incarnation, actually turned into a usable, stable system (Win2K). Windows XP marks the end of the DOS-based 9x series; the consumer friendly aspects of these OSes got bolted onto the Win2k (=NT 5) kernel. By most accounts, it's a pretty decent OS. A resource hog and riddled with security holes, but pretty much as stable as Linux or any other decent OS. I had to use it for a month or so, and it never crashed on me once during that time.
So there.
Agreed. Sure, Bill and his minions may usually end up the last people to "get it" (*starting* to think about the internet in 1995? sheesh), but like you said, once they've put it into their heads to do something, they'll get it done. Just don't expect results any time soon (witness the tediously long time it took to turnn MSIE into something useful, or how many versions of windows were released before they managed to build one that didn't suck).
But if you stick an athlon in your purty iMac, the case would melt.
I also don't think OSX, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX
I also don't think Linux, while being UNIX-compatible, should be called a version of UNIX. After all, once you start up KDE/GNOME and start working with apps written specifically for KDE/GNOME, you, as an ordinary user, will hardly ever come across evidence of there being a traditional UNIX architecture running your system.
Darwin is UNIX, period. It's just that Apple were smart enough to ditch X and come up with a better graphical system. I wish someone would do the same for other UNIces.
Maybe Apple doesn't *want* to compete on the commodity desktop. I think with all the flashy gadgets they've been releasing, focussing on looks as well as content, it's obvious they're interested in a different market entirely: luxury items. Most of their customers don't care about the technical side of things, nor do they need to because Apple takes care of that quite nicely, they just want something that works and looks good.
So Powerpoint was too dumb to properly scale the JPEGs? Why am I not surprised...
In the same way that your browser is too dumb to scale down JPEG's even if you've explicitly stated in the code that you want them to do so once displayed? C'mon, this is just an example of a Stupid User Bug.
Unfortunately, this is broken if the menus change (e.g. MS's idea of hiding items and them bringing them back, moving them around etc.).
... ) There was a reason for this. Usability studies reveal that, at most, humans can remember 7 or 8 menu options, no more. So, in their infinite wisdom, MSFT decided to write an app that looks out for which 7 or 8 options a given user actually, well, uses. The other ones get hidden.
NTBAMAB (not to be a microsoft apologist but
It's not a bad idea, the execution is just a bit sucky.
Because I don't, but I was considering buying one of his books today, choosing not to because in true Anglosaxon fashion, it refused to divulge information on what it was about (got A&R instead).
And, you're forgetting, Stanislaw Lem is also one of the funniest SciFi writers. I used to reread stories from the "Trurl" + "Klapautius" (sorry, I read them in my native language) once every two months before I was stupid enough to lend my copy to a "friend". Fighting wars by hurling babies at an enemy planet must be the coolest idea in any SciFi story ever...
My bad. Sorry for assuming. So what makes you say what you said above?
Apple's going to be out of business within 5 years
;)
WTF? Last time I checked, all those fanatical mac zealots (working in graphics, publishing) that have kept Apple going all along have yet to see the light and get rid of their stinkin' systems that piss me off so much just because I can't seem to work on them
Apple gained *new* converts in the Yuppies-who-want-a-cool-looking-computer department when they put out the iMac, and it would seem they're about to get a few new ones with their newly revealed revamped iMac. Even I myself admit to getting a hard on as soon as I saw that beast (see above for my objective and impartial assessment of Apple's merits). So, no, I don't think Apple is going out of business any time soon, they've discovered a completely new audience of gadget freaks to please and their hardcore supporters are kept more than happy by their technical prowess (OSX). It's a bit arrogant to claim that just because *you* (and me, once the infatuation wears off) may never own an Apple, the company will go out of business.
I'm not proud of it, but I used to work for PCChips (or PC Shit as we used to call them), and I've heard it whispered a lot of times that most of what you say sounds familiar. In fact, I even have it on good authority a few senior staffers in their European distribution center were prosecuted for filing away serial numbers on CPU's, so they could sell them as higher end models than they really were.
The chipset naming issue (my absolute favorite example has to be the slogan "rember, it's BXtoo!") you bring up, however, isn't PC Chips' fault per se: a lot of these get made by shady Chinese plants and slapped on PCShit mobo's just because they're cheap.
I am sooo glad computer translation sucks as bad as it does (I work as a translator, though not from German, that's why). Both the Google translator and Babelfish still fail to yield proper English texts instead of translated single words stuck together, even after years and years of research. This is not a complex article requiring in-depth knowledge of German customs and culture, mind you, it's a simple narration of facts.
I stand corrected, thanks (misread "Rechtsanwalt" for "Reichsanwalt" and assumed it to mean sth like "Attorney General". Guess I should've paid more attention in German class way back when).
Interesting. Do you have anything to back this up?
If you're sueing someone from infringing your trademark, why would you want to keep your trademark a secret?
After Samba and kIllustrator, yet another open source program is in trouble. A regional court in Munich granted attorney general v. Gravenreuth a preliminary injunction against German Linux distributor SuSE. Apparently, the reason has to do with one of the open source programs contained in the SuSE distribution. The injunction forbids SuSE to continue distributing their product until the name of this program is changed. This could lead to SuSE suffering a substantial financial loss, as they can no longer sell CD's they've already manufactured.
Attorney general v. Gravenreuth confirmed he was requested to file suit on behalf of a third party, but declined to give further details, at the request of said third party. Christian Eagle, head of public relations at SuSE, stated his company will provide more information at a later date.
ok, so it's not shakespeare, but it's readable at least.
Let the RIAA mofos do what they want, let them waste their money, I couldn't care less.
My thoughts exactly. Until they came after me and willfully broke not some lame country soundtrack album, but a cd I was genuinely interested in. Just wait till that happens to you: you'll find you're very pissed off at not being able to play your lovely new purchase any way you want to.
This would explain why we've had copy protected cd's in Europe for about two years now (in the Netherlands, anyways) but, apparently, none in the US until last september. Guess they figured it doesn't matter if they only go after them stinkin' Yurpians or something.
One played it, the other one didn't. Bad enough for me. Ordinary cd's play in *both* drives (interestingly enough, the newer drive, a burner I sometimes use to play damaged cd's, failed to see there was an audio cd present at all, while the older drive played the disk just fine except for a few extra glitches which weren't supposed to be there.)
This happened in Windows ME (work, sorry) *and* Linux.
I didn't, because
1)I like the band, if not for their music just because they were the first to come up with the idea that the sound of failing hard disks and skipping cd-rom drives was music (in 1993!)
2)The band (actually, it's a one guy outfit) probably didn't have anything to do with this, as it's a reissue of older material on a slightly bigger label
I did, however, mention in the review that these copy protection measures are Evil (tm), if only because the artist involved (oval) has always been about exploring how random digital information can become digital music.
And disillusioned customers stop buying music, so the record companies have the worst year in a long time...
...
...
... I remember the Donnas back when they didn't suck ... do you?) needs some form of label support to pay the atrocious bills of a studio that knows what it's doing.
OK, I shouldn't really do this, but wtf
Over the past two years or so, over here in the Netherlands at least, more and more "music afficionado's", meaning: "kids who bother to shell out bucks for music other than major label schtick", have been drifting towards more-independent-than-thou electronica, foregoing their usual diet of avantpop and guitar noise etc.
Why? Lemme take a guess
Like it or not, every form of guitar music excepting the most specialist garage thrash that gets recorded on two track cassette recorders as a matter of principle (as you can see, my own credentials are perfectly in order as well
On the other hand, for modern day electronica, all you need is a fairly average desktop PC (running Windows or MacOS, I'm sorry to say*), a cd burner and a few thousand EUR or so to press vinyl copies. No record label *ever* gets involved.
The result is that all truly original music nowadays gets made on a desktop computer, not by some geeky fellows in a mouldy practice space. Why bother with the latter if you can have near perfect sound quality and a near perfect materialisation of your musical vision at a tenth of the cost?
Support these independent electronica artists by buying their albums, eschew major label shit, and sooner or later you'll have turned the entire musical landscape around just because there's no more need for out of the ordinary equipment to make out of the ordinary music.
*Maybe some open source sound app developers should take a few pointers from Win/Mac freeware/shareware developers on how to develop music software? Please? I'd love to switch over completely to Linux, but unfortunately, most audio apps suck
Actually as far as CDR's are concerned you are free to avoid paying the tax, just buy Data CDRs instead of Music CDRs.
Uhm, no, I think you're mixing up two different things.
There's audio-only cd-r's which only work in standalone audio cd burners. These are hideously expensive because the market for them is limited.
The ones you can use in computer cd burners (either the 74 minute/650 MB audio type or the 80 minute/700 MB type older stand alone cd players choke on) are cheaper because everyone wants them.
IIRC, for both you'll have to pay some sort of copyright tax.
...which is why I'm as pissed off about it now as I am, whereas just a week ago I simply shrugged and thought: "well, that's for people who want to copy Britney records is all".
... right, didn't think so) disk in the mail. Guess what? I couldn't review it until I remembered there was a half broken diskman up in the attic somewhere because it was copy protected and couldn't be played on a cd-rom drive (I don't have - or didn't think I had - a regular cd player, it's either cd's in cd-rom drives or records for me, thank you). This is an album that will sell poorly by major label standards, even if it sells extremely well (two thousand copies at most). No one on Napster++ is going to be interested in mp3's I rip off it (not that I do, but ...). Finally, it's something that will appeal primarily to a somewhat technophile audience likely to play it on a cd-romplayer - why the fuck do they do this? Is this worth alienating the 1000 or so fans Oval has? Don't think so...
Today I got a review copy of an Oval (raise your hands if you've heard about them
They must be, and this (which I, like many other /.-ers, apparently, hadn't thought of before even though it makes perfect sense) proves it.
Or does it? It's still possible to make *analog* copies of cd's, just not *digital* ones. Does the law state anything about allowing analog (imperfect) but not digital (perfect) copies?