The whole song (it's a remix of Curve's "Chinese Burn") is quite exceptional, though I agree that the little 30 second sample doesn't really have time to build.
This is a slightly hinky URL, but it seems to work:
If you can locate a copy of their Pink Girl With The Blues EP, "Recovery" is about my favorite song ever. Frankly, I'm just glad to see them getting what must be a fat royalty.
"The AltaVista Affiliate Network is leading the expansion of our distinctive services throughout the Web, at a global scale," said Rod Schrock, president and CEO of AltaVista Company. "This program will effectively open source AltaVista Search and translation services thereby extending our brand to the Internet community."
that link is just Altavista's news syndication services republishing the ZD story which started the brouhaha -- they have not yet issued a press release as far as I can tell.
So, all I have to say: don't even try to judge the technology until you have actually SEEN it in action.
Good point - but
you haven't seen MaxiVision, so you've got nothing to compare it with,
the film you did see in digital happens not only to be 100% computer-generated, but the third full-length attempt at a 100% digital feature by the undisputed industry leaders.
So let's call your experience best-possible-case. Sure, it's impressive, but we can take it as a given that both sides of this debate at least bring that much to the table.
I've found pair very handy while I got started, but I'm going to outgrow 'em around january, and their high-end QuickServe package unfortunately inherits a lot of the policy limitations of their shared servers. On shared servers, they make sense.
Pair was a useful and pretty inexpensive service before I was committed, and it was great to have access to SSL and MySQL without having to sweat the details, but my next setup looks to be a ppc-linux system at above.net.
Darwin is a *very* portable system so eventually we should see it on Sparc and Alpha too. [...] Then Apple can sell the MacOS X GUI on top... and there will be a REAL MS killer;).
Apple's revenues come almost exclusively from hardware, not software. That means Apple's software R&D comes from hardware. That means every times they can sell the Mac OS (X or otherwise) for less than the minimum $500 premium they see from a hardware sale, they're pissing away money.
Yes, as long as one doesn't post any math one can make the claim that if they sold gazillions of seats, they could make up whatever revenues they would have lost through hardware sales. Well, even discounting the far greater costs of supporting hardware the company didn't build, it's such a wildly dangerous gamble that Apple would be looking at a shareholder lawsuit removing its executive officers before anybody could even say, "I've hacked in a replacement for the Start Bar."
It will simply never happen. The economics are prohibitive.
Apple has always had offensive business practices, and this little PR move to stem the flood of development rushing away from their platform doesn't change that.
It's not as simple as a PR move. OS X Server depends on code protected by the GPL, among other licenses. The company is legally bound to release its changes. They could have done so all but silently; instead they chose to make it a public commitment, and to open-source far more than they had to (e.g, the decade of changes made to Mach since NeXT got off the ground).
If they were interested in the values or real benefits of any "openness" they wouldn't have killed Rhapsody on x86. (Which rocked as beta 1)
It rocks as a final product, too. It just happens to rock on the cool blue and white '99 G3.
Take a look at Apple's published statements to the SEC, and examine how much of Apple's revenue comes from software, vs how much comes from hardware. Jobs' decision to eliminate clone licenses was a hard call, but it was a business decision based on Apple's inability to continue to pay its engineers if it became a software company.
If its flagship products ran on commodity Intel hardware, Apple would become a software company, as most of its revenues would go away. Then it would either become a bankrupt company, or a division of AOL.
I don't think the doctrine of "openness" serves anyone if causes its proponents to go bankrupt.
And who knows, mac-heads might even end up with a better operating system to boot. Protected memory on that new iMac anyone?
...Darwin, aka the lowest-level parts of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, aka OpenStep for PowerPC, aka BSD 4.4 on a Mach kernel, already has protected memory. It's pretty thoroughly buzzword-compliant.
Not to say Apple and Mac users don't stand to benefit from availability of Darwin's source, but improvements will be incremental -- it's already modern by any definition.
Slashdot Mirror
If Slashdot's legacy will be pummeling other sites with traffic, The Onion's may be in unleashing journalism consisting exclusively of sarcasm.
Not that I think it's a bad thing, necessarily.
bumppo
This is a slightly hinky URL, but it seems to work:
http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=197066231 2/page name=/RP/CDN/FIND/popsearch.html?index=t&string=ch inese+burn
If you can locate a copy of their Pink Girl With The Blues EP, "Recovery" is about my favorite song ever. Frankly, I'm just glad to see them getting what must be a fat royalty.
bumppo
No, the song is a (Lunatic Calm?) remix of Chinese Burn, originally by Curve. Wasn't in the Matrix, to the Matrix's detriment.
Curve has been putting out ideal music for sci-fi for years. The producer who finally stumbles across "On the Wheel" will make a fortune.
bumppo
CMGI has finally seen fit to issue a press release. Surprise! they really are cheeky enough to suggest that a snippet of HTML constitutes open source.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/00 0201/ca_altavis_1.html
Excerpt:
"The AltaVista Affiliate Network is leading the expansion of our
distinctive services throughout the Web, at a global scale," said
Rod Schrock, president and CEO of AltaVista Company. "This
program will effectively open source AltaVista Search and
translation services thereby extending our brand to the Internet
community."
Smug bastards.
bumppo
that link is just Altavista's news syndication services republishing the ZD story which started the brouhaha -- they have not yet issued a press release as far as I can tell.
bumppo
Good point - but
- you haven't seen MaxiVision, so you've got nothing to compare it with,
- the film you did see in digital happens not only to be 100% computer-generated, but the third full-length attempt at a 100% digital feature by the undisputed industry leaders.
So let's call your experience best-possible-case. Sure, it's impressive, but we can take it as a given that both sides of this debate at least bring that much to the table.bumppo
bumppo
Pair was a useful and pretty inexpensive service before I was committed, and it was great to have access to SSL and MySQL without having to sweat the details, but my next setup looks to be a ppc-linux system at above.net.
bumppo
bumppo
Isn't there a particularly unpleasant nerve gas named VX? Or did Jerry Bruckheimer just make it up?
bumppo
Darwin is a *very* portable system so eventually we should see it on Sparc and Alpha too. [...] Then Apple can sell the MacOS X GUI on top... and there will be a REAL MS killer ;).
Apple's revenues come almost exclusively from hardware, not software. That means Apple's software R&D comes from hardware. That means every times they can sell the Mac OS (X or otherwise) for less than the minimum $500 premium they see from a hardware sale, they're pissing away money.
Yes, as long as one doesn't post any math one can make the claim that if they sold gazillions of seats, they could make up whatever revenues they would have lost through hardware sales. Well, even discounting the far greater costs of supporting hardware the company didn't build, it's such a wildly dangerous gamble that Apple would be looking at a shareholder lawsuit removing its executive officers before anybody could even say, "I've hacked in a replacement for the Start Bar."
It will simply never happen. The economics are prohibitive.
bumppo
Two points:
Apple has always had offensive business practices, and this little PR move to stem the flood of development rushing away from their platform doesn't change that.
It's not as simple as a PR move. OS X Server depends on code protected by the GPL, among other licenses. The company is legally bound to release its changes. They could have done so all but silently; instead they chose to make it a public commitment, and to open-source far more than they had to (e.g, the decade of changes made to Mach since NeXT got off the ground).
If they were interested in the values or real benefits of any "openness" they wouldn't have killed Rhapsody on x86. (Which rocked as beta 1)
It rocks as a final product, too. It just happens to rock on the cool blue and white '99 G3.
Take a look at Apple's published statements to the SEC, and examine how much of Apple's revenue comes from software, vs how much comes from hardware. Jobs' decision to eliminate clone licenses was a hard call, but it was a business decision based on Apple's inability to continue to pay its engineers if it became a software company.
If its flagship products ran on commodity Intel hardware, Apple would become a software company, as most of its revenues would go away. Then it would either become a bankrupt company, or a division of AOL.
I don't think the doctrine of "openness" serves anyone if causes its proponents to go bankrupt.
bumppo
I agree with mr. fly's points, except
And who knows, mac-heads might even end up with a better operating system to boot. Protected memory on that new iMac anyone?
...Darwin, aka the lowest-level parts of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, aka OpenStep for PowerPC, aka BSD 4.4 on a Mach kernel, already has protected memory. It's pretty thoroughly buzzword-compliant.
Not to say Apple and Mac users don't stand to benefit from availability of Darwin's source, but improvements will be incremental -- it's already modern by any definition.
bumppo