As Hollywood's dependence on Linux grows, it will at the same time be more difficult for them to attack the Linux community (for instance for introducing DVD functionality in Linux) without being considered hypocrites.
I can picture the following court case:
Prosecution (on behalf of the MPAA): Let us consider this "Linux community". As is widely known, many people among this community are hackers and potential terrorists with no regard for intellectual property whatsoever. For example, take the current SCO suit against..."
Defense (on behalf of some Linux-related project): Objection, Your Honor! The Open Source community is not on trial here!
Prosecution: I am merely describing the reputation of the Linux community to give an idea what kind of people we're dealing with.
Defense: But Linux enjoys a lot of appreciation and support among motion picture companies throughout Hollywood, which make extensive use of it themselvers!
Judge: Prosecution, is this true?
Prosecution: Well, uh, I don't know... Perhaps... But that's not the point!
Judge: It isn't? Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
Prosecution: Well... Um...
Defense: You honor, I think about now would be a good time to move towards the dismissal of this suit.
(Okay, so perhaps that last line is a little to optimistic, but you get the idea.;) )
An even better way for mp3.com to save money would be to switch to the Ogg Vorbis format. That would have two advantages:
1) better quality at the same bandwidth or equal quality at a lower bandwidth (therefore saving bandwidth costs without sacrificing any quality)
2) no longer having to pay royaltees for MP3 patents
On the other hand, it would be pretty bizarre (not to mention confusing for some people) if a site called 'mp3.com' only offered OGG files for download.;)
Anybody remember Sam Lantinga? He's the main SDL coder and he was hired by Blizzard a while back. His employment there led many optimists in the Linux gaming community to speculate that he could perhaps be able to persuade Blizzard to port games to Linux (or that perhaps he was hired in the first place to do exactly that, using his experience with SDL), although Lantinga himself mentioned that that (at least initially) would be quite unlikely.
I checked this guy's site, and it appears he really did some impressive work hacking around those binary FreeBSD drivers and somehow getting them to work with NetBSD (even though there are currently some serious issues left, but it looks like he already completed the hard part of the work).
With this feat, I wonder if a similar hack could now also be made for OpenBSD... Although probably nobody would be interested in this. I mean, come on: why modify an otherwise stable and highly secure (mostly server) OS through the use of experimental patches, combined with binary code originally meant for another OS, which would only be beneficial to 3d graphics support?;) But still I'm wondering, purely from a theoretical and technical point of view, how much more difficult it would be. Not much, I reckon, since the BSD's (especially NetBSD and OpenBSD) are very closely related and therefore share a lot of code and architecture.
I guess that the next (sufficiently interesting) step would be Darwin (the x86-port ofcourse). Since Darwin is more distantly related from the BSD family than the rest of the BSD's (it's based on a FreeBSD-like layer on top of a microkernel), this might prove to be more of a challenge.:)
Aaaargh! So many operating systems to potentially support! Do you see now why I am such a proponent of DRI?;)
Alright, NVIDIA's 3d-drivers are closed-source. But they do offer kick-ass performance under Linux.
Unfortunately, they have been jumping through all sorts of hoops in order to keep releasing closed source 3d driver binaries, while keeping them up to date with XFree86 and Linux kernel updates. This is unnecessary, since XFree86 already has an infrastructure in place, which is well suited to solve this problem: The Direct Rendering Infrastructure, or DRI.
In the past, NVIDIA's argument against DRI could have been that DRI wasn't a sufficiently mature technology, but nowadays, this is no longer an issue. Also, NVIDIA is the only company in the graphic card business, which used a different proprietary infrastructure for their 3d drivers. All the other companies, such as ATI, Matrox and Videologic (regardless if they release sources to their 3d-code or not) all use the DRI-model.
Currently, there DRI-model fits NVIDIA's predicament perfectly: NVIDIA has already released the sources to the 2d-part of their drivers long ago (and they have been part of XFree86 for quite some time), but they just want to keep the 3d-aspect closed source. That's exactly how DRI-based drivers work! A 2D-part, which is part of XFree86, combined with a 3d-part, which plugs into the 2D-part of the driver through a (standardized) modular architecture!
An added advantage is that these binary DRI modules are OS-independent, just architecture-dependent. It is even possible to use DRI modules with GUI systems other than XFree86. DirectFB has been (successfully) working on DRI-support.
In other words: had NVIDIA already switched to the DRI model for their driver, then they wouldn't have had to go through the trouble of porting their drivers to FreeBSD. The same binary module already available for Linux would have worked on a FreeBSD system with a DRI-enabled kernel (which FreeBSD already supports). The DRI modular architecture has been deliberately designed that way. All NVIDIA would have to do is release the 2D specs under open source (which they already have done) and compile DRI module releases once for each architecture they'd want to support: x86, Motorola/IBM G4, IA64 and AMD64 architectures. These modules would then work out of the box on any OS with DRI support (on any of these architectures).
Example: if Zeta, the BeOS "reincarnation", would be updated to work with DRI modules, then it would be able to make use of the 3d capabilities on NVIDIA-cards right away!
Furthermore, the DRI model would have made it a necessity vor NVIDIA to release open source AGPGART kernel code for the NForce2 in the first place, because this would be required for even NVIDIA's drivers to work. A proprietary alternative AGP handling hack (like what they have been using in their drivers until now) would have made no sense.
Lastly, the fact that NVIDIA would then not be using a different architecture then the other companies would be causing a lot less headaches for 3d application developers under Linux. Right now, many games and other applications under Linux, such as Winex 3.0 and the Neverwinter Nights port, have been optimised to work with NVIDIA's drivers, but still need work on proper support for DRI (basically covering all other 3d solutions for Linux).
If any NVIDIA driver engineer is currently reading this: please seriously consider switching your drivers to the DRI model! It would save both you and others a lot of work and potential compatibility problems, without having to release any 3d driver sources. This way, you would also instantly be expanding the number of operating systems able to support 3d on NVIDIA cards, without you having to do any additional work for it!
The only disadvantage for NVIDIA that I can think of is the status quo that NVIDIA would possibly like to uphold: games and other 3d applications having better support for NVIDIA (currently being the market leader on Linux) and all the DRI-using competitors remaining behind. In the longer term, how
A word of advice, though. You might want to publish these archives in Ogg Vorbis format (or better: Ogg Speex format if all recordings are human voice only) instead of MP3 format, since this could save you any possible patent licensing fees.
Wintel-users, wanting to upgrade to a Mac
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I understand the fact that Apple's revenues come frome selling hardware. You pay more for the hardware, and you get high quality software as added value.
But the problem lies with people who own a PC right now and are considering upgrading to a Mac. What if they recently purchased a nice 17" or 18" TFT monitor (or higher), which they'd like to keep? An expensive super-fast NVidia or ATI videocard, a high-capacity/high-speed harddrive and so on.
The most affordable Macs are Imacs, and they come with an integrated monitor and inferior 3d graphics (they are still based on the equivalent of DirectX 7 technology). Now the only option for people wanting to keep their monitor and expensive videocard (yes, I know, you'd have to fool around with firmware updates to get the card to work on a Mac, but it's possible) would be to purhcase a PowerMac G4. These things are damn expensive, even used ones!
Again, I understand the fact that Apple's source of income lies in its hardware sales. But it would be really cool if Apple just released an ATX form factor motherboard with a G4 CPU on it, and bundled with MacOS X. Leave the case, power supply, DDR memory, videocard, harddrive, monitor and everything else to the buyer (or perhaps even clone system builders).
To make selling such an "upgrade kit for advanced users" sufficiently interesting, Apple would have to sell it with a higher profit margin. That's okay. Add another 100 or perhaps even 200 euro's/dollars to the manufacturing and distribution costs and it might still be interesting for quite a few of us.
But please allow us the choice in the rest of the hardware. All the Apple stuff that we would be interested in would be the architecture and software.
Anyway, since Steve Jobs is obsessed with providing Apple customers with "the complete experience", a product like what I just described would probably be out of the question, even if it would be sold beside the complete Mac solutions, wich many people would still buy, and even if they sold it at a price which would make it economically profitable for Apple (and would perhaps even lead to a substantially increased marketshare). Too bad. I'd really like to try out MacOS X.
Now I think of it: just allowing the 3d subsystem in new Imacs to be upgraded with a regular AGP-card would already make such machines more interesting to me.
Oh well, at least Linux is looking better and better every day. It will get there. I'm particularly excited about state-of-the-art GUI projects such as DirectFB and Fresco/Berlin.:)
What about software patents that cannot be patented in the EU at this time, but which already apply in the US?
Will companies be able to apply for these patents as soon as software patents are allowed in the EU? Wouldn't that technically be considered prior art in the EU?
There's no way to either confirm or rule out if Karhgath was in fact the anonymous coward who originally posted that text. Therefore, he shouldn't be moderated up. Sorry Karhgath! Nothing personal, but even if you were the original poster, you don't deserve these points now, since it cannot be proven. Just be more careful the next time you post something.
Back when I was a kid in the eighties, I never found out what the big deal with 'V' was, because unfortunately, my parents did not allow me to stay up late enough to see it then. We didn't have a VCR back then.
Recently, I saw a rerun of part two of the 'V' miniseries, which I regretted doing later on, because I would have preferred to have seen it from the start (to watch the horrible truth being unraveled gradually). It was impressive to see it this day, so I can't imagine what it would have been like to have seen it as a kid when it was brand new and state of the art! I still intend to see all parts in the proper sequence one day.
Anyway, following the part of 'V' I watched a few months ago, I did some searching on the internet. And it turns out that there were already plans to make a sequel to 'V' back in the early nineties. What's even more interesting is that the script for this sequel was written by none other than Babylon 5's J. Michael Straczynski!
Unfortunately, the project was cancelled, due to it being to expensive. One of the many instances in history of TV and movie companies being too chicken to give something scifi-related a change. Sigh...
Anyway, in 1994 someone got Joe's permission to publish on Usenet the first three acts of "Rebirth", which was supposed to be the pilot episode for a miniseries called "V: The Next Chapter".
I don't know about you, but having read these first three acts, I find it quite a shame that this sequel was never given a chance. It's pretty promising.
Interestingly, the site that informed me about the public availibility of these three first acts (I don't have the link anymore, sorry) also mentioned that Straczynski's script involved a scenario about "another party having finally answered humanity's cry for help". This party would actually be of the same lizard race as the "Visitors", with the difference being that this would be an faction, which was exiled from the Home World for being more enlightened.
The plot described in the CNN article also mentions mankind getting help from some new outside ally, which could be an indication that the upcoming miniseries may (at least in part) be based on Joe's script.
Since it's based on mpeg4, it's software patent encumbered. Perhaps no problem at all in Europe (and I sure hope it will stay that way, have you signed the petition yet, folks?), but a major problem in the US as well as other countries where these patents apply.
Don't take me wrong, I really appreciate and respect the amazing work the people of the xvid-project have produced so far, but to be honest: that's all the more reason for me to be disappointed in the fact that so many talented people are basically wasting their efforts on the xvid-project, in stead of putting their skills to use within the Theora-project. Theora is also covered by software patents, but all of these are owned by On2, and On2 has signed an agreement with Xiph.org, which has effectively renders all of these patents powerless. I commend the On2-people on that!
But returning to xvid: Again, why don't more xvid-developers turn their attention to the (IMO more worthwhile) Theora project? I understand that if they would, they would have to be VERY careful to keep any mpeg4 patents (as well as any other patents not donated by On2) out of the Theora-project. But I'm sure they already put a lot of non-patented optimizations in xvid already, which they could also have implemented in Theora, without any legal issues. Or am I wrong?
What most people don't know is that even to this day companies that assemble computers have to pay a royalty to IBM of aproximately 10 dollars/euro's per sold machine. It involves a quite ridiculous patent on placing a motherboard inside a case. And not just in the States, in Europe too!
Considering how many computers are sold annualy, that must really add up. I wish I owned such an obvious patent. I wouldn't have to work for the rest of my life, that's for sure!
Can anybody tell me if this patent really applies to any computer, or if it's just limited to systems based on x86 ATX-motherboards? In other words: does even Apple have to pay these royalties? What about laptop-manufacturers or systems containing motherboards in VIA's mini-ITX format?
One of the currently unsupported wireless chipsets is the TI ACX100 chip, the one which features a non-standard 22mbit mode (but is downwards compatible with standard 11mbit 802.11b). This shipset is incorporated in products by SMC and DLink, among others.
This chipset is being reverse-engineered as we speak (or at least a group of brave people is trying hard to).
They are using the same approach that Compaq successfully took decades ago when they were reverse-engineering the IBM BIOS, while preventing legal issues: assigning the task of reverse-engineering and documenting the programming specifications to one group, while having another group, untainted by the reverse-engineered original code, creating a "clean-room" implementation, using only the unencumbered specs obtained from the first group.
Actually, the ACX100 project is divided in three groups, rather than two: one group for reverse-engineering the Windows drivers, a second group for reverse-engineering the (buggy) binary-only Linux drivers, and a third group to use the specs obtained from the other groups to reimplent a driver under a BSD license, which would be free from any IP owned by TI.
The site is here:
http://acx100.sourceforge.net
Apparently, they are having a hard time, although they have made impressive progress so far.
Like with any other useful project, please support these folks if you can! Even if you don't have time, can't code or don't have any money to offer, I'm sure that just giving them some encouragement would keep them motivated.:)
That said, it would indeed save us all a lot of time, effort and frustration if companies in general would simple be more willing to provide the community with the necessary specs to develop drivers. I can't believe the fact that those companies don't realise that there are enough talented people on the planet, who are prepared to develop high quality stable drivers without having to be paid to do so. Therefore, releasing the specs would be a no-brainer to me.
I was at an NVIDIA presentation, and the NVIDIA rep jokingly referred to "CPU" as "Co-Processing Unit". He elaborated on that, by sketching the new computer architecture, as envisioned by NVIDIA, with the GPU forming the heart of the system and the CPU taking care of the "lesser" non-multimedia functions. A good example of this is NVIDIA's Nforce(2)-chipset, with both the graphics core, sound logic and north- and south-bridges all having been developed by NVIDIA. All that's still needed is a CPU and memory.
It's not surprising that NVIDA prefers to cooperate with AMD in stead of Intel: Intel would be too dominant and would want to control more than just the CPU. In addition, Intel evens spends a considerable amount of R&D on integrated graphics for its chipsets. It is more in NVIDIA's interest to work with a less influential CPU-manufacturer.
I'm really interested in what kind of chipset NVIDA will be offering for AMD64-based CPU's!:)
Off-topic question: I briefly read somewhere that someone finally managed to write an AGPGART-driver for Linux, which would support non-NVIDIA 3d-cards on Nforce2-motherboards. Does anyone here have more information on this?
There's this commercial (british, by the sound of the actor's accents) for drink called Smirnoff Ice.
It starts with this guy leaving a car late at night and saying goodbye to his friends (they've obviously been partying), after which he enters a corporate building. He finds what appears to be his desk, sits behind it, places some papers on the desk and rests his head comfortably on the keyboard. The next morning he is woken up by his boss who walks by and says "Been working all night, have you? We need to discuss your salary!", after which the "hard working employee" shows a big grin on his face with the token "As Clear As Your Conscience®" sparkle.
Many commercials are crap, but I found this one to be pretty funny.:)
Yesterday I was at work, installing Windows drivers on a computer equipped with an ASUS motherboard. After rebooting I suddenly noticed a FreeDOS prompt staring at me. It turned out that the driver/utility CD that Asus had provided with the Motherboard (which I had left in the drive) was equipped with a bootable FreeDOS distribution. Although I didn't need it at the time, I thought to myself how convenient this feature could be in many situations.
Does anybody know if these phones will also be supporting ad-hoc mode? That would basically mean walkie-talkie functionality. But a lot more interesting when combined with infrastructure mode (wifi using accesspoints) and regular cellphone technology. That way, one could have a phone which would support seamless roaming between wifi-hotspots and cell-networks, while also allowing (free) calls to other nearby cellphones (with the same functionalities) through direct wifi-connections!
Furthermore, 2.4MHz wi-fi would also leave ample bandwidth for high quality audio.
Oh, first it's off-topic, now it's flamebait? And are you sure you have read the line you quoted correctly? Do you really mean that all comments being "even critical of Israel" are undisputably flamebait? That really doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it?
Slashdot is not a political website.
"Not a political website"? Are you kidding? People discuss politics on this site almost as much as technology. How often do you visit Slashdot, anyway?
If it would cause a bunch of responses, all particular to the politrical aspects of it, then yes, it would be modded down.
Alright, let me give you a more typical Slashdot example than Zimbabwe then: Disney. How often have we had political discussions in response to non-political Disney-related posts, such as the release of DVD such-and-such or the use of technology so-and-so? About Disney being this evil company that bribes American legislators and such? And how highly are such posts generally moderated? 4, 5, insightful? Again, in this example, I'm talking about Disney-related posts that actually start out (or are supposed to start out) as non-political. This aside from Disney-related posts, which were political in the first place, of which there have also been quite a lot already.
Why do accuse me of being "anti-Israel" when all I'm doing is stating facts about the crimes that country has committed and is committing even today? I accept the fact that Israel is here to stay. All I am against are those illegal actions, which are being targeted at an entire population, while no one has the courage to hold them accountable for it.
And with "country" I mean the government running it. Of course I'm not holding the entire Israeli population responsible, although I do condemn the majority of voters for electing Sharon prime minister.
And at least I was honest: I didn't give any false pretenses about not being biased. I openly admitted being half Palestinian myself in my first post in this topic.
Damn it, you did it anyway: you let me continue the political discussion itself, which wasn't even the point I originally tried to make here. The point was and still is:
Attention, moderators: when Israel is part of the topic in question, don't moderate down any posts mentioning an actual conflict which has everything to do with Israel and for which we cannot stick our heads in the sand or look the other way as "off-topic", because it isn't!
(Wow, that last sentence was pretty long, wasn't it? Are you all still with me?;) )
Why is it that almost everytime anybody posts something negative or even critical of Israel (with regards to their occupation of Palestinian land) it is moderated down, mostly for being "off-topic"?
Read the title, please. It's about a Perl conference in Israel. So both the aspect "Perl" and "Israel" are part of the topic. If the Israel-aspect was not considered on-topic, then how come the non-critical Israel-related posts (about wanting to go there on vacation, jokes about Perl versus Hebrew als the one true language, etc) are not being moderated down?
I know that US politicians would never dream of saying anything negative about Israel, no matter what Israel would do wrong. But I really had the (rather naive, it turns out) hope that the intellectual crowd here on Slashdot ("Did you hear that? He called us 'inttellectual!':D;) ") would know better.
About the moderating down bit: a good example was the Moshe Bar interview a couple of months back. Every single post even mentioning the word "Palestinian" was unconditionally moderated down.
This really frustrated me, because I would really have liked to hear his opninion on the bad things Israel has been doing. What was Slashdot affraid of? That we would be hurting his feelings or something? That we would be embarrassing him? Why? To me he appeared to be quite an intelligent man with ample common sense. He would definately have taken such questions seriously and anwwered them. Even if I hadn't agreed with what his opinions would have been, I would still have liked to have read them. Hey, who knows? He could have surprised us all with an answer none of us would have expected? But now we won't know... At least not until he is interviewed again somewhere else where they will have the courage to ask him more controversial questions. (Perhaps such an interview already has taken place somewhere, if so, somebody please give me a link. Thanks.)
The bottom line is: Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land (in violation of UN resolution 242 and about a dozen other resolutions) and in doing so, continously violating human rights on a large scale. Furthermore, that country is currently being run by Ariel Sharon, who has been accused of being involved in (or actually having masterminded) mass genocide in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. And that guy was democratically elected!
Okay, enough right now. I have had this discussion over and over throughout the years. The point I'm trying to make is that Israel cannot be mentioned without the controversy which surrounds it, due to the occupation of Palestine and the oppression of it's people. Modding posts even remotely mentioning this down with "off-topic" is wrongful in any discussion involving Israel.
When there's a cricket match in Zimbabwe (for the sake of argument, I know, this is Slashdot), would we moderate down any posts mentioning Mugabe? And if Iraq ever comes up (even if it's about a non-war topic, if that's even possible), come on: of course people would still start talking about Saddam Hussein and his alleged ownership of WMD's.
Please moderators, be honest and just. That's all I ask. Repoleved's post had to do with Israel, so therefore it was not off-topic. Please moderate him back up.
And Michael.Forman, thanks for the Rachel Corrie article. Why do you never hear of such things in the US-media? Isn't it typical that this topic has to be found on Alertnet (Reuters)? And may I also add the betrayal of the USS Liberty to that? (Check Google of you want to dig back into history.)
One more point before ending this post, just to take away any confusion: I am half-Palestinian myself and I condemn Israel for how they have been treating the Palestinians throughout the most recent decades. But, although I support Palestinian armed resistance against military targets (including armed colonists), I condemn terrorist bombing of civilians, especially childr
Chose Qt over wxWindows during my internship
on
wxWindows vs. MFC
·
· Score: 1
During my internship, my task was to compare all available low-cost (preferably but not necessarily Free Software) GUI toolkits. The main criteria was availability for and portability between both Linux and win32 platforms. I started with a large list (including some quite obscure toolkits), and after scratching them while comparing to certain criteria, I finally ended up with Qt and wxWindows as the two finalists.
The reason why FOX was not chosen was due to its lack of Unicode support.
Gtk+ would have been very nice, if it wasn't for the fact that the Windows port is quite neglected and only seems to be maintained sporadically, apparently solely for the purpose of porting Gimp to win32.
At first, wxWindows actually looked better than Qt, because it didn't need a preprocessor, didn't require license fees for commercial development, and provided a native look&feel on each supported OS. Furthermore, the project was about 10 years old, and therefore we expected the sourcecode to be quite mature. Finally, the vast selection of bindings for numerous programming and scripting languages was a major plus.
If I remember correctly, another really neat feature of wxWindows was the apparent possibility of (cross?)compiling wxWindows-based win32 binaries on Linux (and vice versa?). Someone here please correct me if that's not the case.
Unfortunately, as soon as we started playing with wxWindows, we noticed some flaws: first of all, the documentation currently available for wxWindows is limited and incomplete.
Second, part of the API turned out to be OS-dependent, and no warnings or errors whatsoever were issued when compiling code, which contained win32-only wxWindows functions. Under Linux, binaries would just generate a run-time segmentation fault. When the win32-specific functionality was removed and the code recompiled, the remaining product would run without problems. This was a major disappointment for us, since we were definately expecting more on this field from a project that was over 10 years old!
This serious lack of actual platform-independence, coupled with the fact that the documentation didn't specifically document whether if a certain function was available on every platform or not, would have made cross-platform development with wxWindows really troublesome. Therefore, we ultimately decided to go for Qt instead.
Let's face it: when it comes to a clear API, platform independence/portability (between X11, win32, and now also the Mac), stability, but especially documentation, Qt is currently unmatched. Given the quality of Qt, we decided that the licensing fees (which really aren't that high compared to some other GUI development products) would definately be worth it, especially considering the company support we would be receiving, as well as community support.
Another aspect which made Qt more attractive is of course the quality of the available development tools, specifically the excellent Qt Designer.
So to sum it all up: wxWindows is a promising toolkit, but still needs serious work in the following areas:
*) complete, accurate and up-to-date documentation (complete documentation of the entire API, including any platform limitations per function)
*) complete implementation of the entire API across all supported platforms (of course, platform-specific extentions should be allowed, but a definition must first be made of a so-called largest common denominator API for all platforms)
*) high quality development tools. I know many of you prefer not to use a GUI builder, but many other developers actually need it, or at least find it very convenient.
During my internship, I found mainly two GUI design tools for wxWindows, one free and one commercial/shareware, but none of them were even close in quality and ease of use to Qt Designer.
Even better would be a fully-featured develompent suite, integrating an editor, debugger and GUI builder in one. All (L)GPL Of course.:) Something like Delphi/C++builder, but then based on the wxWindows toolkit. That would definately be the ultimate development environment.
Slashdot Mirror
As Hollywood's dependence on Linux grows, it will at the same time be more difficult for them to attack the Linux community (for instance for introducing DVD functionality in Linux) without being considered hypocrites.
;) )
I can picture the following court case:
Prosecution (on behalf of the MPAA): Let us consider this "Linux community". As is widely known, many people among this community are hackers and potential terrorists with no regard for intellectual property whatsoever. For example, take the current SCO suit against..."
Defense (on behalf of some Linux-related project): Objection, Your Honor! The Open Source community is not on trial here!
Prosecution: I am merely describing the reputation of the Linux community to give an idea what kind of people we're dealing with.
Defense: But Linux enjoys a lot of appreciation and support among motion picture companies throughout Hollywood, which make extensive use of it themselvers!
Judge: Prosecution, is this true?
Prosecution: Well, uh, I don't know... Perhaps... But that's not the point!
Judge: It isn't? Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
Prosecution: Well... Um...
Defense: You honor, I think about now would be a good time to move towards the dismissal of this suit.
(Okay, so perhaps that last line is a little to optimistic, but you get the idea.
An even better way for mp3.com to save money would be to switch to the Ogg Vorbis format. That would have two advantages:
;)
1) better quality at the same bandwidth or equal quality at a lower bandwidth (therefore saving bandwidth costs without sacrificing any quality)
2) no longer having to pay royaltees for MP3 patents
On the other hand, it would be pretty bizarre (not to mention confusing for some people) if a site called 'mp3.com' only offered OGG files for download.
Anybody remember Sam Lantinga? He's the main SDL coder and he was hired by Blizzard a while back. His employment there led many optimists in the Linux gaming community to speculate that he could perhaps be able to persuade Blizzard to port games to Linux (or that perhaps he was hired in the first place to do exactly that, using his experience with SDL), although Lantinga himself mentioned that that (at least initially) would be quite unlikely.
Is he still working there?
There's no need for Barton to hammer on them one more time, when there's other points - and a complete coherent argument - that need to be made.
;)
Ha! I caught both AMD-references in your post right there!
Let's hope it doesn't try to use that same old car to get there. If it does, then ESA must have some really serious budget problems. ;)
I checked this guy's site, and it appears he really did some impressive work hacking around those binary FreeBSD drivers and somehow getting them to work with NetBSD (even though there are currently some serious issues left, but it looks like he already completed the hard part of the work).
;) But still I'm wondering, purely from a theoretical and technical point of view, how much more difficult it would be. Not much, I reckon, since the BSD's (especially NetBSD and OpenBSD) are very closely related and therefore share a lot of code and architecture.
:)
;)
With this feat, I wonder if a similar hack could now also be made for OpenBSD... Although probably nobody would be interested in this. I mean, come on: why modify an otherwise stable and highly secure (mostly server) OS through the use of experimental patches, combined with binary code originally meant for another OS, which would only be beneficial to 3d graphics support?
I guess that the next (sufficiently interesting) step would be Darwin (the x86-port ofcourse). Since Darwin is more distantly related from the BSD family than the rest of the BSD's (it's based on a FreeBSD-like layer on top of a microkernel), this might prove to be more of a challenge.
Aaaargh! So many operating systems to potentially support! Do you see now why I am such a proponent of DRI?
As I already pointed out in this post, it would be a lot easier for both NVIDIA and others if NVIDIA just based its driver model on DRI.
Alright, NVIDIA's 3d-drivers are closed-source. But they do offer kick-ass performance under Linux.
Unfortunately, they have been jumping through all sorts of hoops in order to keep releasing closed source 3d driver binaries, while keeping them up to date with XFree86 and Linux kernel updates. This is unnecessary, since XFree86 already has an infrastructure in place, which is well suited to solve this problem: The Direct Rendering Infrastructure, or DRI.
In the past, NVIDIA's argument against DRI could have been that DRI wasn't a sufficiently mature technology, but nowadays, this is no longer an issue. Also, NVIDIA is the only company in the graphic card business, which used a different proprietary infrastructure for their 3d drivers. All the other companies, such as ATI, Matrox and Videologic (regardless if they release sources to their 3d-code or not) all use the DRI-model.
Currently, there DRI-model fits NVIDIA's predicament perfectly: NVIDIA has already released the sources to the 2d-part of their drivers long ago (and they have been part of XFree86 for quite some time), but they just want to keep the 3d-aspect closed source. That's exactly how DRI-based drivers work! A 2D-part, which is part of XFree86, combined with a 3d-part, which plugs into the 2D-part of the driver through a (standardized) modular architecture!
An added advantage is that these binary DRI modules are OS-independent, just architecture-dependent. It is even possible to use DRI modules with GUI systems other than XFree86. DirectFB has been (successfully) working on DRI-support.
In other words: had NVIDIA already switched to the DRI model for their driver, then they wouldn't have had to go through the trouble of porting their drivers to FreeBSD. The same binary module already available for Linux would have worked on a FreeBSD system with a DRI-enabled kernel (which FreeBSD already supports). The DRI modular architecture has been deliberately designed that way. All NVIDIA would have to do is release the 2D specs under open source (which they already have done) and compile DRI module releases once for each architecture they'd want to support: x86, Motorola/IBM G4, IA64 and AMD64 architectures. These modules would then work out of the box on any OS with DRI support (on any of these architectures).
Example: if Zeta, the BeOS "reincarnation", would be updated to work with DRI modules, then it would be able to make use of the 3d capabilities on NVIDIA-cards right away!
Furthermore, the DRI model would have made it a necessity vor NVIDIA to release open source AGPGART kernel code for the NForce2 in the first place, because this would be required for even NVIDIA's drivers to work. A proprietary alternative AGP handling hack (like what they have been using in their drivers until now) would have made no sense.
Lastly, the fact that NVIDIA would then not be using a different architecture then the other companies would be causing a lot less headaches for 3d application developers under Linux. Right now, many games and other applications under Linux, such as Winex 3.0 and the Neverwinter Nights port, have been optimised to work with NVIDIA's drivers, but still need work on proper support for DRI (basically covering all other 3d solutions for Linux).
If any NVIDIA driver engineer is currently reading this: please seriously consider switching your drivers to the DRI model! It would save both you and others a lot of work and potential compatibility problems, without having to release any 3d driver sources. This way, you would also instantly be expanding the number of operating systems able to support 3d on NVIDIA cards, without you having to do any additional work for it!
The only disadvantage for NVIDIA that I can think of is the status quo that NVIDIA would possibly like to uphold: games and other 3d applications having better support for NVIDIA (currently being the market leader on Linux) and all the DRI-using competitors remaining behind. In the longer term, how
Due to its high bandwidth, it's expected to replace AGP as well.
A word of advice, though. You might want to publish these archives in Ogg Vorbis format (or better: Ogg Speex format if all recordings are human voice only) instead of MP3 format, since this could save you any possible patent licensing fees.
Okay, I understand the fact that Apple's revenues come frome selling hardware. You pay more for the hardware, and you get high quality software as added value.
:)
But the problem lies with people who own a PC right now and are considering upgrading to a Mac. What if they recently purchased a nice 17" or 18" TFT monitor (or higher), which they'd like to keep? An expensive super-fast NVidia or ATI videocard, a high-capacity/high-speed harddrive and so on.
The most affordable Macs are Imacs, and they come with an integrated monitor and inferior 3d graphics (they are still based on the equivalent of DirectX 7 technology). Now the only option for people wanting to keep their monitor and expensive videocard (yes, I know, you'd have to fool around with firmware updates to get the card to work on a Mac, but it's possible) would be to purhcase a PowerMac G4. These things are damn expensive, even used ones!
Again, I understand the fact that Apple's source of income lies in its hardware sales. But it would be really cool if Apple just released an ATX form factor motherboard with a G4 CPU on it, and bundled with MacOS X. Leave the case, power supply, DDR memory, videocard, harddrive, monitor and everything else to the buyer (or perhaps even clone system builders).
To make selling such an "upgrade kit for advanced users" sufficiently interesting, Apple would have to sell it with a higher profit margin. That's okay. Add another 100 or perhaps even 200 euro's/dollars to the manufacturing and distribution costs and it might still be interesting for quite a few of us.
But please allow us the choice in the rest of the hardware. All the Apple stuff that we would be interested in would be the architecture and software.
Anyway, since Steve Jobs is obsessed with providing Apple customers with "the complete experience", a product like what I just described would probably be out of the question, even if it would be sold beside the complete Mac solutions, wich many people would still buy, and even if they sold it at a price which would make it economically profitable for Apple (and would perhaps even lead to a substantially increased marketshare). Too bad. I'd really like to try out MacOS X.
Now I think of it: just allowing the 3d subsystem in new Imacs to be upgraded with a regular AGP-card would already make such machines more interesting to me.
Oh well, at least Linux is looking better and better every day. It will get there. I'm particularly excited about state-of-the-art GUI projects such as DirectFB and Fresco/Berlin.
What about software patents that cannot be patented in the EU at this time, but which already apply in the US?
Will companies be able to apply for these patents as soon as software patents are allowed in the EU? Wouldn't that technically be considered prior art in the EU?
There's no way to either confirm or rule out if Karhgath was in fact the anonymous coward who originally posted that text. Therefore, he shouldn't be moderated up. Sorry Karhgath! Nothing personal, but even if you were the original poster, you don't deserve these points now, since it cannot be proven. Just be more careful the next time you post something.
Back when I was a kid in the eighties, I never found out what the big deal with 'V' was, because unfortunately, my parents did not allow me to stay up late enough to see it then. We didn't have a VCR back then.
Recently, I saw a rerun of part two of the 'V' miniseries, which I regretted doing later on, because I would have preferred to have seen it from the start (to watch the horrible truth being unraveled gradually). It was impressive to see it this day, so I can't imagine what it would have been like to have seen it as a kid when it was brand new and state of the art! I still intend to see all parts in the proper sequence one day.
Anyway, following the part of 'V' I watched a few months ago, I did some searching on the internet. And it turns out that there were already plans to make a sequel to 'V' back in the early nineties. What's even more interesting is that the script for this sequel was written by none other than Babylon 5's J. Michael Straczynski!
Unfortunately, the project was cancelled, due to it being to expensive. One of the many instances in history of TV and movie companies being too chicken to give something scifi-related a change. Sigh...
Anyway, in 1994 someone got Joe's permission to publish on Usenet the first three acts of "Rebirth", which was supposed to be the pilot episode for a miniseries called "V: The Next Chapter".
I don't know about you, but having read these first three acts, I find it quite a shame that this sequel was never given a chance. It's pretty promising.
You can read it here.
Interestingly, the site that informed me about the public availibility of these three first acts (I don't have the link anymore, sorry) also mentioned that Straczynski's script involved a scenario about "another party having finally answered humanity's cry for help". This party would actually be of the same lizard race as the "Visitors", with the difference being that this would be an faction, which was exiled from the Home World for being more enlightened.
The plot described in the CNN article also mentions mankind getting help from some new outside ally, which could be an indication that the upcoming miniseries may (at least in part) be based on Joe's script.
There is one problem with xvid, however.
Since it's based on mpeg4, it's software patent encumbered. Perhaps no problem at all in Europe (and I sure hope it will stay that way, have you signed the petition yet, folks?), but a major problem in the US as well as other countries where these patents apply.
Don't take me wrong, I really appreciate and respect the amazing work the people of the xvid-project have produced so far, but to be honest: that's all the more reason for me to be disappointed in the fact that so many talented people are basically wasting their efforts on the xvid-project, in stead of putting their skills to use within the Theora-project. Theora is also covered by software patents, but all of these are owned by On2, and On2 has signed an agreement with Xiph.org, which has effectively renders all of these patents powerless. I commend the On2-people on that!
But returning to xvid: Again, why don't more xvid-developers turn their attention to the (IMO more worthwhile) Theora project? I understand that if they would, they would have to be VERY careful to keep any mpeg4 patents (as well as any other patents not donated by On2) out of the Theora-project. But I'm sure they already put a lot of non-patented optimizations in xvid already, which they could also have implemented in Theora, without any legal issues. Or am I wrong?
Would any xvid-developer care to comment on this?
What most people don't know is that even to this day companies that assemble computers have to pay a royalty to IBM of aproximately 10 dollars/euro's per sold machine. It involves a quite ridiculous patent on placing a motherboard inside a case. And not just in the States, in Europe too!
Considering how many computers are sold annualy, that must really add up. I wish I owned such an obvious patent. I wouldn't have to work for the rest of my life, that's for sure!
Can anybody tell me if this patent really applies to any computer, or if it's just limited to systems based on x86 ATX-motherboards? In other words: does even Apple have to pay these royalties? What about laptop-manufacturers or systems containing motherboards in VIA's mini-ITX format?
One of the currently unsupported wireless chipsets is the TI ACX100 chip, the one which features a non-standard 22mbit mode (but is downwards compatible with standard 11mbit 802.11b). This shipset is incorporated in products by SMC and DLink, among others.
:)
This chipset is being reverse-engineered as we speak (or at least a group of brave people is trying hard to).
They are using the same approach that Compaq successfully took decades ago when they were reverse-engineering the IBM BIOS, while preventing legal issues: assigning the task of reverse-engineering and documenting the programming specifications to one group, while having another group, untainted by the reverse-engineered original code, creating a "clean-room" implementation, using only the unencumbered specs obtained from the first group.
Actually, the ACX100 project is divided in three groups, rather than two: one group for reverse-engineering the Windows drivers, a second group for reverse-engineering the (buggy) binary-only Linux drivers, and a third group to use the specs obtained from the other groups to reimplent a driver under a BSD license, which would be free from any IP owned by TI.
The site is here:
http://acx100.sourceforge.net
Apparently, they are having a hard time, although they have made impressive progress so far.
Like with any other useful project, please support these folks if you can! Even if you don't have time, can't code or don't have any money to offer, I'm sure that just giving them some encouragement would keep them motivated.
That said, it would indeed save us all a lot of time, effort and frustration if companies in general would simple be more willing to provide the community with the necessary specs to develop drivers. I can't believe the fact that those companies don't realise that there are enough talented people on the planet, who are prepared to develop high quality stable drivers without having to be paid to do so. Therefore, releasing the specs would be a no-brainer to me.
I was at an NVIDIA presentation, and the NVIDIA rep jokingly referred to "CPU" as "Co-Processing Unit". He elaborated on that, by sketching the new computer architecture, as envisioned by NVIDIA, with the GPU forming the heart of the system and the CPU taking care of the "lesser" non-multimedia functions. A good example of this is NVIDIA's Nforce(2)-chipset, with both the graphics core, sound logic and north- and south-bridges all having been developed by NVIDIA. All that's still needed is a CPU and memory.
:)
It's not surprising that NVIDA prefers to cooperate with AMD in stead of Intel: Intel would be too dominant and would want to control more than just the CPU. In addition, Intel evens spends a considerable amount of R&D on integrated graphics for its chipsets. It is more in NVIDIA's interest to work with a less influential CPU-manufacturer.
I'm really interested in what kind of chipset NVIDA will be offering for AMD64-based CPU's!
Off-topic question: I briefly read somewhere that someone finally managed to write an AGPGART-driver for Linux, which would support non-NVIDIA 3d-cards on Nforce2-motherboards. Does anyone here have more information on this?
There's this commercial (british, by the sound of the actor's accents) for drink called Smirnoff Ice.
:)
It starts with this guy leaving a car late at night and saying goodbye to his friends (they've obviously been partying), after which he enters a corporate building. He finds what appears to be his desk, sits behind it, places some papers on the desk and rests his head comfortably on the keyboard. The next morning he is woken up by his boss who walks by and says "Been working all night, have you? We need to discuss your salary!", after which the "hard working employee" shows a big grin on his face with the token "As Clear As Your Conscience®" sparkle.
Many commercials are crap, but I found this one to be pretty funny.
Funny you'd mention both ASUS and FreeDOS.
:)
Yesterday I was at work, installing Windows drivers on a computer equipped with an ASUS motherboard. After rebooting I suddenly noticed a FreeDOS prompt staring at me. It turned out that the driver/utility CD that Asus had provided with the Motherboard (which I had left in the drive) was equipped with a bootable FreeDOS distribution. Although I didn't need it at the time, I thought to myself how convenient this feature could be in many situations.
Clever thinking, ASUS!
In any rate it's definately prior art, in case you were getting any ideas!
Does anybody know if these phones will also be supporting ad-hoc mode? That would basically mean walkie-talkie functionality. But a lot more interesting when combined with infrastructure mode (wifi using accesspoints) and regular cellphone technology. That way, one could have a phone which would support seamless roaming between wifi-hotspots and cell-networks, while also allowing (free) calls to other nearby cellphones (with the same functionalities) through direct wifi-connections!
Furthermore, 2.4MHz wi-fi would also leave ample bandwidth for high quality audio.
Because it is flaimbait.
;) )
Oh, first it's off-topic, now it's flamebait? And are you sure you have read the line you quoted correctly? Do you really mean that all comments being "even critical of Israel" are undisputably flamebait? That really doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it?
Slashdot is not a political website.
"Not a political website"? Are you kidding? People discuss politics on this site almost as much as technology. How often do you visit Slashdot, anyway?
If it would cause a bunch of responses, all particular to the politrical aspects of it, then yes, it would be modded down.
Alright, let me give you a more typical Slashdot example than Zimbabwe then: Disney. How often have we had political discussions in response to non-political Disney-related posts, such as the release of DVD such-and-such or the use of technology so-and-so? About Disney being this evil company that bribes American legislators and such? And how highly are such posts generally moderated? 4, 5, insightful? Again, in this example, I'm talking about Disney-related posts that actually start out (or are supposed to start out) as non-political. This aside from Disney-related posts, which were political in the first place, of which there have also been quite a lot already.
Why do accuse me of being "anti-Israel" when all I'm doing is stating facts about the crimes that country has committed and is committing even today? I accept the fact that Israel is here to stay. All I am against are those illegal actions, which are being targeted at an entire population, while no one has the courage to hold them accountable for it.
And with "country" I mean the government running it. Of course I'm not holding the entire Israeli population responsible, although I do condemn the majority of voters for electing Sharon prime minister.
And at least I was honest: I didn't give any false pretenses about not being biased. I openly admitted being half Palestinian myself in my first post in this topic.
Damn it, you did it anyway: you let me continue the political discussion itself, which wasn't even the point I originally tried to make here. The point was and still is:
Attention, moderators: when Israel is part of the topic in question, don't moderate down any posts mentioning an actual conflict which has everything to do with Israel and for which we cannot stick our heads in the sand or look the other way as "off-topic", because it isn't!
(Wow, that last sentence was pretty long, wasn't it? Are you all still with me?
Why is it that almost everytime anybody posts something negative or even critical of Israel (with regards to their occupation of Palestinian land) it is moderated down, mostly for being "off-topic"?
:D ;) ") would know better.
Read the title, please. It's about a Perl conference in Israel. So both the aspect "Perl" and "Israel" are part of the topic. If the Israel-aspect was not considered on-topic, then how come the non-critical Israel-related posts (about wanting to go there on vacation, jokes about Perl versus Hebrew als the one true language, etc) are not being moderated down?
I know that US politicians would never dream of saying anything negative about Israel, no matter what Israel would do wrong. But I really had the (rather naive, it turns out) hope that the intellectual crowd here on Slashdot ("Did you hear that? He called us 'inttellectual!'
About the moderating down bit: a good example was the Moshe Bar interview a couple of months back. Every single post even mentioning the word "Palestinian" was unconditionally moderated down.
This really frustrated me, because I would really have liked to hear his opninion on the bad things Israel has been doing. What was Slashdot affraid of? That we would be hurting his feelings or something? That we would be embarrassing him? Why? To me he appeared to be quite an intelligent man with ample common sense. He would definately have taken such questions seriously and anwwered them. Even if I hadn't agreed with what his opinions would have been, I would still have liked to have read them. Hey, who knows? He could have surprised us all with an answer none of us would have expected? But now we won't know... At least not until he is interviewed again somewhere else where they will have the courage to ask him more controversial questions. (Perhaps such an interview already has taken place somewhere, if so, somebody please give me a link. Thanks.)
The bottom line is: Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land (in violation of UN resolution 242 and about a dozen other resolutions) and in doing so, continously violating human rights on a large scale. Furthermore, that country is currently being run by Ariel Sharon, who has been accused of being involved in (or actually having masterminded) mass genocide in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. And that guy was democratically elected!
Okay, enough right now. I have had this discussion over and over throughout the years. The point I'm trying to make is that Israel cannot be mentioned without the controversy which surrounds it, due to the occupation of Palestine and the oppression of it's people. Modding posts even remotely mentioning this down with "off-topic" is wrongful in any discussion involving Israel.
When there's a cricket match in Zimbabwe (for the sake of argument, I know, this is Slashdot), would we moderate down any posts mentioning Mugabe? And if Iraq ever comes up (even if it's about a non-war topic, if that's even possible), come on: of course people would still start talking about Saddam Hussein and his alleged ownership of WMD's.
Please moderators, be honest and just. That's all I ask. Repoleved's post had to do with Israel, so therefore it was not off-topic. Please moderate him back up.
And Michael.Forman, thanks for the Rachel Corrie article. Why do you never hear of such things in the US-media? Isn't it typical that this topic has to be found on Alertnet (Reuters)? And may I also add the betrayal of the USS Liberty to that? (Check Google of you want to dig back into history.)
One more point before ending this post, just to take away any confusion: I am half-Palestinian myself and I condemn Israel for how they have been treating the Palestinians throughout the most recent decades. But, although I support Palestinian armed resistance against military targets (including armed colonists), I condemn terrorist bombing of civilians, especially childr
During my internship, my task was to compare all available low-cost (preferably but not necessarily Free Software) GUI toolkits. The main criteria was availability for and portability between both Linux and win32 platforms. I started with a large list (including some quite obscure toolkits), and after scratching them while comparing to certain criteria, I finally ended up with Qt and wxWindows as the two finalists.
:) Something like Delphi/C++builder, but then based on the wxWindows toolkit. That would definately be the ultimate development environment.
The reason why FOX was not chosen was due to its lack of Unicode support.
Gtk+ would have been very nice, if it wasn't for the fact that the Windows port is quite neglected and only seems to be maintained sporadically, apparently solely for the purpose of porting Gimp to win32.
At first, wxWindows actually looked better than Qt, because it didn't need a preprocessor, didn't require license fees for commercial development, and provided a native look&feel on each supported OS. Furthermore, the project was about 10 years old, and therefore we expected the sourcecode to be quite mature. Finally, the vast selection of bindings for numerous programming and scripting languages was a major plus.
If I remember correctly, another really neat feature of wxWindows was the apparent possibility of (cross?)compiling wxWindows-based win32 binaries on Linux (and vice versa?). Someone here please correct me if that's not the case.
Unfortunately, as soon as we started playing with wxWindows, we noticed some flaws: first of all, the documentation currently available for wxWindows is limited and incomplete.
Second, part of the API turned out to be OS-dependent, and no warnings or errors whatsoever were issued when compiling code, which contained win32-only wxWindows functions. Under Linux, binaries would just generate a run-time segmentation fault. When the win32-specific functionality was removed and the code recompiled, the remaining product would run without problems. This was a major disappointment for us, since we were definately expecting more on this field from a project that was over 10 years old!
This serious lack of actual platform-independence, coupled with the fact that the documentation didn't specifically document whether if a certain function was available on every platform or not, would have made cross-platform development with wxWindows really troublesome. Therefore, we ultimately decided to go for Qt instead.
Let's face it: when it comes to a clear API, platform independence/portability (between X11, win32, and now also the Mac), stability, but especially documentation, Qt is currently unmatched. Given the quality of Qt, we decided that the licensing fees (which really aren't that high compared to some other GUI development products) would definately be worth it, especially considering the company support we would be receiving, as well as community support.
Another aspect which made Qt more attractive is of course the quality of the available development tools, specifically the excellent Qt Designer.
So to sum it all up: wxWindows is a promising toolkit, but still needs serious work in the following areas:
*) complete, accurate and up-to-date documentation (complete documentation of the entire API, including any platform limitations per function)
*) complete implementation of the entire API across all supported platforms (of course, platform-specific extentions should be allowed, but a definition must first be made of a so-called largest common denominator API for all platforms)
*) high quality development tools. I know many of you prefer not to use a GUI builder, but many other developers actually need it, or at least find it very convenient.
During my internship, I found mainly two GUI design tools for wxWindows, one free and one commercial/shareware, but none of them were even close in quality and ease of use to Qt Designer.
Even better would be a fully-featured develompent suite, integrating an editor, debugger and GUI builder in one. All (L)GPL Of course.