I recently put a couple of my own projects that I've been hosting for years and years on Sourceforge. It's all still available at http://scarydevil.com/~peter/sw/ but I've moved the latest snapshots into CVS at Sourceforge.
Indeed. I go into that in more depth here. I think that you're being unfair to Ousterhout, though. I don't think he's "Ignoring the people who came before [to] look like a visionary", but rather he was simply unaware of what was going on outside his group in Berkeley.
The open source movement was already well under way before the Open Source summit. It was already well on its way before the GNU manifesto and the founding of the FSF. There's a perception that it's big events like these that "created" the open source movement. That's not so, it's the open source movement that's created the possibility of big exciting events.
Even people talking about f/l/oss before these events seem to miss it. for example, Ousterhout's comment "When I made my first open-source release in the early 1980s (VLSI chip design tools from Berkeley), there were probably less than five open-source projects in the world."
The Software Tools applications and libraries date back to the '70s. So does Emacs. So do the enormous collection of software published in Dr Dobbs' journal. So do the DECUS and other user group tapes. Much of this was game software, but it also included free compilers and interpreters (Forth, Small C, Tiny C, Tiny Basic, Tiny Pascal), editors (including emacs), operating system monitors (and early attempts at UNIX workalikes), and networks. Usenet was an open source project, and there were soon open source gateways between Usenet and networks like Fidonet... and one of the earliest Usenet groups was "net.sources".
I would say the first open source decade was the '70s, though in a way it's as old as the computer industry: "in 1971, I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many years" -- Richard Stallman. It's been argued that it wasn't really until the '70s that closed source really got under way, so one might say that it was the creation of a binary, non-shared, closed-source software industry that created what became the open-source movement (under whatever name you like).
So depending on whether you include the '60s, we're coming up on the end of the 4th or 5th "open source decade", the '00s. Not the first.
Of course apples have leaves, but it unnecessary to add a leaf to a two-dimensional drawing of an apple to make it look like an apple.
That doesn't mean that putting the leaf there is a sign that they got the idea from Apple. That's where a real apple really does have a leaf, and that's where a lot of other artists have put leaves when they were creating pictures and objects depicting apples.
NYC added a drop-shaped single colour leaf extending approximately 45 degrees from the stem.
He could have made a myriad of design choices that would make the logo look nothing like the Apple computer logo.
He or she did. I listed several, YOU just came up with another (the leaf is a different shape).
The first page in Google Images search for "stylized apple" has this. Make that a single color and simplify it to make it suitable for embroidery, and it'd look more like the Apple logo than the NYC one: it's fatter and has a more tapered bottom instead of the NYC's more symmetrical outline.
NYC's logo has a different shape, it's a color that Apple doesn't seem to have used (possibly because Apple Records' logo was green), it's got a different shaped leaf, a stem, NO BITE, and so on. About the only thing they could have done would be to make the apple asymmetrical, but then by your logic they'd be trespassing on Applebee's turf.
Hmm, you know, Applebee's is looking a bit suspicious anyway. Lentil-shape detached leaf, pointing in the same direction as Apple's, and no stem.
The argument was that Google's pictures devalued their house BECAUSE Google was trespassing, and if Google can trespass on private roads to take pictures of people's houses, then so can Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else who comes up with a scheme like Google's. Who knows, maybe even companies like Blizzard (Warcraft in Real Life! Aggro mobs of angry banjo players!)... so they want to establish that publishing photos taken while trespassing is a risky business, and at the very least shouldn't be done by big companies with lots of resources to do a lot of trespassing.
The other picture was taken from the front of the house, not on the private road, and it was taken by someone who probably has the right to be there anyway.
"Keep your PC secure. Use up-to-date anti-virus and spyware software and a personal firewall."
Anti-virus software is not without risks, and unless there is a credible threat that would be alleviated by anti-virus software it should not be used. Anti-virus companies have pushed the use of anti-virus software on completely inappropriate platforms for so long that rules like this show up, without qualification, in corporate policy documents and guidelines... forcing people to reduce the reliability of their systems for no good reason.
For example, there has been more damage caused by anti-virus software for handhelds than by malware for handhelds, due to bugs in the antivirus software that caused data loss directly or via false positives. Mac OS X users are also better off without antivirus software *at this point*, and even in some Windows environments antivirus is a net loss.
There are fundamental cultural differences between Americans (and to some extent Canadians) and natives of other English-speaking countries. Americans tend to be uneasy with ambiguity and irony (let's not have a fight over that word, though), and have their own kinds of mind-games that drive Anglostralians equally crazy.
If someone working for Google drove onto private property to take those pictures then they screwed up. It happens. They're not asking for an insane amount. Google ought to settle and move on.
Another huge difference is the the Earth has a companion that puts significant stresses on the crust and atmosphere through tidal forces. Not only that, but Venus' slower rotational period means there's less stress from solar tides as well. Surely this would have some effect on the rigidity of the crust, yes no?
The point of linking the Wikipedia article was that you probably shouldn't expect people to understand exactly what you mean when you say "restrictive DRM"
Yes, I got that point, I already made that point myself when I said I needed to just link the term DRM to a page explaining it. That's why I explained it. Let me try explaining it again: I was not making a statement about the desirability of DRM, I was making a statement about the presence of DRM in XP as a distinction between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
So even though it is broadly similar, there are apparently people who believe there is a distinction.
They are the same technologies, they are covered by the same laws, they have the same purpose. The fact that people think they need to be treated as different categories carries as much weight as the fact that people believe in Creationism and Scientology. You don't have to convince me that I need to use a different term to refer to them (see previous paragraph), but you also don't have to convince me to actually treat them that way. At least I hope you don't.
I think it is at least possible to cast the DRM you are talking about as...
I understand the attraction of DRM. I don't know why you think using it to partition the market and create a niche for a lower priced product hasn't been tried, either... it's the whole point to subscription music services. They're not my cup of tea, but a lot of people like them. My wife, for example.
Anyway, you still seem to be trying to argue against a position I didn't take in the first place. Seriously.
Vista has failed to sell itself as superior to XP, so let's kill off XP and remove that choice entirely.
XP has failed to sell itself in business against Windows 2000, so let's kill off 2000 and remove that choice entirely.
VS.NET has failed to sell itself as superior to VS6, so let's kill off VS6 and remove that choice entirely.
They've done the same thing with forced upgrades to Office apps via incompatible file formats.
I'm not familiar with Visual Basic, but there have been rants now and then from VB developers about new versions of VB being gratuitously new and different.
So your argument is that Adobe should have understood that Apple liked Carbon enough to write key in-house apps in it, and enough to announce that that were taking it to 64-bit, but not enough to actually follow through?
Apple said from the start that Carbon was a temporary measure. And "from the start" means 1997 or so. I'm saying that Carbon was only introduced reluctantly in the first place, and Apple has a history of pulling the rug out from under developers. Not only that, Adobe didn't seem to pay attention when Apple gave them warning the last time they pulled the rug out from under them: Photoshop was about the last major Mac app to be Universal, despite Apple giving them advance warning.
Well clearly, Carbon on Windows is a hugely popular platform.
There is no "Carbon on Windows". There's "whatever bits of Carbon iTunes, which started out as a Classic application in the first place, happens to require to run on Windows".
And the reason that OpenStep got killed is all about The Steve's inability to play well with others, and nothing to do with Adobe or iTunes.
Where did I say that Steve Jobs was a nice guy or that Apple is a nice company?
I'm not defending Apple here.
I would be much happier running Rhapsody on a generic PC than OSX on a Mac... and I would even if the Mac didn't cost 40% more. I would be much happier having Openstep as a cross platform development environment. I think Apple's fascination with style over functionality under jobs sucks. I think Apple does a lot of crummy stuff, and a lot of dumb stuff. If I was running Adobe I would be mighty pissed off with Apple, too, and make sure they knew it.
But Adobe has been badly behaved as well. Adobe shares some responsibility for the death of Rhapsody, and maybe even for the end of OpenStep as an independent product. And Adobe's reluctance to make Photoshop a first class OS X application isn't just something that happened recently, it's been going on since 1997. Whatever their motivation (and I can understand why they didn't want to, in 1997, honestly I do) it's an awful long time to hold a grudge.
The word "restrictive" is a qualifier to the type of DRM: DRM that only exists to restrict the capabilities of the purchaser. I readily agree that it is not restrictive if it is not used, but that's like saying that a firewall does not provide security if it's not on. That's clearly true, but it doesn't mean that a firewall is not a security feature, it's merely a security feature that has not been enabled.
On the other hand, surely you will grant that the other example of restrictive DRM that I cited is not one that you have the opportunity to use or not use.
As for Wikipedia... I'm not sure that I get the point you're making. It says that DRM usually refers to protecting entertainment media, but it does mention software and refers to the DMCA... and the DMCA protects a much broader range of DRM technology than I've even brought up here.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently put a couple of my own projects that I've been hosting for years and years on Sourceforge. It's all still available at http://scarydevil.com/~peter/sw/ but I've moved the latest snapshots into CVS at Sourceforge.
http://plugdaemon.sourceforge.net/
http://amberlist.sourceforge.net/
I've also spent an awful lot of time lately on Speedtables.
http://speedtables.sourceforge.net/
Indeed. I go into that in more depth here. I think that you're being unfair to Ousterhout, though. I don't think he's "Ignoring the people who came before [to] look like a visionary", but rather he was simply unaware of what was going on outside his group in Berkeley.
The open source movement was already well under way before the Open Source summit. It was already well on its way before the GNU manifesto and the founding of the FSF. There's a perception that it's big events like these that "created" the open source movement. That's not so, it's the open source movement that's created the possibility of big exciting events.
Even people talking about f/l/oss before these events seem to miss it. for example, Ousterhout's comment "When I made my first open-source release in the early 1980s (VLSI chip design tools from Berkeley), there were probably less than five open-source projects in the world."
The Software Tools applications and libraries date back to the '70s. So does Emacs. So do the enormous collection of software published in Dr Dobbs' journal. So do the DECUS and other user group tapes. Much of this was game software, but it also included free compilers and interpreters (Forth, Small C, Tiny C, Tiny Basic, Tiny Pascal), editors (including emacs), operating system monitors (and early attempts at UNIX workalikes), and networks. Usenet was an open source project, and there were soon open source gateways between Usenet and networks like Fidonet... and one of the earliest Usenet groups was "net.sources".
I would say the first open source decade was the '70s, though in a way it's as old as the computer industry: "in 1971, I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many years" -- Richard Stallman. It's been argued that it wasn't really until the '70s that closed source really got under way, so one might say that it was the creation of a binary, non-shared, closed-source software industry that created what became the open-source movement (under whatever name you like).
So depending on whether you include the '60s, we're coming up on the end of the 4th or 5th "open source decade", the '00s. Not the first.
Remember the keyboard garage in the Amiga 1000?
Switch from iChat to Adium. It's a much more powerful program, and supports a "custom available" status.
Of course apples have leaves, but it unnecessary to add a leaf to a two-dimensional drawing of an apple to make it look like an apple.
That doesn't mean that putting the leaf there is a sign that they got the idea from Apple. That's where a real apple really does have a leaf, and that's where a lot of other artists have put leaves when they were creating pictures and objects depicting apples.
NYC added a drop-shaped single colour leaf extending approximately 45 degrees from the stem.
Apple's leaf isn't drop-shaped, it's lentil-shaped.
He could have made a myriad of design choices that would make the logo look nothing like the Apple computer logo.
He or she did. I listed several, YOU just came up with another (the leaf is a different shape).
The first page in Google Images search for "stylized apple" has this. Make that a single color and simplify it to make it suitable for embroidery, and it'd look more like the Apple logo than the NYC one: it's fatter and has a more tapered bottom instead of the NYC's more symmetrical outline.
NYC's logo has a different shape, it's a color that Apple doesn't seem to have used (possibly because Apple Records' logo was green), it's got a different shaped leaf, a stem, NO BITE, and so on. About the only thing they could have done would be to make the apple asymmetrical, but then by your logic they'd be trespassing on Applebee's turf.
Hmm, you know, Applebee's is looking a bit suspicious anyway. Lentil-shape detached leaf, pointing in the same direction as Apple's, and no stem.
The argument was that Google's pictures devalued their house BECAUSE Google was trespassing, and if Google can trespass on private roads to take pictures of people's houses, then so can Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else who comes up with a scheme like Google's. Who knows, maybe even companies like Blizzard (Warcraft in Real Life! Aggro mobs of angry banjo players!)... so they want to establish that publishing photos taken while trespassing is a risky business, and at the very least shouldn't be done by big companies with lots of resources to do a lot of trespassing.
The other picture was taken from the front of the house, not on the private road, and it was taken by someone who probably has the right to be there anyway.
"Keep your PC secure. Use up-to-date anti-virus and spyware software and a personal firewall."
Anti-virus software is not without risks, and unless there is a credible threat that would be alleviated by anti-virus software it should not be used. Anti-virus companies have pushed the use of anti-virus software on completely inappropriate platforms for so long that rules like this show up, without qualification, in corporate policy documents and guidelines... forcing people to reduce the reliability of their systems for no good reason.
For example, there has been more damage caused by anti-virus software for handhelds than by malware for handhelds, due to bugs in the antivirus software that caused data loss directly or via false positives. Mac OS X users are also better off without antivirus software *at this point*, and even in some Windows environments antivirus is a net loss.
This kind of guideline needs to be qualified.
Five links to images of apples that each are much less similar in shape to the Apple logo than the New York logo.
All those apples had the "unnecessary" leaf that was allegedly the proof that the apple was lifted from Apple.
If a cop pulls you over for speeding, you don't get off because someone else was speeding too. And did you look at the pictures?
There are fundamental cultural differences between Americans (and to some extent Canadians) and natives of other English-speaking countries. Americans tend to be uneasy with ambiguity and irony (let's not have a fight over that word, though), and have their own kinds of mind-games that drive Anglostralians equally crazy.
Terrorist voters are the worst kind!
or the overwhelming knee-jerk reaction of folks jumping on Apple for something they didn't actually do.
I'm not jumping on Apple, I'm jumping on the people who are automatically defending what they think Apple has done, presumably because it's Apple.
The graphical artist (probably out of laziness) made some design decisions that area clearly inspired by the Apple logo.
Right, nobody but apple ever did that.
The situation isn't the same. The county has a relationship with property owners in the county that Google doesn't.
If someone working for Google drove onto private property to take those pictures then they screwed up. It happens. They're not asking for an insane amount. Google ought to settle and move on.
You must be an American.
I suspect an oil refinery releases more radiation than a nuclear plant is allowed to. :(
Another huge difference is the the Earth has a companion that puts significant stresses on the crust and atmosphere through tidal forces. Not only that, but Venus' slower rotational period means there's less stress from solar tides as well. Surely this would have some effect on the rigidity of the crust, yes no?
Would it be better if my home was surrounded by thousands of oil refineries instead?
Oh, whoops, I'm in Houston, it probably is.
The "Newton's Apple" logo isn't an earlier version of the same logo, it's a different logo altogether.
The point of linking the Wikipedia article was that you probably shouldn't expect people to understand exactly what you mean when you say "restrictive DRM"
Yes, I got that point, I already made that point myself when I said I needed to just link the term DRM to a page explaining it. That's why I explained it. Let me try explaining it again: I was not making a statement about the desirability of DRM, I was making a statement about the presence of DRM in XP as a distinction between Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
So even though it is broadly similar, there are apparently people who believe there is a distinction.
They are the same technologies, they are covered by the same laws, they have the same purpose. The fact that people think they need to be treated as different categories carries as much weight as the fact that people believe in Creationism and Scientology. You don't have to convince me that I need to use a different term to refer to them (see previous paragraph), but you also don't have to convince me to actually treat them that way. At least I hope you don't.
I think it is at least possible to cast the DRM you are talking about as...
I understand the attraction of DRM. I don't know why you think using it to partition the market and create a niche for a lower priced product hasn't been tried, either... it's the whole point to subscription music services. They're not my cup of tea, but a lot of people like them. My wife, for example.
Anyway, you still seem to be trying to argue against a position I didn't take in the first place. Seriously.
Vista has failed to sell itself as superior to XP, so let's kill off XP and remove that choice entirely.
XP has failed to sell itself in business against Windows 2000, so let's kill off 2000 and remove that choice entirely.
VS.NET has failed to sell itself as superior to VS6, so let's kill off VS6 and remove that choice entirely.
They've done the same thing with forced upgrades to Office apps via incompatible file formats.
I'm not familiar with Visual Basic, but there have been rants now and then from VB developers about new versions of VB being gratuitously new and different.
So your argument is that Adobe should have understood that Apple liked Carbon enough to write key in-house apps in it, and enough to announce that that were taking it to 64-bit, but not enough to actually follow through?
Apple said from the start that Carbon was a temporary measure. And "from the start" means 1997 or so. I'm saying that Carbon was only introduced reluctantly in the first place, and Apple has a history of pulling the rug out from under developers. Not only that, Adobe didn't seem to pay attention when Apple gave them warning the last time they pulled the rug out from under them: Photoshop was about the last major Mac app to be Universal, despite Apple giving them advance warning.
Well clearly, Carbon on Windows is a hugely popular platform.
There is no "Carbon on Windows". There's "whatever bits of Carbon iTunes, which started out as a Classic application in the first place, happens to require to run on Windows".
And the reason that OpenStep got killed is all about The Steve's inability to play well with others, and nothing to do with Adobe or iTunes.
Where did I say that Steve Jobs was a nice guy or that Apple is a nice company?
I'm not defending Apple here.
I would be much happier running Rhapsody on a generic PC than OSX on a Mac... and I would even if the Mac didn't cost 40% more. I would be much happier having Openstep as a cross platform development environment. I think Apple's fascination with style over functionality under jobs sucks. I think Apple does a lot of crummy stuff, and a lot of dumb stuff. If I was running Adobe I would be mighty pissed off with Apple, too, and make sure they knew it.
But Adobe has been badly behaved as well. Adobe shares some responsibility for the death of Rhapsody, and maybe even for the end of OpenStep as an independent product. And Adobe's reluctance to make Photoshop a first class OS X application isn't just something that happened recently, it's been going on since 1997. Whatever their motivation (and I can understand why they didn't want to, in 1997, honestly I do) it's an awful long time to hold a grudge.
The word "restrictive" is a qualifier to the type of DRM: DRM that only exists to restrict the capabilities of the purchaser. I readily agree that it is not restrictive if it is not used, but that's like saying that a firewall does not provide security if it's not on. That's clearly true, but it doesn't mean that a firewall is not a security feature, it's merely a security feature that has not been enabled.
On the other hand, surely you will grant that the other example of restrictive DRM that I cited is not one that you have the opportunity to use or not use.
As for Wikipedia... I'm not sure that I get the point you're making. It says that DRM usually refers to protecting entertainment media, but it does mention software and refers to the DMCA... and the DMCA protects a much broader range of DRM technology than I've even brought up here.