I wrote: The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the left.
That should read: The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the right.
The apple logo is a solid apple with a bite out of its side, in a variety of color schemes (rainbow (original), red (early variant), black (on white paper), white (current logo), and blue (in the OS X title bar)). It has no stem. The leaf extends to the left. The bottom is rounded, and it is noticably "chubbier" than the NYC logo.
The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the left. The bottom is a sharp indent, and the shape is slimmer than the Apple logo.
The "stem" is a distinctive difference, it has never appeared in any Apple logo, and it has appeared in other NYC-related "big apple" artwork (for example the "Big Apple" sculptures that decorated NYC in 2004).
Different colors, different shape, consistent with previous NYC "big Apple" icons and logos. The only difference is that the apple is more rounded and less "pear shaped", which is most likely simply due to the need to accommodate the yin/yang/infinity symbol.
A light dawns: you're reading the phrase "restrictive DRM" to mean something like "unavoidable DRM", or "universal DRM". I don't think such a thing could exist in a general purpose computer (though it's a common topic of science fiction, see Vernor Vinge's "Rainbow's End" or Karl Schroeder's "Permanence").
All I mean by using the term "restrictive DRM" is to distinguish it from other possible uses of DRM technologies than copy protection and other schemes intended to restrict the rights of the purchaser of a product beyond what copyright explicitly grants. I have on a number of occasions had DRM advocates respond aggressively to posts where I used the term "DRM" in this way.
I guess I'm going to have to start hyperlinking "DRM" to a page with a set of canned qualifications, disclaimers, and counterpoints.
The two of you are arguing over the definition of "digital rights management."
I'm not arguing over anything.
But, as an aside, what seems to be confusing him is that there's a distinction between "restrictive DRM" (copy protection, and other uses of DRM technology to restrict what the purchaser of a product can do with it) and other uses of these kinds of technologies (for example, using a TPM chip to store certificates to authenticate a computer to servers).
Until his last message I did not realize that what was bugging him was that he was reading "restrictive" to mean something like "strict" or "highly limiting"... and inferred a stronger statement than I implied.
I'm not real sure how the windows media player stuff you are talking about works, but I have never had any difficulty doing anything with VLC
The fact that VLC doesn't use the kernel support for restricting access to decoded streams is more or less completely irrelevant to whether it's there or not. You don't find it a problem, that's OK, I'm not saying you should. I'm just answering your question.
What it amounts to is that while I appreciate the goals of Free Software(and Open Source and open source),
What does open source have to do with anything? I was comparing Windows 2000 and Windows XP. If I replace the motherboard in my Windows 2000 box, I boot it up, and as long as I've got compatible drivers I'm done. If I replace the motherboard in a Windows XP box I have to get XP to phone home to prove I'm allowed to do that. You don't find it a problem, that's OK, I'm not saying you should. I'm just answering your question.
There are two categories of restrictive digital rights management (aka "copy protection") in XP:
1. Windows Media Player 9, shipped with XP, is the first version of WMP with kernel components to restrict interception of decoded audio and video.
2. Windows XP is the first version of Windows to contain components to technically restrict copying a working installation of the OS to another computer. This means that restoring backups and certain hardware upgrades force you to re-authorize the system.
You may not consider these important or worth notice, and I won't argue with that: it's your decision as to the level of interference with the use of your legally purchased OS on your own computer that you're willing to put up with, but these are digital rights management restrictions added to NT5 under the name "Windows XP" that did not exist in Windows 2000.
There's nothing in the linked article that implies Gartner said anything about open source "taking over".
"By 2012, more than 90 percent of enterprises will use open source in direct or embedded forms," predicts a Gartner report, The State of Open Source 2008, which sees a "stealth" impact for the technology in embedded form: "Users who reject open source for technical, legal or business reasons might find themselves unintentionally using open source despite their opposition."
A company may have 3000 Windows systems running Office and one Linux-based router, and they will be 'using open source in direct or embedded form'.
Except that they're too late. I doubt there's a business in America that isn't using open source, one way or another. Even if they have nothing but Windows in-house:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\finger.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California. C:\WINDOWS\system32\ftp.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. C:\WINDOWS\system32\nslookup.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California. C:\WINDOWS\system32\rcp.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. C:\WINDOWS\system32\rsh.exe: (#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. C:\WINDOWS\system32\vmnetdhcp.exe: $Id: inet_addr.c,v 1.1.1.1 1999/11/22 00:57:05 edward Exp $ Copyright (c) 1983, 1990, 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
(oh, and what the hell are the "technical, business, or legal reasons" to reject open source?)
XP IMHO has been best advancment for the whole OS line.
XP is just Windows 2000 with eye candy, some extra bundled components and drivers, and restrictive DRM.
Virtually the same kernel, same libraries, and once you bypass the annoying "wizards" the same applications and utilities. It doesn't even have a real name, "XP" is an emoticon for "ewww, that's nasty". They must have taken both pills, and washed them down with a big dose of clippy.
Do not try to find Windows XP; that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no XP. Then you'll see, that it is not the XP that exists, it is only yourself.
But, we applaud the efforts of the FOSS community to make every effort to run Windows apps on *nix operating systems.
Setting aside the fact that a LOT of people think making Windows apps run on UNIX is a bad idea...
We applaud the efforts of Microsoft to make every effort to run UNIX software on Windows. That's where real interoperability comes in - the core UNIX API is much simpler and more complete than the corresponding parts of Win32, so you can write a native UNIX app once and run it anywhere (it's not so easy as it once was, perhaps, especially if you insist on integrating the GUI tightly... but it's not all that hard). And then when Microsoft drops the ball, either deliberately (with POSIX) or through neglect (with Interix) we get upset.
Condemn them for doing what their competitors are doing?
They're not doing the same kind of thing... at all.
I don't see Microsoft destroying the *nix marketplace any time soon.
They don't have to, the bits of the Open Source community who don't seem to understand what really makes an open system are going to do it for them.
Although sarcasm, as you've just expressed, utilizes irony, I don't think it actually qualifies as ironic because irony is observed while sarcasm is created.
I had no idea that there were so many possible definitions for the word "irony". How would you suggest I educate myself on the subject?
Apple didn't introduce a new OS that was only source-code compatible with existing applications. Apple introduced a new API that was very similar to the old API, restricted in some areas, expanded in others, designed to run efficiently on both the old and new operating systems. They did this before the new OS was released. Then, in the new OS, old applications that were not written to the new API ran in an emulator, and old applications that were written entirely to the new API ran native on the new OS.
At the same time they introduced two more APIs, one that was an enhanced version of the old compatible one that took advantage of the new OS, and one that was new to the new OS. They also introduced a new development environment that generated code for the new APIs.
When they introduced the Intel-based Mac, they abandoned the oldest API, provided an emulator for existing code, and code written in the enhanced API using Apple's development tools could be recompiled in a mode that supported both Power PC and Intel processors.
At no point was there a stage that broke code written within the previous two generations of APIs.
I was under the impression that Microsoft was planning on using.NET this way: that.NET code would run on some future Windows platform, but Win32 code would only run in an emulator.
Either the article is wrong about Microsoft abandoning.NET, or Microsoft is doing something completely different from Apple... and what Apple did was risky enough to start with.
If a music track is DRM'ed only to the point where you can still do what you expect to do with that music, then there's probably a very strong case for just forgetting about it entirely.
That's why it's good that there's no standard for DRM for music, because it would increase the likelihood that people would just put up with it, like they put up with it on DVDs. The fact that I have to mess around burning and re-ripping tracks is annoying, but I'm willing to put up with that annoyance as long as it means other people are also annoyed, and the undercurrent of resentment against DRM is maintained.
But even you must admit that DRM *can* inhibit an honest music buyer from doing what he is accustomed to with music and, from his/her perspective, that is wrong.
Sure, but it would be no less wrong if it wasn't annoying. It would be worse. The more the honest user is inhibited, the better off we are over the long term.
there's an expectation from the RIAA and parts of the music industry that I just lie down and take it
That expectation exists because the public just lay down and took it for DVDs. And the public lay down and took it for DVDs because you hardly anyone ever has to care about it. The DRM format wars between Apple and Microsoft and Sony and Real and the rest of them are the biggest reason why most people aren't just laying down and taking it this time around.
If by "*purely* 64-bit" you mean "has no instructions that directly load and store 32-bit words on 32-bit boundaries in memory",
I mean that if you built a 32-bit executable on Digital UNIX (-xtaso/-taso), you got "Unaligned access" traps. Whether the compiler didn't generate good code, or it was simply because we started with the 21064, but we simply did not use 32-bit on Alpha - 32-bit was slower than 64-bit. We *did* use 32-bit on other platforms because it was generally faster.
Presumably you're talking about code scheduling, etc. issues rather than instruction set issues.
I'm basing this on the results of posted 32-vs-64-bit benchmarks comparing AMD's and Intel's implementations. I assumed that this was either due to better instruction scheduling on AMD or better hardware register allocation (register coloring, etc) on Intel in Intel's 32-bit model.
If the writing were so obviously on the wall, then why would iTunes still be a Carbon app?
Because it doesn't matter if iTunes is 32-bit? More importantly, it has to run on Windows, and keeping the OpenStep on Windows project alive for one application is a poor use of resources?
And don't forget that Adobe wasn't just foot-dragging on Cocoa, they were footdragging on XCode and Apple's compilers as well. And they did get advance notice that they'd need to switch for Intel, there, so they don't have the "Carbon Excuse" there.
I've been using 64-bit systems since 1994... including ILP64 Alpha processors... and unless you're memory starved 64-bit software tends to be slower than 32-bit software... with one exception: there's a serious problem with 32 bit mode that the 64-bit mode doesn't have.
On the Alpha, the problem was that 32-bit mode requires trapping many accesses because the CPU is *purely* 64-bit.
With AMD64, AMD implemented a large register file efficiently, so a good compiler can generate better code for it. Intel's implementation of AMD64 doesn't seem to be as good, and since Apple is on Intel...
Also, Adobe has to have a 64 bit version for Windows, because Windows comes in 64- and 32- bit versions, but OS X has the same support for both 64- and 32- bit in the same OS...
So unless you're editing truly enormous images, far larger than most users ever deal with, this doesn't matter.
On the plus side, Apple's been trying to kick Adobe into converting to NeXTSTep/Yellow Box/Cocoa since 1997, and Adobe's knuckle-dragging over abandoning Classic is what made Carbon necessary in the first place, so I don't think Adobe's in any position to say Apple didn't give them plenty of warning.
It's been 11 years and they're finally going "oh, man, I guess Apple's really serious about this Objective C stuff!".
But my real problem is with DRM, whether it's with Blockbuster renting DRMed DVD movies or the DRMed portions of iTunes. To me, DRM can only be bad for the consumer because it will ultimately turn everything into a rental model to screw more money out of everyone.
That's why I love the fact that competing DRM schemes make things hard for the consumer right now and keep the fact that there's DRM on the music right now in everyone's face. The last thing we want is for DRM to be mostly invisible and ubiquitous like CSS, no, I wish Microsoft would come up with a THIRD DRM scheme... "plays-for-sure-fooled-you" and Zune isn't enough. Think how sucky things would be without Apple, if everyone was using protected WMA and it "just worked" on everyone's music player.
And of course the fact that Apple's DRM is no stronger than "honor system" is an additional bonus. It keeps reminding people that copy protection sucks, but at the same time it doesn't inconvenience me. Double win!
Microsoft's customers are and always have been, developers.
Customers are people who buy Microsoft products. Hardware manufacturers are #1, followed by corporate purchasing departments.
Developers might be third.
That doesn't mean that they don't care about developers, that just means that developers are not Microsoft's customers, any more than authors are the customers of Random House.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote: The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the left.
That should read: The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the right .
The apple logo is a solid apple with a bite out of its side, in a variety of color schemes (rainbow (original), red (early variant), black (on white paper), white (current logo), and blue (in the OS X title bar)). It has no stem. The leaf extends to the left. The bottom is rounded, and it is noticably "chubbier" than the NYC logo.
The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the left. The bottom is a sharp indent, and the shape is slimmer than the Apple logo.
The "stem" is a distinctive difference, it has never appeared in any Apple logo, and it has appeared in other NYC-related "big apple" artwork (for example the "Big Apple" sculptures that decorated NYC in 2004).
Different colors, different shape, consistent with previous NYC "big Apple" icons and logos. The only difference is that the apple is more rounded and less "pear shaped", which is most likely simply due to the need to accommodate the yin/yang/infinity symbol.
A light dawns: you're reading the phrase "restrictive DRM" to mean something like "unavoidable DRM", or "universal DRM". I don't think such a thing could exist in a general purpose computer (though it's a common topic of science fiction, see Vernor Vinge's "Rainbow's End" or Karl Schroeder's "Permanence").
All I mean by using the term "restrictive DRM" is to distinguish it from other possible uses of DRM technologies than copy protection and other schemes intended to restrict the rights of the purchaser of a product beyond what copyright explicitly grants. I have on a number of occasions had DRM advocates respond aggressively to posts where I used the term "DRM" in this way.
I guess I'm going to have to start hyperlinking "DRM" to a page with a set of canned qualifications, disclaimers, and counterpoints.
The two of you are arguing over the definition of "digital rights management."
I'm not arguing over anything.
But, as an aside, what seems to be confusing him is that there's a distinction between "restrictive DRM" (copy protection, and other uses of DRM technology to restrict what the purchaser of a product can do with it) and other uses of these kinds of technologies (for example, using a TPM chip to store certificates to authenticate a computer to servers).
Until his last message I did not realize that what was bugging him was that he was reading "restrictive" to mean something like "strict" or "highly limiting"... and inferred a stronger statement than I implied.
I'm not real sure how the windows media player stuff you are talking about works, but I have never had any difficulty doing anything with VLC
The fact that VLC doesn't use the kernel support for restricting access to decoded streams is more or less completely irrelevant to whether it's there or not. You don't find it a problem, that's OK, I'm not saying you should. I'm just answering your question.
What it amounts to is that while I appreciate the goals of Free Software(and Open Source and open source),
What does open source have to do with anything? I was comparing Windows 2000 and Windows XP. If I replace the motherboard in my Windows 2000 box, I boot it up, and as long as I've got compatible drivers I'm done. If I replace the motherboard in a Windows XP box I have to get XP to phone home to prove I'm allowed to do that. You don't find it a problem, that's OK, I'm not saying you should. I'm just answering your question.
If they can get away with reading my emails and stuff like this comment, what's to stop them from listening to my phone calls?
Apart from the law, the fact that speech recognition is a much harder problem?
There are two categories of restrictive digital rights management (aka "copy protection") in XP:
1. Windows Media Player 9, shipped with XP, is the first version of WMP with kernel components to restrict interception of decoded audio and video.
2. Windows XP is the first version of Windows to contain components to technically restrict copying a working installation of the OS to another computer. This means that restoring backups and certain hardware upgrades force you to re-authorize the system.
You may not consider these important or worth notice, and I won't argue with that: it's your decision as to the level of interference with the use of your legally purchased OS on your own computer that you're willing to put up with, but these are digital rights management restrictions added to NT5 under the name "Windows XP" that did not exist in Windows 2000.
A company may have 3000 Windows systems running Office and one Linux-based router, and they will be 'using open source in direct or embedded form'.
Except that they're too late. I doubt there's a business in America that isn't using open source, one way or another. Even if they have nothing but Windows in-house: (oh, and what the hell are the "technical, business, or legal reasons" to reject open source?)
XP is just Windows 2000 with eye candy, some extra bundled components and drivers, and restrictive DRM.
Virtually the same kernel, same libraries, and once you bypass the annoying "wizards" the same applications and utilities. It doesn't even have a real name, "XP" is an emoticon for "ewww, that's nasty". They must have taken both pills, and washed them down with a big dose of clippy.
Do not try to find Windows XP; that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no XP. Then you'll see, that it is not the XP that exists, it is only yourself.
This guy must be going for the WORST myspace page ever!
Isn't that what Myspace is for?
But, we applaud the efforts of the FOSS community to make every effort to run Windows apps on *nix operating systems.
Setting aside the fact that a LOT of people think making Windows apps run on UNIX is a bad idea...
We applaud the efforts of Microsoft to make every effort to run UNIX software on Windows. That's where real interoperability comes in - the core UNIX API is much simpler and more complete than the corresponding parts of Win32, so you can write a native UNIX app once and run it anywhere (it's not so easy as it once was, perhaps, especially if you insist on integrating the GUI tightly... but it's not all that hard). And then when Microsoft drops the ball, either deliberately (with POSIX) or through neglect (with Interix) we get upset.
Condemn them for doing what their competitors are doing?
They're not doing the same kind of thing... at all.
I don't see Microsoft destroying the *nix marketplace any time soon.
They don't have to, the bits of the Open Source community who don't seem to understand what really makes an open system are going to do it for them.
Did you read the article? He claims they copied what he wrote down on overhead projector transparencies.
The claim is that the notes WERE copied word for word from what he wrote on the overhead projector.
Although sarcasm, as you've just expressed, utilizes irony, I don't think it actually qualifies as ironic because irony is observed while sarcasm is created.
I had no idea that there were so many possible definitions for the word "irony". How would you suggest I educate myself on the subject?
Probably a compiler bug, then, as the LDL/STL instructions date all the way back to the 21064.
:)
I don't know about a "bug", since it was documented in the manual. That makes it a "feature".
By "instruction scheduling" I assume you mean the scheduling done by the processor
Yes. I'm referring to scheduling of microinstructions and hardware register renaming.
Apple didn't introduce a new OS that was only source-code compatible with existing applications. Apple introduced a new API that was very similar to the old API, restricted in some areas, expanded in others, designed to run efficiently on both the old and new operating systems. They did this before the new OS was released. Then, in the new OS, old applications that were not written to the new API ran in an emulator, and old applications that were written entirely to the new API ran native on the new OS.
.NET this way: that .NET code would run on some future Windows platform, but Win32 code would only run in an emulator.
.NET, or Microsoft is doing something completely different from Apple... and what Apple did was risky enough to start with.
At the same time they introduced two more APIs, one that was an enhanced version of the old compatible one that took advantage of the new OS, and one that was new to the new OS. They also introduced a new development environment that generated code for the new APIs.
When they introduced the Intel-based Mac, they abandoned the oldest API, provided an emulator for existing code, and code written in the enhanced API using Apple's development tools could be recompiled in a mode that supported both Power PC and Intel processors.
At no point was there a stage that broke code written within the previous two generations of APIs.
I was under the impression that Microsoft was planning on using
Either the article is wrong about Microsoft abandoning
Can someone supply an example of an individual being ironic in a chat session?
Inconceivable! That could never happen. That's just crazy talk.
If a music track is DRM'ed only to the point where you can still do what you expect to do with that music, then there's probably a very strong case for just forgetting about it entirely.
That's why it's good that there's no standard for DRM for music, because it would increase the likelihood that people would just put up with it, like they put up with it on DVDs. The fact that I have to mess around burning and re-ripping tracks is annoying, but I'm willing to put up with that annoyance as long as it means other people are also annoyed, and the undercurrent of resentment against DRM is maintained.
But even you must admit that DRM *can* inhibit an honest music buyer from doing what he is accustomed to with music and, from his/her perspective, that is wrong.
Sure, but it would be no less wrong if it wasn't annoying. It would be worse. The more the honest user is inhibited, the better off we are over the long term.
there's an expectation from the RIAA and parts of the music industry that I just lie down and take it
That expectation exists because the public just lay down and took it for DVDs. And the public lay down and took it for DVDs because you hardly anyone ever has to care about it. The DRM format wars between Apple and Microsoft and Sony and Real and the rest of them are the biggest reason why most people aren't just laying down and taking it this time around.
Seems to me like you just explained exactly why Photoshop will stay a 32-bit carbon app.
Possibly. Except that Photoshop's blog posting contradicts that.
If by "*purely* 64-bit" you mean "has no instructions that directly load and store 32-bit words on 32-bit boundaries in memory",
I mean that if you built a 32-bit executable on Digital UNIX (-xtaso/-taso), you got "Unaligned access" traps. Whether the compiler didn't generate good code, or it was simply because we started with the 21064, but we simply did not use 32-bit on Alpha - 32-bit was slower than 64-bit. We *did* use 32-bit on other platforms because it was generally faster.
Presumably you're talking about code scheduling, etc. issues rather than instruction set issues.
I'm basing this on the results of posted 32-vs-64-bit benchmarks comparing AMD's and Intel's implementations. I assumed that this was either due to better instruction scheduling on AMD or better hardware register allocation (register coloring, etc) on Intel in Intel's 32-bit model.
64-bit Windows runs 32-bit software just fine.
Except when it doesn't.
There's quite a few programs that don't work as well or don't work at all on 64-bit.
If the writing were so obviously on the wall, then why would iTunes still be a Carbon app?
Because it doesn't matter if iTunes is 32-bit? More importantly, it has to run on Windows, and keeping the OpenStep on Windows project alive for one application is a poor use of resources?
And don't forget that Adobe wasn't just foot-dragging on Cocoa, they were footdragging on XCode and Apple's compilers as well. And they did get advance notice that they'd need to switch for Intel, there, so they don't have the "Carbon Excuse" there.
I've been using 64-bit systems since 1994... including ILP64 Alpha processors... and unless you're memory starved 64-bit software tends to be slower than 32-bit software... with one exception: there's a serious problem with 32 bit mode that the 64-bit mode doesn't have.
On the Alpha, the problem was that 32-bit mode requires trapping many accesses because the CPU is *purely* 64-bit.
With AMD64, AMD implemented a large register file efficiently, so a good compiler can generate better code for it. Intel's implementation of AMD64 doesn't seem to be as good, and since Apple is on Intel...
Also, Adobe has to have a 64 bit version for Windows, because Windows comes in 64- and 32- bit versions, but OS X has the same support for both 64- and 32- bit in the same OS...
So unless you're editing truly enormous images, far larger than most users ever deal with, this doesn't matter.
On the plus side, Apple's been trying to kick Adobe into converting to NeXTSTep/Yellow Box/Cocoa since 1997, and Adobe's knuckle-dragging over abandoning Classic is what made Carbon necessary in the first place, so I don't think Adobe's in any position to say Apple didn't give them plenty of warning.
It's been 11 years and they're finally going "oh, man, I guess Apple's really serious about this Objective C stuff!".
But my real problem is with DRM, whether it's with Blockbuster renting DRMed DVD movies or the DRMed portions of iTunes. To me, DRM can only be bad for the consumer because it will ultimately turn everything into a rental model to screw more money out of everyone.
That's why I love the fact that competing DRM schemes make things hard for the consumer right now and keep the fact that there's DRM on the music right now in everyone's face. The last thing we want is for DRM to be mostly invisible and ubiquitous like CSS, no, I wish Microsoft would come up with a THIRD DRM scheme... "plays-for-sure-fooled-you" and Zune isn't enough. Think how sucky things would be without Apple, if everyone was using protected WMA and it "just worked" on everyone's music player.
And of course the fact that Apple's DRM is no stronger than "honor system" is an additional bonus. It keeps reminding people that copy protection sucks, but at the same time it doesn't inconvenience me. Double win!
Microsoft's customers are and always have been, developers.
Customers are people who buy Microsoft products. Hardware manufacturers are #1, followed by corporate purchasing departments.
Developers might be third.
That doesn't mean that they don't care about developers, that just means that developers are not Microsoft's customers, any more than authors are the customers of Random House.