I didn't make any comment on the theory you are promoting. I merely pointed out the fact of someone's belief in an idea is not generally a good indication of an idea's worth, as the parent had implied.
Look at the Atkins diet guy. Slipped on a patch of ice and died... defeated by a naturally occurring phase of the most plentiful chemical in our local environment.
What the hell was he doing to slip on a patch of nitrogen?
The man has a theory and it sounds like he believes in it enough to stake his career on it.
The fact that someone believes in something, even to the extent of staking their career (or their life) on it, does not give that idea any sort of legitimacy. Unless you're talking about religion.
While I agree with you, it probably should be pointed out that apparently you are not one of the people paying for this site (neither am I). I don't think that reduces our right to complain, but it certainly justifies the owners' continuing to ignore us. For us the only real recourse is to leave. And since we haven't yet done that I can't see the owners' doing anything about the problem, no matter how many comments complaining about the dups and the (lack of) editing get to +5.
They became a publicly traded corporation. As such, they are legally bound to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. When the time comes that they have choose between the big money and those portions of their morals and ethics that extend beyond the law's requirements, they've already committed to their course.
And yet I didn't see a flurry of shareholder lawsuits after companies donated money to various tsunami relief efforts. As a shareholder you don't just get sue whenever you are not happy with what a company is doing. You already have a method of redress: voting out the offending officers, so a court is only going to receptive to a lawsuit in exceptional circumstances.
It's not uncommon for features to get added early in the mobo manufacturing process because it's cheap and relatively simple. This is probably an example of Apple doing a CYA 12 months ago and then abandoning the idea (whatever it was - dock or something else).
Except that the Mini still has a Firewire port. Why would they have designed a Firewire port on the motherboard and then a seperate Firewire connection through a non-Firewire socket on a riser card? An iPod dock is just about the only thing I can think of that would require an internal Firewire connection that way. Most other things would use PCI if they were internal.
I don't think this was for an iPod dock. This guys is basing that conclusion on the fact that it's got firewire connectivity. But we should recally that Firewire was originally mostly used for video connectivity, not iPods, and Firewire is still more-or-less the standard for connecting video cameras and tuners digitally. The logical conclusion is that this bus is not here to support an iPod, but some sort of video hardware... like, say an HDTV tuner card?
The mini's already got a FireWire port. Why would it need another one? Not for a tuner device. If it was external it'd use the existing port, if it was internal it'd be PCI. But for an ingrated iPod dock it does make sense - the dock needs a Firewire connection, but not in the usual Firewire port form-factor.
Right now, I'm replying to a few random respondents, but since about 80% of the replies to my posts here should be hit with (-1, Redundant), I can't be bothered to repeat myself when they didn't read either my original post or the follow-up explanation I gave to another respondent already.
You haven't answered the point (raised several times) that Gilmore needed to show actual harm as the basis of his suit.
That was never my point. My point was that the manner in which the protest was made was unhelpful.
What a pity you didn't bother to state your point in your original post. You implied that Gilmore's protest was not "against genuinely over-the-line behaviour", thereby implying that you have no problem with secret laws. Whether that was really your intent or not, I don't think you can blame people for interpreting it that way.
Half a kilo of butter, or a pound of butter is a reasonable purchase. Grams just don't cut it.
At least in this part of the world (Australia and New Zealand) all packaged food items which are specified by weight are specified in grams. So your half kilo of butter is in fact marked 500g. Non-packaged food items are usually specified in kilograms. I.e. fruit, vegetables, and meat usually have prices listed "per kilo". Sometimes prices are listed "per 100g", e.g. nuts, but I suspect this just to reduce the apparent cost.
Then: all external HDs FireWire
Now: about 1/3
Then: all iPods came with a FireWire cable
Now: they don't.
How is that not losing ground. Explain it to me. For the 95% of the market that is not DV, FireWire is losing ground. As I said, it may recover in the external HD market, or it may not. Frankly, like DV, it's a pretty small segment anyway. It's dwarfed by the digital still camera market and the printer market, both of which are dominated by USB.
You seem to be fixated on DV, Apple, and "political reasons". Guess what? Most people don't care about DV or Apple. They're irrelevant to the largest part of the market we're talking about. Your "political reasons" actually boil down to a lack of demand, and the fact that USB is cheaper to implement. Invocation of conspiracy theories is always a sign of a weak argument.
Firewire clearly is losing ground. For example: FireWire used to have the external drive market to itself, now there are about twice as many USB products as FireWire products. It may recover somewhat with FireWire 800 and above, but hasn't so far. And the fact that Apple has adopted USB at all is an indication that FireWire has lost ground.
the only reason apple isn't providing firewire cables with new iPods are the statistics - PC owners are purchasing more iPods than Mac owners
So you're claiming that the fact that Apple can't see the point in including FireWire cables with iPods is not an indication that FireWire is losing ground? That's ridiculous. Obviously if FireWire was gaining ground in the marketplace Apple would not have stopped including the cable.
It's usually quite obvious: the two ports for each controller are together. If you use ports from different pairs you'll be fine. Besides you can find out through the OS what controllers have what connected to them. Which is what you'd do if you care that much about performance. The point is, for anyone who cares, it is simple to avoid sharing USB buses. The USB sharing thing is a non-issue.
That's what I said: "FireWire is just hanging on, right on the edge of being relegated to being solely used in the niche market of DV". FireWire as a widely used bus is looking unlikely. USB has all but "won".
Real world advantage is the difference in interface sharing methods. USB uses time-division (IIRC), FireWire is packet-based. Thus, if you're iPod and your external drive are on the same port, they each get a slice of time, even if nothing is being transferred to the drive. Each device can use as bandwidth [almost] freely in FireWire.
That may be, but virtually no bus sharing actually occurs in the USB world these days. The last motherboard I bought comes with 6 USB ports. The one before that had 8! Why would anyone who cares about performance share a bus unnecessarily?
Besides, VHS may have won the home video tape wars, but that didn't make it better than Betamax.
Actually VHS was better for the consumer, and that's why it "won". Betamax may have had better picture quality, but it didn't have as much capacity per tape. No one wants to have to change tapes half way through a movie, particularly while recording. It was also more expensive, and VHS quickly moved into markets Betamax wasn't interested in (i.e. porn). These three factors added up to VHS being better for most people, and therefore more successful.
As for USB v FireWire, don't judge "better" in terms of how elegantly engineered each product is. There are obvious parallels to Betamax v VHS. The difference in performance is generally not significant for most people. USB is in markets FireWire isn't interested in, such as low bandwidth applications like keyboards, mice, printers etc, (though to be fair USB has little penetration in the DV market). USB is cheaper. USB has become standard on PCs, largely because it started as a replacement for existing functionality that most people used: the PS/2, serial and parallel ports, while FireWire replaces external SCSI - something comparitively few people use. IMHO, FireWire is just hanging on, right on the edge of being relegated to being solely used in the niche market of DV. It's use in set top boxes might be it's saviour.
The company I work for is starting to play the OSS game more and more often, but using GPLed code is out of the question - *some* code should never be shared due to security reasons. So a GPL license pretty much does it for development on the entire system. Thank you GPL. Also, because someone wrote e.g. a base 64 encoder/decoder, should that mean that he/she should have access to an entire mail server implementation?
You've given two reasons for not working with GPL code - one pretty poor (security), one sometimes valid (relative size of contribution). Neither of those reasons will apply in all cases so a blanket ban on working with GPL code seems illogical. Unless the real motivation is simply to use other people's work without contributing back to the community.
The world is big, and obtaining a license from an author you might not even find is a hard thing to do. And that is for *one* author. Most OSS projects, especially the popular ones, have many authors. If it is GPL, it is impossible to get a license - you would have to get a license from *everyone*.
If there are a lot of copyright holders then that implies a large body of work, which really underlines the point that you shouldn't be able to use all that work without contributing back to the community. Alternatively some projects use copyright reassignment to ensure that the project can be relicensed if necessary.
The company I work for is starting to play the OSS game more and more often, but using GPLed code is out of the question - *some* code should never be shared due to security reasons. So a GPL license pretty much does it for development on the entire system. Thank you GPL.
Sounds like you're whining because you want to share other people's code but you're not willing to share your own.
Also, because someone wrote e.g. a base 64 encoder/decoder, should that mean that he/she should have access to an entire mail server implementation? I find that doubtfull.
Maybe not, but it still boils down to you wanting to use their code and yet not being willing to let them use yours. Still, you have several options:
Write your own
Find one with a license you can work with
Ask the author(s) (it's not likely there will be many) to relicense it for you
It simply makes it possible for people to make their OWN modifications private.
You have that right with the GPL too. But with the GPL you cannot then further distribute the modified total unless you comply with the GPL. I'm sure you know this, but your statement was misleading.
BSD license simply gives you more powerful rights over your own modifications to that software.
Neither the GPL nor the BSD license restrict or grant rights to the copyright owner of a piece of code. What these licenses do is lay out your rights with respect to other people's code in your posession. The GPL permits you to redistribute your modifications with other people's code only if you give them the same rights you were given (i.e. the ability to get hold of the source and the ability to redistribute modified or unmodified versions of the software). The BSD license says you can redistribute your modifications with other people's code however you like, provided you include the copyright notice.
It's a myth that the GPL somehow restricts your rights to your own code. There is nothing stopping me from releasing patches for the Linux kernel (for example) under any license I choose, and charging for it. But if I want to redistribute them with the kernel as a single entity then I need to license my patches under the GPL. That reasonable - it's a restriction on what I can do with other people's code.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, I have no idea what that guy is talking about. Anyone who is unable to communicate coherently ought to expect a high degree of skepticism.
While I agree with you, it probably should be pointed out that apparently you are not one of the people paying for this site (neither am I). I don't think that reduces our right to complain, but it certainly justifies the owners' continuing to ignore us. For us the only real recourse is to leave. And since we haven't yet done that I can't see the owners' doing anything about the problem, no matter how many comments complaining about the dups and the (lack of) editing get to +5.
Now: about 1/3
Then: all iPods came with a FireWire cable
Now: they don't.
How is that not losing ground. Explain it to me. For the 95% of the market that is not DV, FireWire is losing ground. As I said, it may recover in the external HD market, or it may not. Frankly, like DV, it's a pretty small segment anyway. It's dwarfed by the digital still camera market and the printer market, both of which are dominated by USB.
You seem to be fixated on DV, Apple, and "political reasons". Guess what? Most people don't care about DV or Apple. They're irrelevant to the largest part of the market we're talking about. Your "political reasons" actually boil down to a lack of demand, and the fact that USB is cheaper to implement. Invocation of conspiracy theories is always a sign of a weak argument.
It's usually quite obvious: the two ports for each controller are together. If you use ports from different pairs you'll be fine. Besides you can find out through the OS what controllers have what connected to them. Which is what you'd do if you care that much about performance. The point is, for anyone who cares, it is simple to avoid sharing USB buses. The USB sharing thing is a non-issue.
That's what I said: "FireWire is just hanging on, right on the edge of being relegated to being solely used in the niche market of DV". FireWire as a widely used bus is looking unlikely. USB has all but "won".
As for USB v FireWire, don't judge "better" in terms of how elegantly engineered each product is. There are obvious parallels to Betamax v VHS. The difference in performance is generally not significant for most people. USB is in markets FireWire isn't interested in, such as low bandwidth applications like keyboards, mice, printers etc, (though to be fair USB has little penetration in the DV market). USB is cheaper. USB has become standard on PCs, largely because it started as a replacement for existing functionality that most people used: the PS/2, serial and parallel ports, while FireWire replaces external SCSI - something comparitively few people use. IMHO, FireWire is just hanging on, right on the edge of being relegated to being solely used in the niche market of DV. It's use in set top boxes might be it's saviour.
A general dictionary is not the place to be looking for accurate definitions of technical terms.
- Write your own
- Find one with a license you can work with
- Ask the author(s) (it's not likely there will be many) to relicense it for you
- Buy the code from someone
The only option you don't have is- Have your cake and eat it too
I don't see what is so wrong with that.It's a myth that the GPL somehow restricts your rights to your own code. There is nothing stopping me from releasing patches for the Linux kernel (for example) under any license I choose, and charging for it. But if I want to redistribute them with the kernel as a single entity then I need to license my patches under the GPL. That reasonable - it's a restriction on what I can do with other people's code.