"The natural result of forcing US protections on non-US citizens on foreign soil is that the US would have the right to prosecute foreign nationals who have violated American laws without harming American interests. This sort of extra-territoriality would not be thought of highly."
"In this case, the FBI did the right thing."
Here you have done two things: Put words in my mouth and contradicted yourself.
I'll start with the first. I have neither implied nor suggested that US laws apply over seas. What I have implied is that the FBI, which enforces federal law (among other things), should have American Law apply to it, regardless of where the person who is being investigated lives. This is not to protect foreign nationals, but to limit the right of the FBI to investigate ME when I travel abroad. Since, in this case the FBI did NOT know what nationality the people were, it could have been American Citizens. FBI does NOT and should NOT have the authority to do that to me, regardless of where I am at.
"He also maintains that no search warrant was needed because the FBI lacks jurisdiction in Russia."
This raises an interesting constitutional issue. Lets say, for example, your are an american business man and often travel to Russia. Now, the FBI thinks your a low life money launderer for the Russian Mob and the only reason you haven't been arrested in Russia is because you pay off the police. They don't have much to prove this. In fact, they can't even get a wire tap for your cell, which is provided by an american company.
So one day, you are in Russia and using a Russian ISP, you check your email. Now the FBI, through perfectly legal means, gets your IP, breaks into your computer, and finds....NOTHING except a LOT of porn with couple images that MAY be girls under 18. You come back to the states, they arrest you under for child porn (when they know its contestable) so they can get warrents to check your house in the vague hope of finding something to prove you are with the russian mob.
At no point did they get a warrent.
Sound far fetched. Maybe. But it does raise an interesting Constitutional issue for American Citizens. If I travel to Russia, the FBI, who has not jurisdiction there, should NEED a warrent to invade my property in Russia. Here it is implied that since Russia is not America, the govt can use means that fly in the face of the Constitution to catch someone.
I doubt any evidence gained from a search with no warrent, regardless of the computer being in Russia or not, would NOT pass Constitutional muster. If it did, we need to extend the US constitution.
"After all, the scientists provide the articles free of charge"
Actually you misspelt "After all, the scientists PAY to provide their articles". It can cost thousands of dollars (color figures) to be published in a respectable journal.
But they still have to sue your ISP to get your identity and since ISPs run from lawsuits they cave in (even if the person isn't a pirate, which is my point: The MPAA doesn't have to really make any prima-facia case since ISP runs from the law suits. This in turn allows anyone with a lawyer and a scary letter get YOUR identity and harrass YOU. Doesn't sound too appealing, does it?
"Slashdot has continually said that the MPAA should got after individual copyright infrigers rather thanservices like Napster. Yet as soon as the MPAA does that it becomes labelled "intimidation tactics". I read the article and from what I gathered Excite@Home told people if they didn't stop sharing copyright material they would lose their service."
Let's say, for example, you are a "small" company that piggybacks on Sprints DSL network to provides DSL service to some city. You get a letter form the MPAA saying that 40 of your users are pirates. Now, at the current time, they make no legal threats towards you. You notifiy the users and ask them to stop being a leech and use lower profile way to pirate stuff. They don't comply. Now the MPAA wans to sue those users. It needs YOU to tell them who those users are. What do you do, go to court and make the MPAA prove for a fact they are pirates before you tell them who they are? No, you cave in.
Problem here is a matter of precedent. There seems to be no avenue to protect users identities on the internet, since ISPs run from law suits (due to lawyer costs) faster than they can be filed. What's next, your employer sueing to find out who you are when you make "offensive" comments about the company online (which is done not to sue like the company said, since they would loose, but only to imtimidate)? Or Scientology getting user identites to harrass people who "violate their IP" by using their constitutional right to fair use?
The problem is not the piracy, its the lack of legal protection for the little guy from harassment. What if the MPAA was wrong and took someone to court? That person would have to play lawyer fees. The MPAA doesn't have to make a prima-facia case, at current time, to sue. Thats my problem, and beleive me, they WILL sue.
Seems Slashdots manta is if its on the internet, it must be true. This project has an activity of 0% with no released files in 6 months and out of the blue Apple tries to shutdown what appears to be an already inactive project. Did you bother verifing this report?
"Remember no one is forcing you to use this format."
Picture it. It's 2020, computers are as cheap as TV's and with that CableTV access or Phone acess comes with it a faster internet connection. Every company in the RIAA decides to totally stop producing CDs, Tapes, Records, MusicDVDs, and whatever other hard copy medium exists and instead use a distant cousin of WMP and make everyone download it and share the profits with computer makers that put in hardware level copy protections in all computers(which they been preparing for the last 5 years). Now who is being forced?
It's not just a format. It's a baby step to the end of fair use. You get consumers to encode thier current albums with it, then when they share their music with other consumers (and they will), those people will want to get WMP too. Once there is %80 market share of WMP, RIAA members can sell you WMP files for CHEAP (this is called market dumping), making more people want computers with Windows so they can download music. Once people get used to buying music online, the RIAA members can all stop producing hard copies and totally destroy fair use.
It's not just a format. Copy protections stop Fair Use of copyright works. WinXP is the first step. MS wants to tie hardware and software so that when you replace your mobo, you will need a new copy of Windows. When you buy Music, you will need Windows. If you want to e-mail your mom, you will need Windows (as more poeple use Outlook, MS can have outlook by default use nonstandard HTML, making all other Mail readers allways play a game of catchup). I don't like Windows. I don't want Windows. I am damn glad some standards exists still that allow cross-platform sharing of files. If MS had its way, that wouldn't be the case and if the RIAA/MS had their way, fair-use would be a distant ruling by the Supreme Court that is no longer relevent.
"Widen your definition to everyone in the market and not just MS and the consumers. The content providers want this protection"
So what you are saying is: If the company that controls 90% of the desktop computers wants to team up with the RIAA and make it impossible to copy songs the the comsumer buys, thereby making it impossible in the future to buy new albums that can't be copied for legimate fair uses, thats okay cause its "market forces".
Hogwash, utter hogwash. Market forces are about the consumer. That is the whole point of a free economy. That is why monolopies should NOT exist. When we allow one company to control 90% of home computers, it thinks bullshit like this is okay, and consumers just have to eat that dog food if they want to buy music (which eventually, they will if this goes unchecked). I'm sorry. I don't like monolopies. I especially don't like monolopies destroying fair-use in concert with record companies.
Uhh, I'm trying not to be a troll but who cares if you can't use a certain format?
You are a troll, but thats okay. Trolling can be a fun experience. Let me give it a try.;)
"I can't enjoy certain anime because I don't read nor understand Japanese.
You don't have a right to it.
Nor did I say I did. Don't read into a statement what is not there, makes you look like a reactionary fool.
"You post sounds like 'I want it all now! And I blame MS for it and not market forces or technology'."
"Market forces", I damn near cracked a rib reading this. Do you honestly think consumers WANT copy protections? Do you honestly think consumers want old formats to be "updated" as often as possible so people with new computers have more trouble sending files to people with older computers? You sound like the type of person who would say IE is more popular than Netscape because it is "better' (which, btw, runs totally against what MS planners thought). I really just don't understand how people can honest believe MS is where it is at because it is the "best". I really don't understand what "market forces" are at play other than "monolopistic bundling" when MS uses its ownership of Windows to try to kill a file format. People use what came with Windows. Most don't trust or even understand downloading enough to seek alternate players.
The ONLY reason MS wants to add copy protection to Windows is so they can get part of the theoritcal money people will pay to download music. The software industry has gone unchecked for too long. Most of the industry is consumer unfriendly, writes buggy code, and is trying to redifine what fair use is. I don't want to tell my children about the good ole days when we were actually able to buy music in a unencrypted form, make a copy for the car, a copy for the office, and loan it to friends to listen to. But, at this rate I will, because everything will be "encrypted" (even if its only ROT 26), the DCMA will stop people from breaking that encryption even if they want to merely want to play their files in their car. Not only that, if in the highly likely event that WindowsXPv12 (2010 release,build 5million) dies and you have to reinstall, your computer might suddenly think all those files you have backed up are pirated and refuse to use them (cause Windows is fucking STUPID and requires a FORMAT to reinstall). If the OS can identify your computer uniquely and.NET plays out, every time you visit goatse.cx, MS knows.
Sounds like a shitty idea, if you ask me. I'll stick to formats that don't have any level of prevention in them. XP might look harmless now, but don't think this is nothing more than a baby step towards destroying fair use.
Not everyone uses Windows. I know its hard to beleive. In fact some of us have NEVER used Windows for anything other than checking e-mail in a public library. Your nice, small, perfectly sounding *.wma files are totally useless to me for the following reasons.
1. They don't work in MacOS X
2. They don't work in BeOS (x86)
3. They obviously encode very slowly ("PIII/700 laptop about 3x real time", geesh kinda slow, my 266 encodes mp3s (160) at 2.5X).
4. What happens when someone cracks the "copy protection" in the WMA format? Is MS gonna change it without regard to compatibility?
5. Even if I could use those files (meaning had Windows), I couldn't share them with anyone in my family, much less listen to them on any portable player.
6. Last but not least, from what I have seen of WMP (as limited as that is) in WinME, it blows nutz UI wise, is slow on anything other than a 400P2, and wastes LOTS of valueable screen space by default.
What I find interesting is the the fact that M$'s Clippy Site allows non-IE users to connect, when even their Corporate site doesn't(which btw, I've never understood the reasoning for, since it used to work).
"Having a key posted to the net is only a problem is the key is general and not location specific. How hard would it be for a company to sell a key to a corporation that only works on a given TCP/IP range or domain name? For the single user it could be bound to one of a number of hardware specific identifiers. This is the only way the Anti-piracy system would work."
Which would, of course, defeat the benifits to consumers that MS says.NET will provide. "Anytime, Anywhere"
Not to sound like a fanatic, I think the very idea of renting software will go down in flames. First, it will provide the final proof of monolopy pricing by Microsoft (anyone here old enough to remember that Ma Bell used to make you rent phones, and this was protected by law) and second, when.NET is released in the wild, are people really gonna care when their current hardware/software doesn't force them to keep paying over and over and over? I don't think they will.
Which, btw reminds me. If you want to combat.NET, there needs to be a OSS initive at starts using Mozilla services to write applications, all GPLed, which finally would let Linux companies make a profit by selling diskspace in a program similiar to Apples iDisk.
"You do realize that it runs on a BSD core, which really ain't all that different from Linux"
I would like to make some side comments about the reactions I've gotten from my post, and this post seems like a good place to start. From and outsiders point of view, many of the reactions are nothing more than knee jerk flames. It seems any form of criticism one makes about Linux, even light criticism, it is taken as a flame. A flame to be flamed back. Many, instead of addressing a single issue, have resorted to ad hem attacks. FUD, Troll, Moron, I've heard it all. Not only that but some of you seem to think that I had the impression Windows was better than Linux (it isn't) and that any form form of comparative statment on why Linux isn't as popular as something that is essentially given away should be is an attack against Linux (it isn't).
You want to know why people don't use Linux, I'll tell you, it's because flames I've recieved in response to any constructive criticism I've made about Linux. They come in many shapes, but its always a some form of a "holier than thou" attitude. Does that mean all Linux users are trolls? Certainly not. But really, with fuck heads out there ruining it for the rest, like some of those who responded to my posts, I don't even care about your "free" operating system. (no binford, you're not a fuck head, and probabally not troll...you asked what appears to be an honest question)
To answer your question. Just beacuse two OS's share a basic technology of multitasking and a limited ability to cross compile non-gui apps does NOT make them similiar. The design of OS X is a far cry from Linux. I could NEVER get Linux to a useable desktop OS. I Tried. I wanted to. I couldn't. When I asked in newsgroups and on IRCs, I was trolled and told I was stupid because I didn't want to make -install anything. OS X was usable out of the BOX and even ran my MacOS 9 apps ina better form than MOL could. They aren't similiar, don't fool yourself.
Dude, I have got this working on two machines, the only difference is it is 2 G4's, not G3's... but I can't beleive that would be the problem.
Few questions:
1. Did you actually purchase the retail copy of OS X or did you hotline it? I suspect this is why it works for you, that is that you don't really have the retail version.
2. When you installed OS X did you install it OVER a previous version of OS X?
Im not stupid, im not trolling, It doesnt work as far as I know on retail OS X. Tested on two iMacs and people over at MacGimp are having the same exact troubles that I am having.
Try CUPS with GTKlp. I'll take that over windows printing anyday thank you very much. I mean, send duplex print jobs, specify print trays, even 4 pages to 1 sheet of paper. And no, the windows print drivers do not support those options.
My reference is MacOS, which as far as I know nothing compares to it. Does Linux have anything that compares to ColorSync?
4. Its harder to update anything on Linux than Windows and MacOS
Umm, rpm -Uvh or rpm -Fvh . Many an NT Admin has worshipped RPM, rather than sitting down & doing click-next, click-next, click-accept... There is WinInstall, but that's another bastard of a story.
Yet another command line to remeber, what ever happened to decent version checking and double clicking.
5. Poor graphics support
Well, I do really like the NVIDIA drivers
I keep reading that. Graphics support though is more than a good driver. OpenGL performance is subpar and hard to set up. The OS doesn't support all the buzzword compliance of image formats. Video and sound performance isn't very good. I hope you don't have to actually do any kind of graphics editing on Linux (yeah, I know about, I use Gimp, it's no Photoshop)
7. Each Linux variant ships with security holes
Ahem, MSIE 5.x, Ahem
Which is why I dont use Windows.
As a workstation OS, I'll take it over any commercial Unix OS anyday.
Try OS X for a good desktop commercial workstation. Try BeOS for a good desktop OS (I've grown rather partial to it, it's not MacOS, but its good enough for email/web/graphics)
a lot of the best webpages are written by hand anyway, use vi or emacs.
Vi and emacs have horrible workgroup support.
2. Poor application linking
my linker and links seem okay.
I chuckled when I read this. I'm talking about application communication services that go a lot futher than "|" or ">" do.
3. Poor printing services
HP just released JetDirect for Linux.
I'm talking about color management, spools, trays, easy to use multiple printers. Take a look at what MacOS can do and come back with educated comment.
4. Its harder to update anything on Linux than Windows and MacOS
# apt-get dist-upgrade
apt-get? You're joking right? It's version tracking blows, take a look at how a Mac handles it
5. Poor graphics support
OpenGL, OpenInventor, Nvidia, ATI, Matrox...
All need to custom configured, and if you think Mesa is a replacement for OpenGL you need to open your eyes. OpenInventer is no where near production quality. Getting Mesa to work with any given graphics card is not easy.
6. No unified GUI (KDE, Gnome, who cares, just make ONE of them work)
My ximian gnome box works fine.
Yeah and it works and is coded for in a totally independant way from KDE
7. Each Linux variant ships with security holes to some extent,
all s/w products have security holes. or
Tell that the the OpenBSD team. Tell that to Apple.
perhaps you mean the recent bind problems? fixed months ago, and the "apt-get" lines above (provided the security.debian.org entry is in your sources.list) took care of that pretty fast...provided you use bind...long before the Lion was out. Or perhaps you mean a boot disk against a non-passwd protected bios? all mainstream OSen are subject to that. Go install a stock NT 4.0 box and stick that on the web. I dare ya.
I'm talking about the fact that all Linux systems ever shipped always have had some misconfiguration that allows remote attacks. All of them. Not good for desktop use. IHMO NT is a piece of shit
I often hear about the fact that "free" software costs less to buy with hardware as a reason for switching to Open Source. This is too narrow a view to put forth. Cost is not an issue, its what you can do with it. There are three things major reasons you buy a computer for: Games, Server, Workstation.
Games: You want to play all the newest games on a PC (which is a unique market compared to the console market), you have one choice. Windows. Yes I know, MacOS has improved dramtically to the point that it is viable and Linux isn't that far behind, but face it game performance is usually better on a PC and there are more high end graphics orientated games for WIndows than MacOS and Linux combined.
Server: Here is where Open Source has a large following. Apache, Samba, mySQL, Perl, and other such OSS technologies make Bill Gates wake up in the middle of the night sweating, and for good reason too. But, there are some things they don't do as well as something like Win2K does, but in general are more flexable and certainly significantly cheaper than the alternatives.
Workstation: This is the majority market for computers and the biggest expense most businesses (and people) are going to make. Here Linux lacks some key ideas.
1. No really solid HTML editors
2. Poor application linking
3. Poor printing services
4. Its harder to update anything on Linux than Windows and MacOS
5. Poor graphics support
6. No unified GUI (KDE, Gnome, who cares, just make ONE of them work)
7. Each Linux variant ships with security holes
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Not only that, Linux has to deal with misconceptions in the workplace (its ONLY a server, its a hobbiest OS, If its free it can't be any good, It doesnt have any good Office compatible software...yadda yadda)
People want something that they KNOW for a fact will work. Windows may have its cavets (instability, high cost of maintance, et al) but at least it runs Word, it connects to a custom database, and company can call MS (or the OEM) and get help when it dies. In a word, its "simpler" to just choose something convient than it is to built a custom system from components and then deploy it to every desktop in your business.
If you want Linux to suceed, make a distributation that is NOT a server (meaning fix whats written above) that has a significantly better UI and easy to make custom install CDs (and I mean EASY), then you will see LInux being used.
"I am using XonX on OSX 10.0 and have been for over a week."
Lets see, I JUST NOW got finished reinstalling X-Windows on my iMac, and reinstalling xonx, overwriting everything. It doesnt work. End of story. The people over at MacGimp cant get it to work either. What secret knowledge do you have?
Slashdot Mirror
"In this case, the FBI did the right thing."
Here you have done two things: Put words in my mouth and contradicted yourself.
I'll start with the first. I have neither implied nor suggested that US laws apply over seas. What I have implied is that the FBI, which enforces federal law (among other things), should have American Law apply to it, regardless of where the person who is being investigated lives. This is not to protect foreign nationals, but to limit the right of the FBI to investigate ME when I travel abroad. Since, in this case the FBI did NOT know what nationality the people were, it could have been American Citizens. FBI does NOT and should NOT have the authority to do that to me, regardless of where I am at.
This raises an interesting constitutional issue. Lets say, for example, your are an american business man and often travel to Russia. Now, the FBI thinks your a low life money launderer for the Russian Mob and the only reason you haven't been arrested in Russia is because you pay off the police. They don't have much to prove this. In fact, they can't even get a wire tap for your cell, which is provided by an american company.
So one day, you are in Russia and using a Russian ISP, you check your email. Now the FBI, through perfectly legal means, gets your IP, breaks into your computer, and finds....NOTHING except a LOT of porn with couple images that MAY be girls under 18. You come back to the states, they arrest you under for child porn (when they know its contestable) so they can get warrents to check your house in the vague hope of finding something to prove you are with the russian mob.
At no point did they get a warrent.
Sound far fetched. Maybe. But it does raise an interesting Constitutional issue for American Citizens. If I travel to Russia, the FBI, who has not jurisdiction there, should NEED a warrent to invade my property in Russia. Here it is implied that since Russia is not America, the govt can use means that fly in the face of the Constitution to catch someone.
I doubt any evidence gained from a search with no warrent, regardless of the computer being in Russia or not, would NOT pass Constitutional muster. If it did, we need to extend the US constitution.
Actually you misspelt "After all, the scientists PAY to provide their articles". It can cost thousands of dollars (color figures) to be published in a respectable journal.
But they still have to sue your ISP to get your identity and since ISPs run from lawsuits they cave in (even if the person isn't a pirate, which is my point: The MPAA doesn't have to really make any prima-facia case since ISP runs from the law suits. This in turn allows anyone with a lawyer and a scary letter get YOUR identity and harrass YOU. Doesn't sound too appealing, does it?
Let's say, for example, you are a "small" company that piggybacks on Sprints DSL network to provides DSL service to some city. You get a letter form the MPAA saying that 40 of your users are pirates. Now, at the current time, they make no legal threats towards you. You notifiy the users and ask them to stop being a leech and use lower profile way to pirate stuff. They don't comply. Now the MPAA wans to sue those users. It needs YOU to tell them who those users are. What do you do, go to court and make the MPAA prove for a fact they are pirates before you tell them who they are? No, you cave in.
Problem here is a matter of precedent. There seems to be no avenue to protect users identities on the internet, since ISPs run from law suits (due to lawyer costs) faster than they can be filed. What's next, your employer sueing to find out who you are when you make "offensive" comments about the company online (which is done not to sue like the company said, since they would loose, but only to imtimidate)? Or Scientology getting user identites to harrass people who "violate their IP" by using their constitutional right to fair use?
The problem is not the piracy, its the lack of legal protection for the little guy from harassment. What if the MPAA was wrong and took someone to court? That person would have to play lawyer fees. The MPAA doesn't have to make a prima-facia case, at current time, to sue. Thats my problem, and beleive me, they WILL sue.
Seems Slashdots manta is if its on the internet, it must be true. This project has an activity of 0% with no released files in 6 months and out of the blue Apple tries to shutdown what appears to be an already inactive project. Did you bother verifing this report?
Picture it. It's 2020, computers are as cheap as TV's and with that CableTV access or Phone acess comes with it a faster internet connection. Every company in the RIAA decides to totally stop producing CDs, Tapes, Records, MusicDVDs, and whatever other hard copy medium exists and instead use a distant cousin of WMP and make everyone download it and share the profits with computer makers that put in hardware level copy protections in all computers(which they been preparing for the last 5 years). Now who is being forced?
It's not just a format. It's a baby step to the end of fair use. You get consumers to encode thier current albums with it, then when they share their music with other consumers (and they will), those people will want to get WMP too. Once there is %80 market share of WMP, RIAA members can sell you WMP files for CHEAP (this is called market dumping), making more people want computers with Windows so they can download music. Once people get used to buying music online, the RIAA members can all stop producing hard copies and totally destroy fair use.
It's not just a format. Copy protections stop Fair Use of copyright works. WinXP is the first step. MS wants to tie hardware and software so that when you replace your mobo, you will need a new copy of Windows. When you buy Music, you will need Windows. If you want to e-mail your mom, you will need Windows (as more poeple use Outlook, MS can have outlook by default use nonstandard HTML, making all other Mail readers allways play a game of catchup). I don't like Windows. I don't want Windows. I am damn glad some standards exists still that allow cross-platform sharing of files. If MS had its way, that wouldn't be the case and if the RIAA/MS had their way, fair-use would be a distant ruling by the Supreme Court that is no longer relevent.
So what you are saying is: If the company that controls 90% of the desktop computers wants to team up with the RIAA and make it impossible to copy songs the the comsumer buys, thereby making it impossible in the future to buy new albums that can't be copied for legimate fair uses, thats okay cause its "market forces".
Hogwash, utter hogwash. Market forces are about the consumer. That is the whole point of a free economy. That is why monolopies should NOT exist. When we allow one company to control 90% of home computers, it thinks bullshit like this is okay, and consumers just have to eat that dog food if they want to buy music (which eventually, they will if this goes unchecked). I'm sorry. I don't like monolopies. I especially don't like monolopies destroying fair-use in concert with record companies.
You are a troll, but thats okay. Trolling can be a fun experience. Let me give it a try. ;)
"I can't enjoy certain anime because I don't read nor understand Japanese.
You don't have a right to it.
Nor did I say I did. Don't read into a statement what is not there, makes you look like a reactionary fool.
"You post sounds like 'I want it all now! And I blame MS for it and not market forces or technology'."
"Market forces", I damn near cracked a rib reading this. Do you honestly think consumers WANT copy protections? Do you honestly think consumers want old formats to be "updated" as often as possible so people with new computers have more trouble sending files to people with older computers? You sound like the type of person who would say IE is more popular than Netscape because it is "better' (which, btw, runs totally against what MS planners thought). I really just don't understand how people can honest believe MS is where it is at because it is the "best". I really don't understand what "market forces" are at play other than "monolopistic bundling" when MS uses its ownership of Windows to try to kill a file format. People use what came with Windows. Most don't trust or even understand downloading enough to seek alternate players.
The ONLY reason MS wants to add copy protection to Windows is so they can get part of the theoritcal money people will pay to download music. The software industry has gone unchecked for too long. Most of the industry is consumer unfriendly, writes buggy code, and is trying to redifine what fair use is. I don't want to tell my children about the good ole days when we were actually able to buy music in a unencrypted form, make a copy for the car, a copy for the office, and loan it to friends to listen to. But, at this rate I will, because everything will be "encrypted" (even if its only ROT 26), the DCMA will stop people from breaking that encryption even if they want to merely want to play their files in their car. Not only that, if in the highly likely event that WindowsXPv12 (2010 release,build 5million) dies and you have to reinstall, your computer might suddenly think all those files you have backed up are pirated and refuse to use them (cause Windows is fucking STUPID and requires a FORMAT to reinstall). If the OS can identify your computer uniquely and .NET plays out, every time you visit goatse.cx, MS knows.
Sounds like a shitty idea, if you ask me. I'll stick to formats that don't have any level of prevention in them. XP might look harmless now, but don't think this is nothing more than a baby step towards destroying fair use.
1. They don't work in MacOS X
2. They don't work in BeOS (x86)
3. They obviously encode very slowly ("PIII/700 laptop about 3x real time", geesh kinda slow, my 266 encodes mp3s (160) at 2.5X).
4. What happens when someone cracks the "copy protection" in the WMA format? Is MS gonna change it without regard to compatibility?
5. Even if I could use those files (meaning had Windows), I couldn't share them with anyone in my family, much less listen to them on any portable player.
6. Last but not least, from what I have seen of WMP (as limited as that is) in WinME, it blows nutz UI wise, is slow on anything other than a 400P2, and wastes LOTS of valueable screen space by default.
Try to do it from Irix.
Something is odd over at the clippy site, when you mouseover the XP demo, ole clippy is makes an AYB reference.......
Which would, of course, defeat the benifits to consumers that MS says .NET will provide. "Anytime, Anywhere"
Which, btw reminds me. If you want to combat .NET, there needs to be a OSS initive at starts using Mozilla services to write applications, all GPLed, which finally would let Linux companies make a profit by selling diskspace in a program similiar to Apples iDisk.
I would like to make some side comments about the reactions I've gotten from my post, and this post seems like a good place to start. From and outsiders point of view, many of the reactions are nothing more than knee jerk flames. It seems any form of criticism one makes about Linux, even light criticism, it is taken as a flame. A flame to be flamed back. Many, instead of addressing a single issue, have resorted to ad hem attacks. FUD, Troll, Moron, I've heard it all. Not only that but some of you seem to think that I had the impression Windows was better than Linux (it isn't) and that any form form of comparative statment on why Linux isn't as popular as something that is essentially given away should be is an attack against Linux (it isn't).
You want to know why people don't use Linux, I'll tell you, it's because flames I've recieved in response to any constructive criticism I've made about Linux. They come in many shapes, but its always a some form of a "holier than thou" attitude. Does that mean all Linux users are trolls? Certainly not. But really, with fuck heads out there ruining it for the rest, like some of those who responded to my posts, I don't even care about your "free" operating system. (no binford, you're not a fuck head, and probabally not troll...you asked what appears to be an honest question)
To answer your question. Just beacuse two OS's share a basic technology of multitasking and a limited ability to cross compile non-gui apps does NOT make them similiar. The design of OS X is a far cry from Linux. I could NEVER get Linux to a useable desktop OS. I Tried. I wanted to. I couldn't. When I asked in newsgroups and on IRCs, I was trolled and told I was stupid because I didn't want to make -install anything. OS X was usable out of the BOX and even ran my MacOS 9 apps ina better form than MOL could. They aren't similiar, don't fool yourself.
Been there, done that. Didn't work.
Few questions:
1. Did you actually purchase the retail copy of OS X or did you hotline it? I suspect this is why it works for you, that is that you don't really have the retail version.
2. When you installed OS X did you install it OVER a previous version of OS X?
Im not stupid, im not trolling, It doesnt work as far as I know on retail OS X. Tested on two iMacs and people over at MacGimp are having the same exact troubles that I am having.
# startx
Pretends to start up followed by crashing.
Do you have return ticket to Redmond, WA?
Thank you and enjoy your trip, TROLL!
I don't use Windows. Not sure what makes you think I do.
Step 1, read the docs:
Done
Step 2, Download from Darwinfo.com XFree86 binaries. (Was a december release)
Done
Step 3, Download the binary update from ftp.XFree86.org (4.0.3)
Done
Install all.
Done
Download XonX .4 release
Done
decompress
Done
go to terminal Looking at it right now.
startx
# startx
startx: Command not found.
# cd /usr/X11R6/bin/
# ./startx ./startx: command not found: xinit [79]
On builds of OS X previous to the final, this worked. It doesn't in the final. You must not have the final version.
Try CUPS with GTKlp. I'll take that over windows printing anyday thank you very much. I mean, send duplex print jobs, specify print trays, even 4 pages to 1 sheet of paper. And no, the windows print drivers do not support those options.
My reference is MacOS, which as far as I know nothing compares to it. Does Linux have anything that compares to ColorSync?
4. Its harder to update anything on Linux than Windows and MacOS
Umm, rpm -Uvh or rpm -Fvh . Many an NT Admin has worshipped RPM, rather than sitting down & doing click-next, click-next, click-accept... There is WinInstall, but that's another bastard of a story.
Yet another command line to remeber, what ever happened to decent version checking and double clicking.
5. Poor graphics support
Well, I do really like the NVIDIA drivers
I keep reading that. Graphics support though is more than a good driver. OpenGL performance is subpar and hard to set up. The OS doesn't support all the buzzword compliance of image formats. Video and sound performance isn't very good. I hope you don't have to actually do any kind of graphics editing on Linux (yeah, I know about, I use Gimp, it's no Photoshop)
7. Each Linux variant ships with security holes
Ahem, MSIE 5.x, Ahem
Which is why I dont use Windows.
As a workstation OS, I'll take it over any commercial Unix OS anyday.
Try OS X for a good desktop commercial workstation. Try BeOS for a good desktop OS (I've grown rather partial to it, it's not MacOS, but its good enough for email/web/graphics)
a lot of the best webpages are written by hand anyway, use vi or emacs.
Vi and emacs have horrible workgroup support.
2. Poor application linking
my linker and links seem okay.
I chuckled when I read this. I'm talking about application communication services that go a lot futher than "|" or ">" do.
3. Poor printing services
HP just released JetDirect for Linux.
I'm talking about color management, spools, trays, easy to use multiple printers. Take a look at what MacOS can do and come back with educated comment.
4. Its harder to update anything on Linux than Windows and MacOS
# apt-get dist-upgrade
apt-get? You're joking right? It's version tracking blows, take a look at how a Mac handles it
5. Poor graphics support
OpenGL, OpenInventor, Nvidia, ATI, Matrox...
All need to custom configured, and if you think Mesa is a replacement for OpenGL you need to open your eyes. OpenInventer is no where near production quality. Getting Mesa to work with any given graphics card is not easy.
6. No unified GUI (KDE, Gnome, who cares, just make ONE of them work)
My ximian gnome box works fine.
Yeah and it works and is coded for in a totally independant way from KDE
7. Each Linux variant ships with security holes to some extent,
all s/w products have security holes. or
Tell that the the OpenBSD team. Tell that to Apple.
perhaps you mean the recent bind problems? fixed months ago, and the "apt-get" lines above (provided the security.debian.org entry is in your sources.list) took care of that pretty fast...provided you use bind...long before the Lion was out. Or perhaps you mean a boot disk against a non-passwd protected bios? all mainstream OSen are subject to that. Go install a stock NT 4.0 box and stick that on the web. I dare ya.
I'm talking about the fact that all Linux systems ever shipped always have had some misconfiguration that allows remote attacks. All of them. Not good for desktop use. IHMO NT is a piece of shit
Games: You want to play all the newest games on a PC (which is a unique market compared to the console market), you have one choice. Windows. Yes I know, MacOS has improved dramtically to the point that it is viable and Linux isn't that far behind, but face it game performance is usually better on a PC and there are more high end graphics orientated games for WIndows than MacOS and Linux combined.
Server: Here is where Open Source has a large following. Apache, Samba, mySQL, Perl, and other such OSS technologies make Bill Gates wake up in the middle of the night sweating, and for good reason too. But, there are some things they don't do as well as something like Win2K does, but in general are more flexable and certainly significantly cheaper than the alternatives.
Workstation: This is the majority market for computers and the biggest expense most businesses (and people) are going to make. Here Linux lacks some key ideas.
1. No really solid HTML editors
2. Poor application linking
3. Poor printing services
4. Its harder to update anything on Linux than Windows and MacOS
5. Poor graphics support
6. No unified GUI (KDE, Gnome, who cares, just make ONE of them work)
7. Each Linux variant ships with security holes
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Not only that, Linux has to deal with misconceptions in the workplace (its ONLY a server, its a hobbiest OS, If its free it can't be any good, It doesnt have any good Office compatible software...yadda yadda)
People want something that they KNOW for a fact will work. Windows may have its cavets (instability, high cost of maintance, et al) but at least it runs Word, it connects to a custom database, and company can call MS (or the OEM) and get help when it dies. In a word, its "simpler" to just choose something convient than it is to built a custom system from components and then deploy it to every desktop in your business.
If you want Linux to suceed, make a distributation that is NOT a server (meaning fix whats written above) that has a significantly better UI and easy to make custom install CDs (and I mean EASY), then you will see LInux being used.
Lets see, I JUST NOW got finished reinstalling X-Windows on my iMac, and reinstalling xonx, overwriting everything. It doesnt work. End of story. The people over at MacGimp cant get it to work either. What secret knowledge do you have?