Not really. There's more to Free Software than freeware. One of the things that makes the GPL so successful is the mandating of source code redistribution. With only binaries floating around, your ability to modify a program for your own needs gets a little harder, and the ability of Joe Proprietary Vendor to insert code you don't like becomes a little easier.
What if Apple were to say "Well, if everyone was going to use our OS the way you propose, we're going to increase the price of all of our CPUs by X dollars, and increase the price of the standalone OS X by X dollars?" One might argue that, regardless, Apple wouldn't be hurting, or that ultimately, it would be better for that to happen.
I suspect, in the long term, Apple will find itself having to release a "public", non-Mac-encumbered, version of Mac OS X, whether it's OEM-only or just a box on sale, for precisely the above logic. Right now, the numbers of people installing Mac OS X are small, though I would suggest the major issue is that it's hard to come across Mac OS X for Intel disks. While they're almost certainly on a Torrent somewhere, downloading a DVD and burning it is still awkward and time consuming, more so when you know it's illegal.
Imagine the scenario post-Leopard. The only way to get Leopard out to Mac users will be to sell the DVDs. So Joe Thinkpad-user can call up Apple, SmallDog, or even Amazon.com, and buy an install disk that contains the appropriate binaries. The same third parties that have hacked the installer for Tiger will have an installer for Leopard. So you buy your $130 DVDs, download an increadibly small installer package, burn that to CD, and start your install. Suddenly, it became a lot easier.
Apple can try to go after the makers of the installer, but even if they used some convoluted Lexmark-like logic to invoke the DMCA or something, they'd have problems if the code is mirrored on countries that have no DMCA or equivalent (ie 99% of them) even if the judges didn't shoot down the lawsuit right away.
I'm not proposing most people will go this route. I'm pretty sure Mac OS X use on PCs for any PC that doesn't come bundled with it will be a minority activity. But given Apple's low marketshare, and it's apparent lack of interest in growing that marketshare, it seems quite possible that the majority of Mac OS X users after a certain time may well be using it on non-Apple hardware, and it may well be that, in time, this is enough to seriously compete with Apple's own equipment (Apple enthusiasts have a tendency to compare their machines with Dells as if Dell is the gold standard. But Dell isn't. Thinkpads have a justified reputation for solidness, style, and power. Sony, political fiascos notwithstanding, are known for building machines that have as much style and flare as you'll see in a MacBook. So, yes, there are reasons why someone would say "I want to run Mac OS X, but I actually prefer an entirely different hardware vendor, and price doesn't come in to it.")
In the end, it's up to Apple. They can embrace the change and make some money from it, or they can keep trying, via legal and technical means, to (fruitlessly) make it hard or impossible to do. I don't think you have to be a Cringely or Dvorak to believe that Apple will, in the end, find it in their best interests to open up a little (and set prices accordingly.)
Stallman's answer in 1985 was to create F/OSS software, not to outlaw proprietary software, nor to use unlawfully copied proprietary software.
The FSF hasn't "outlawed" DRM in any way that it hasn't proprietary software. It does, actually, support copyright law changes that would result in the banning of proprietary software. (As it does DRM.) It did release a license whose aim was to use existing copyright law to prevent proprietary software by making people choose between being able to build upon a free software project, or being able to release something proprietary, and likewise is using the same bargain against DRM.
So I fail to see what's so amazingly different. Finally, arguing the FSF are extremists for suddenly going political reminds me of politicians who criticise their counterparts for "playing politics". The FSF is, and always has been, a political organization. It will consider its mission furfilled when the last vestages of proprietary software (and this includes DRM, which is a form of proprietary software, inherently involving secrets and closed, unmodifiable, code) have been displaced by free software. Anyone who describes it in the terms the author did is an idiot.
No, I BUY games. Few people license any software (though most of us agree to EULAs at some point, but EULAs are not licenses.) Virtually nobody licenses music who isn't redistributing copies in some shape or form.
The "You only license software" line is bullshit peddled by certain groups in the software industry. The copyright laws are the same for software as for books, music, and movies. If you've bought a copy, that copy's your's. Copyright prevents you from copying it (except under limited circumstances), but the physical media and copy is yours to use.
In any case, your point is completely irrelevent. There is no reason to force your customers to register with a third party (or even you) in order to use the product they've bought.
I'm not sure. I do know that while there were absolutely excellent submissions posted in CT's journal, the two given were not either of them. The new theme is busy and distracting, and in my eyes it's not that aethetically pleasing. Slashdot's current look is relatively clean and uncluttered, but could be improved.
This is a bit of a shame, IMO. It's CmdrTaco's site, and he can do what he wants with it, but a theme that actively makes the front page less readable will subtract value, and eyeballs, from the website. Maybe I'll get used to it, or maybe I'll leave too.
I saw the original SiN Episodes box for about $20 at a local store and almost bought it, before reading on the box that I have to have an online connection and sign up with Steam in order to play the game I'd have paid for. Not because it needs it (it's not a network game), but, well, no reasons given, let alone good ones.
I don't care if Steam's a useful service or not. This whole "We'll package something in a box that you'd expect to be a more-or-less standalone product" - ok, it needs a compatible computer, but that's it - "but then we'll add strings so you can't use it without giving us enough information to sell you more crap" is getting out of control.
No thanks, Ritual. I loved the original SiN, but I don't "subscribe" to games, I buy them.
but to some kids who now have word processors, spreadsheets, the ability to send and receive email and chat and so forth, it would be absolutely fanstasti
But GNU/Linux gives you that on this laptop. However, the GP's point was that OS X wouldn't.
Mac OS X barely runs in 128Mb of RAM. I last tried running it when it was Jaguar, and it booted, but woe-betide you if you wanted to run anything. Jaguar also needed 3G of disk space, plus enough space to store swap. It's not going to live in half a gig of Flash.
The hardware requirements of Mac OS X meant it's a useless operating system for a $100 laptop. And the fact that it wasn't open source also undermined the entire reason for creating the things in the first place. Sorry to add some realism here people, I know a "We must bash the OSS zealots because they're all ideological and unwilling to select the best system, which is Mac OS X because it's from Teh Steve!!!1!" mentality exists amongst many Slashdotters, but your misguided and impractical "practicalism" and pro-Apple ideology is more ridiculous than normal.
Seeing as most of the people who have responded to you have ignored what you wrote, I'll answer.
Making a living selling software (more specifically the same software program to many thousands of users or more) isn't something you necessarily can do directly without intellectual property rights. However, this isn't how most programmers make their money. A quick glance at the job listings will tell you that most tools and applications are bespoke, designed by consultancies or by the users themselves, for themselves. Most companies listed aren't software companies. Java and.NET skills are in massive demand, yet what percentage of the day-to-day tools your mother runs on her desktop are written using either?
The issue is you're asking the wrong question: making a living selling software is only important if you believe you want a career in sales. But salespeople can find work in any environment. The more important issue is how can you make money being a programmer? And realistically, if copyright and patents were abolished overnight, 90% of programmers would still retain their jobs. Those working for Microsoft and Adobe might have problems. Those working for Sun, IBM, and Novell would probably continue business as usual. The vast majority, who work on software you've never heard of, employed by companies like Proctor and Gamble, BellSouth, Viacom, Accenture, etc, will continue to work on what they were working on the day before. Why stop?
Even those laid off will find employment. Demand will still exist for the types of generic application that were usually sold commercially. But the nature of their employ will change. Hardware manufacturers will try to get software out that makes their software sing, that makes their computers desirable. We might even see a return to the innovation of the mid-eighties as hardware manufacturers see being new and different as desirable, to distinguish their platform from the others.
I'm not going to say I want copyright abolished tomorrow, but I strongly believe programmers have the least to fear from such an eventuality, and a general loosening of copyright and patent laws with regards to software could have very positive effects.
Are they supporting.NET (at least, in any way they're not supporting Java?)
Both Java and.NET have multiple projects in existance to create Free Software alternatives. Meanwhile, from a political point of view, I'm not seeing anyone actively support either platform. Java is getting the comments from RMS, but that's largely because.NET, as a generic platform, hasn't really taken off amongst Free Software developers in the same way as Java. Of course you're going to comment on Java, there's no point (yet) with.NET.
I suspect, ultimately, you look at RMS as a would-be leader, and you say "But I don't want him as my leader." And that's all well and good, but sometimes he has interesting things to say, and you read him, and you agree or disagree. And that's what makes him relevent.
I'd rather read the well-thought-out comments (whether I agree with them or not) about copyright and Freedom in software that RMS talks about than read another bogus prediction from Dvorak or Cringely.
Altavista, NetZero, et al, were all based upon the "subsidized by advertising" model, whose viability for new ventures has always been open to question.
This company is talking, essentially, about actually selling a service to 10% of the population (which would give them an extremely high market share, more than enough to cover the 90% of the country roll-out), and then, effectively, allowing non-customers to use any unsold bandwidth for free. Their model, therefore, is pretty close to that of T-Mobile, Cingular, or most other mobile phone companies. Put up antennas. Route them. Sell access to those who can afford it. The "free internet access!!!1!" is a marketing gimmick that, in practice, will not undermine their model (just as if T-Mobile knew it had more capacity than it knew what to do with, it could offer a "limited access to the Internet via GPRS/EDGE" service for anyone wishing to buy an unsubsidized T-Mobile phone and SIM.)
Don't look at the free internet access as the service. Look at it as the marketing scheme used to sell the actual service. There's been no mention of advertising so far, and while I don't doubt it's possible it'll happen, I don't think that'll ever be their primary source of revenue, unlike what the ISPs you mention were trying to do.
If they're over-enthusiastic with the port blocking, they're going to cut off a lot of legitimate traffic. SSH is mostly used for remote access to computers (such as tech staff needing access to office computers from home)
I wonder, actually, what they'll do about HTTPS. Cut it off, and the service becomes completely useless. Keep it, and there's an obvious workaround for anyone wanting to create accessable porn sites.
One with the filter they want to implement. If this becomes ubiquitous then anyone who pays for another ISP may be assumed to be doing so for 'porn' purposes. So you might want to keep your non-NBRS ISP connection to yourself.
The quotes from the FA posted here suggest that the entire system will be filtered, which will go a long way towards preventing generic use of the service. It'll be a free web system, but secure shell access to your office would, for example, be a massive loophole as far as allowing porn goes.
Plus what are they going to do about HTTPS?
I suspect either the controls will be circumventable, or the controls will be so draconian as to force telecommuters (and other professionals needing remote access), gamers, and other groups to use alternative means.
My experience, having gone through three major* hurricanes in two years:
1. All communications go down during the storm.
2. Cellular comes up pretty quickly, but is generally too spotty and jammed to be that effective as a communications medium. Usable, general, service doesn't really appear until the third day.
3. POTS sometimes comes up right away, and sometimes takes a few days. Bellsouth seems to be much better at keeping its cabling working than the power companies. All services under POTS come back at the same time, if there's a problem with one, it's not to do with the hurricane.
4. Most people don't get cable back until they get power back (between three days and four weeks.)
(* major is defined as causing power outages of several days to hundreds of thousands of people - the vast majority of people living around here - as well as making tens of thousands homeless due to destroyed roofs etc)
I don't think that can be true. Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot if its own employees remained in the dark about what's going on in the real world.
Ok, you'll have to explain more than that. What, exactly, will stop Joe Content Provider from creating their own HD movies and selling them on BD/HDDVD disks?
About the only thing I can think of that might make the relationship unequal is that they *may* make it prohibitively expensive for Joe Content Provider to create copy-prevented Bluray or HDDVD disks. But that's a minor inequality, especially if "DRM is not about piracy!!!1!"
Joe Content Provider will be able to burn blanks like everyone else. The blanks may lack copy prevention mechanisms, but the disks will contain HD content and will display perfectly well. One has many reasons to suspect the existing content industry, but this isn't one of them.
Uh, you don't appear to be presenting an argument, you seem to have an unsupported opinion. By the way, your position (not argument) makes sense to you. Yet you have at least two people who appear to disagree with the "logic" which lead you to your position, not that that really matters.
An unsupported opinion is one where facts are not presented that back up the opinion. Disagree with me all you like, but the facts do actually agree with my position, which is why I used them in my argument.
The two people disagreeing with me haven't really given me a reason to change my mind. JCR initially reponded to my argument with responses to a completely different argument (namely that I was expecting Apple to release details about a future product), and then simply implied I was wrong without explaining why. You're doing much the same thing, even accusing me of creating "straw men" in an argument that didn't actually have anything of the sort.
He doesn't need one. He's merely presenting what he sees as relevant facts to the seemingly unreasonable.
If you want to convince someone that their argument is incorrect, then yes, you need a counter argument to it. If I say "1+1=2", then a counter argument "No it isn't" isn't going to convince me otherwise. If you, however, explain your reasoning, I might agree with you if the argument makes sense. Right now, we have a discussion that goes something like this:
Me: 1+1=2
JCR: No, you can't use an assignment operator like that
Me: Erm, I wasn't using it as an assignment operator, if you add one and one, you get two.
JCR: You may get two, that doesn't mean it's the right answer
You: One and one becomes two? I don't think that can possibly work
Me (exasperated to JCR): Can you explain your reasoning?
JCR: I've got 20 years of being a know-it-all. How dare you challenge my foolproof knowledge!
You: Why should he have to explain anything, it's you who's in the wrong, look, two of us disagree with you!
All I've said so far is that:
1. The claim that Apple has said that the source for XNU for Intel is merely delayed is false. The evidence doesn't back that up at all. Apple has made no comment. That's a fact, and the idiot OP who posted otherwise should have been modded to the floor.
2. The fact that Apple has made no comment suggests that the future release of the source code is open to question. There are multiple explanations as to why they'd not have released the source code yet, but right now the most probable are to do with Apple being in a position where they may never release it. If there was no change of policy, if they still expected to release the source code, they'd have no problems saying that. They have no problems confirming they still sell MacBooks. They have no problems confirming iTunes will continue to support iPods.
Now, you and JCR seem to think otherwise, or else you're responding to an entirely different argument (as JCR initially did.) As I've clarified that point to JCR, there's not much excuse for that.
But, whatever, here's the central point: If you disagree with me, explain why. Because I can't change my mind unless you do. If you're just masturbating, posting "No you're wrong" because it turns you on, by all means continue, but there's little point.
Apple has been known, on many occasions, to not reveal free improvements to hardware until it was in their customers hands.
The relevence of this being what exactly?
All people have asked for is if the policy of releasing the source code to XNU/ix86 is still active. Apple has stonewalled. You do not get that stonewalling from Apple if you ask if a policy is still active that is. If you ask "Has the MacBook been discontinued?", they'll tell you it hasn't. If you ask "Will the next version of iTunes include support for the iPod", they'll tell you.
Wait for the conformation or denial of the rumor.
There is no rumour. The fact is that Apple hasn't released the source code for XNU/ix86 since Darwin 8.01. That's not a rumour. And Apple are NOT saying they plan to release source code in future, they're pointedly refusing to answer when asked.
This has nothing to do with new hardware. It has to do with Apple refusing to answer a simple yes or no question about whether things are business as usual. Nobody's asking them to reveal the existance of new features, we're not asking for timelines, we're not asking what's going to be in the kernel, we're just asking whether they plan, at some point, to release the source to the Intel version of XNU. When the answer isn't forthcoming, it's reasonable to suggest that the BEST CASE SCENARIO is that they haven't decided yet, which itself is a change of policy, and the WORST CASE is that they're not going to release it, and they're waiting for the appropriate time to tell us.
If I called Apple because I'd waited a month for my MacBook to arrive, and asked if the MacBook had been discontinued, they'd be pretty open about the fact it's still in production.
All people have asked, at this stage, is whether source code updates to XNU/Intel will continue to be released, as they always have, after the last few months of updates have been withheld. Apple are refusing to give any kind of explanation.
Apple may keep their cards to their chest, but they don't generally keep secret the fact a policy hasn't changed. Business as Usual is not a secret.
However, my argument makes sense, and you don't have a counter-argument. So I'll continue to "maintain" my position.
If Apple is planning to release XNU, by delaying and refusing to confirm it will be released, they're sending exactly the opposite message. The most probably explanation at this time is either it's not going to be released, or Apple's having some kind of internal debate as to whether to continue IX86 kernel source releases. Adding a mysterious, unannounced, feature with the source being released once the feature's announced is improbable, at this time.
You say he wouldn't and then justify a completely different set of claims, namely that he wouldn't announce a new feature or when it's going to be released.
I maintain that if Apple intends to release the source of XNU, he would have explicity said that. The fact they're not saying so means that there's some debate as to whether the source will be released within Apple, and that's assuming they haven't decided not to but don't want to make the decision public yet.
If the hold-up is simply that recent XNUs contain an unannounced feature, then Apple can and should say that the source to the Intel version of XNU is still going to be released, just not yet.
First, there's The Songs of Distant Earth, by Arthur C. Clarke. GNU/Linux is a mix of old concepts and new, a quest for purism in an environment hobbled by legacy technologies and ideas. That, in many ways, the clash of the old, impure, and the new pure and perfect, is what Songs is about, and it's a real mind opener.
The second is Red Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson. This may seem an odd choice, but the fact is that Free Software, and GNU in particular, constitution new territory that requires revolutionary ideas to push forward, and resistance from the usual conformist powers that impose the old status quo on the new. Red Mars will get you into the right mind-set for the inevitable fight.
The third is The Naked Sun, by Isaac Asimov. There is an insular quality to much of GNU/Linux development, which needs to be overcome, at all costs, if you're to do the job right. If you're afraid of the open spaces, of the new territories you need to enter to create bang-up, top-notch, software, then you're liable to let your fears dictate your direction, and inevitable end up making mistakes again and again and again until you can overcome those fears. Asimov is in top form as he demonstrates the folly of claustrophobic thinking.
Avoid anything by Heinlein, and if you want to read some Niven, avoid the Pournelle collabs, they're likely to get you screaming for business-driven proprietary solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I wouldn't want that either.
Not really. There's more to Free Software than freeware. One of the things that makes the GPL so successful is the mandating of source code redistribution. With only binaries floating around, your ability to modify a program for your own needs gets a little harder, and the ability of Joe Proprietary Vendor to insert code you don't like becomes a little easier.
Imagine the scenario post-Leopard. The only way to get Leopard out to Mac users will be to sell the DVDs. So Joe Thinkpad-user can call up Apple, SmallDog, or even Amazon.com, and buy an install disk that contains the appropriate binaries. The same third parties that have hacked the installer for Tiger will have an installer for Leopard. So you buy your $130 DVDs, download an increadibly small installer package, burn that to CD, and start your install. Suddenly, it became a lot easier.
Apple can try to go after the makers of the installer, but even if they used some convoluted Lexmark-like logic to invoke the DMCA or something, they'd have problems if the code is mirrored on countries that have no DMCA or equivalent (ie 99% of them) even if the judges didn't shoot down the lawsuit right away.
I'm not proposing most people will go this route. I'm pretty sure Mac OS X use on PCs for any PC that doesn't come bundled with it will be a minority activity. But given Apple's low marketshare, and it's apparent lack of interest in growing that marketshare, it seems quite possible that the majority of Mac OS X users after a certain time may well be using it on non-Apple hardware, and it may well be that, in time, this is enough to seriously compete with Apple's own equipment (Apple enthusiasts have a tendency to compare their machines with Dells as if Dell is the gold standard. But Dell isn't. Thinkpads have a justified reputation for solidness, style, and power. Sony, political fiascos notwithstanding, are known for building machines that have as much style and flare as you'll see in a MacBook. So, yes, there are reasons why someone would say "I want to run Mac OS X, but I actually prefer an entirely different hardware vendor, and price doesn't come in to it.")
In the end, it's up to Apple. They can embrace the change and make some money from it, or they can keep trying, via legal and technical means, to (fruitlessly) make it hard or impossible to do. I don't think you have to be a Cringely or Dvorak to believe that Apple will, in the end, find it in their best interests to open up a little (and set prices accordingly.)
So I fail to see what's so amazingly different. Finally, arguing the FSF are extremists for suddenly going political reminds me of politicians who criticise their counterparts for "playing politics". The FSF is, and always has been, a political organization. It will consider its mission furfilled when the last vestages of proprietary software (and this includes DRM, which is a form of proprietary software, inherently involving secrets and closed, unmodifiable, code) have been displaced by free software. Anyone who describes it in the terms the author did is an idiot.
The "You only license software" line is bullshit peddled by certain groups in the software industry. The copyright laws are the same for software as for books, music, and movies. If you've bought a copy, that copy's your's. Copyright prevents you from copying it (except under limited circumstances), but the physical media and copy is yours to use.
In any case, your point is completely irrelevent. There is no reason to force your customers to register with a third party (or even you) in order to use the product they've bought.
This is a bit of a shame, IMO. It's CmdrTaco's site, and he can do what he wants with it, but a theme that actively makes the front page less readable will subtract value, and eyeballs, from the website. Maybe I'll get used to it, or maybe I'll leave too.
I don't care if Steam's a useful service or not. This whole "We'll package something in a box that you'd expect to be a more-or-less standalone product" - ok, it needs a compatible computer, but that's it - "but then we'll add strings so you can't use it without giving us enough information to sell you more crap" is getting out of control.
No thanks, Ritual. I loved the original SiN, but I don't "subscribe" to games, I buy them.
Mac OS X barely runs in 128Mb of RAM. I last tried running it when it was Jaguar, and it booted, but woe-betide you if you wanted to run anything. Jaguar also needed 3G of disk space, plus enough space to store swap. It's not going to live in half a gig of Flash.
The hardware requirements of Mac OS X meant it's a useless operating system for a $100 laptop. And the fact that it wasn't open source also undermined the entire reason for creating the things in the first place. Sorry to add some realism here people, I know a "We must bash the OSS zealots because they're all ideological and unwilling to select the best system, which is Mac OS X because it's from Teh Steve!!!1!" mentality exists amongst many Slashdotters, but your misguided and impractical "practicalism" and pro-Apple ideology is more ridiculous than normal.
Making a living selling software (more specifically the same software program to many thousands of users or more) isn't something you necessarily can do directly without intellectual property rights. However, this isn't how most programmers make their money. A quick glance at the job listings will tell you that most tools and applications are bespoke, designed by consultancies or by the users themselves, for themselves. Most companies listed aren't software companies. Java and .NET skills are in massive demand, yet what percentage of the day-to-day tools your mother runs on her desktop are written using either?
The issue is you're asking the wrong question: making a living selling software is only important if you believe you want a career in sales. But salespeople can find work in any environment. The more important issue is how can you make money being a programmer? And realistically, if copyright and patents were abolished overnight, 90% of programmers would still retain their jobs. Those working for Microsoft and Adobe might have problems. Those working for Sun, IBM, and Novell would probably continue business as usual. The vast majority, who work on software you've never heard of, employed by companies like Proctor and Gamble, BellSouth, Viacom, Accenture, etc, will continue to work on what they were working on the day before. Why stop?
Even those laid off will find employment. Demand will still exist for the types of generic application that were usually sold commercially. But the nature of their employ will change. Hardware manufacturers will try to get software out that makes their software sing, that makes their computers desirable. We might even see a return to the innovation of the mid-eighties as hardware manufacturers see being new and different as desirable, to distinguish their platform from the others.
I'm not going to say I want copyright abolished tomorrow, but I strongly believe programmers have the least to fear from such an eventuality, and a general loosening of copyright and patent laws with regards to software could have very positive effects.
Both Java and .NET have multiple projects in existance to create Free Software alternatives. Meanwhile, from a political point of view, I'm not seeing anyone actively support either platform. Java is getting the comments from RMS, but that's largely because .NET, as a generic platform, hasn't really taken off amongst Free Software developers in the same way as Java. Of course you're going to comment on Java, there's no point (yet) with .NET.
I suspect, ultimately, you look at RMS as a would-be leader, and you say "But I don't want him as my leader." And that's all well and good, but sometimes he has interesting things to say, and you read him, and you agree or disagree. And that's what makes him relevent.
I'd rather read the well-thought-out comments (whether I agree with them or not) about copyright and Freedom in software that RMS talks about than read another bogus prediction from Dvorak or Cringely.
This company is talking, essentially, about actually selling a service to 10% of the population (which would give them an extremely high market share, more than enough to cover the 90% of the country roll-out), and then, effectively, allowing non-customers to use any unsold bandwidth for free. Their model, therefore, is pretty close to that of T-Mobile, Cingular, or most other mobile phone companies. Put up antennas. Route them. Sell access to those who can afford it. The "free internet access!!!1!" is a marketing gimmick that, in practice, will not undermine their model (just as if T-Mobile knew it had more capacity than it knew what to do with, it could offer a "limited access to the Internet via GPRS/EDGE" service for anyone wishing to buy an unsubsidized T-Mobile phone and SIM.)
Don't look at the free internet access as the service. Look at it as the marketing scheme used to sell the actual service. There's been no mention of advertising so far, and while I don't doubt it's possible it'll happen, I don't think that'll ever be their primary source of revenue, unlike what the ISPs you mention were trying to do.
...which will fall under the "draconian" category because at that point, telecommutors and gamers are screwed...
I wonder, actually, what they'll do about HTTPS. Cut it off, and the service becomes completely useless. Keep it, and there's an obvious workaround for anyone wanting to create accessable porn sites.
Plus what are they going to do about HTTPS?
I suspect either the controls will be circumventable, or the controls will be so draconian as to force telecommuters (and other professionals needing remote access), gamers, and other groups to use alternative means.
1. All communications go down during the storm.
2. Cellular comes up pretty quickly, but is generally too spotty and jammed to be that effective as a communications medium. Usable, general, service doesn't really appear until the third day.
3. POTS sometimes comes up right away, and sometimes takes a few days. Bellsouth seems to be much better at keeping its cabling working than the power companies. All services under POTS come back at the same time, if there's a problem with one, it's not to do with the hurricane.
4. Most people don't get cable back until they get power back (between three days and four weeks.)
(* major is defined as causing power outages of several days to hundreds of thousands of people - the vast majority of people living around here - as well as making tens of thousands homeless due to destroyed roofs etc)
I don't think that can be true. Microsoft would be shooting itself in the foot if its own employees remained in the dark about what's going on in the real world.
About the only thing I can think of that might make the relationship unequal is that they *may* make it prohibitively expensive for Joe Content Provider to create copy-prevented Bluray or HDDVD disks. But that's a minor inequality, especially if "DRM is not about piracy!!!1!"
Joe Content Provider will be able to burn blanks like everyone else. The blanks may lack copy prevention mechanisms, but the disks will contain HD content and will display perfectly well. One has many reasons to suspect the existing content industry, but this isn't one of them.
This is a non-answer.
The two people disagreeing with me haven't really given me a reason to change my mind. JCR initially reponded to my argument with responses to a completely different argument (namely that I was expecting Apple to release details about a future product), and then simply implied I was wrong without explaining why. You're doing much the same thing, even accusing me of creating "straw men" in an argument that didn't actually have anything of the sort.
If you want to convince someone that their argument is incorrect, then yes, you need a counter argument to it. If I say "1+1=2", then a counter argument "No it isn't" isn't going to convince me otherwise. If you, however, explain your reasoning, I might agree with you if the argument makes sense. Right now, we have a discussion that goes something like this:Me: 1+1=2
JCR: No, you can't use an assignment operator like that
Me: Erm, I wasn't using it as an assignment operator, if you add one and one, you get two.
JCR: You may get two, that doesn't mean it's the right answer
You: One and one becomes two? I don't think that can possibly work
Me (exasperated to JCR): Can you explain your reasoning?
JCR: I've got 20 years of being a know-it-all. How dare you challenge my foolproof knowledge!
You: Why should he have to explain anything, it's you who's in the wrong, look, two of us disagree with you!
All I've said so far is that:
1. The claim that Apple has said that the source for XNU for Intel is merely delayed is false. The evidence doesn't back that up at all. Apple has made no comment. That's a fact, and the idiot OP who posted otherwise should have been modded to the floor.
2. The fact that Apple has made no comment suggests that the future release of the source code is open to question. There are multiple explanations as to why they'd not have released the source code yet, but right now the most probable are to do with Apple being in a position where they may never release it. If there was no change of policy, if they still expected to release the source code, they'd have no problems saying that. They have no problems confirming they still sell MacBooks. They have no problems confirming iTunes will continue to support iPods.
Now, you and JCR seem to think otherwise, or else you're responding to an entirely different argument (as JCR initially did.) As I've clarified that point to JCR, there's not much excuse for that.
But, whatever, here's the central point: If you disagree with me, explain why. Because I can't change my mind unless you do. If you're just masturbating, posting "No you're wrong" because it turns you on, by all means continue, but there's little point.
All people have asked for is if the policy of releasing the source code to XNU/ix86 is still active. Apple has stonewalled. You do not get that stonewalling from Apple if you ask if a policy is still active that is. If you ask "Has the MacBook been discontinued?", they'll tell you it hasn't. If you ask "Will the next version of iTunes include support for the iPod", they'll tell you.
There is no rumour. The fact is that Apple hasn't released the source code for XNU/ix86 since Darwin 8.01. That's not a rumour. And Apple are NOT saying they plan to release source code in future, they're pointedly refusing to answer when asked.
This has nothing to do with new hardware. It has to do with Apple refusing to answer a simple yes or no question about whether things are business as usual. Nobody's asking them to reveal the existance of new features, we're not asking for timelines, we're not asking what's going to be in the kernel, we're just asking whether they plan, at some point, to release the source to the Intel version of XNU. When the answer isn't forthcoming, it's reasonable to suggest that the BEST CASE SCENARIO is that they haven't decided yet, which itself is a change of policy, and the WORST CASE is that they're not going to release it, and they're waiting for the appropriate time to tell us.
All people have asked, at this stage, is whether source code updates to XNU/Intel will continue to be released, as they always have, after the last few months of updates have been withheld. Apple are refusing to give any kind of explanation.
Apple may keep their cards to their chest, but they don't generally keep secret the fact a policy hasn't changed. Business as Usual is not a secret.
However, my argument makes sense, and you don't have a counter-argument. So I'll continue to "maintain" my position.
If Apple is planning to release XNU, by delaying and refusing to confirm it will be released, they're sending exactly the opposite message. The most probably explanation at this time is either it's not going to be released, or Apple's having some kind of internal debate as to whether to continue IX86 kernel source releases. Adding a mysterious, unannounced, feature with the source being released once the feature's announced is improbable, at this time.
I maintain that if Apple intends to release the source of XNU, he would have explicity said that. The fact they're not saying so means that there's some debate as to whether the source will be released within Apple, and that's assuming they haven't decided not to but don't want to make the decision public yet.
If the hold-up is simply that recent XNUs contain an unannounced feature, then Apple can and should say that the source to the Intel version of XNU is still going to be released, just not yet.
The second is Red Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson. This may seem an odd choice, but the fact is that Free Software, and GNU in particular, constitution new territory that requires revolutionary ideas to push forward, and resistance from the usual conformist powers that impose the old status quo on the new. Red Mars will get you into the right mind-set for the inevitable fight.
The third is The Naked Sun, by Isaac Asimov. There is an insular quality to much of GNU/Linux development, which needs to be overcome, at all costs, if you're to do the job right. If you're afraid of the open spaces, of the new territories you need to enter to create bang-up, top-notch, software, then you're liable to let your fears dictate your direction, and inevitable end up making mistakes again and again and again until you can overcome those fears. Asimov is in top form as he demonstrates the folly of claustrophobic thinking.
Avoid anything by Heinlein, and if you want to read some Niven, avoid the Pournelle collabs, they're likely to get you screaming for business-driven proprietary solutions.