Not Really, Compared to the amount of storage on the tape the overall access time for a given file will better than most other methods. I think its great for anything that is accessed sequentially (MP3, AVI,....). In particular I think that it would be useful for storing raw audio data prior to compression.
Before the advent of home video the studios ran only on a "Pay-Per-View" system - you went to a movie house and paid & watched the show. Later, with the networks and later cable TV this was brought to your own home, but still pay-per-view as far as the studios were concerned (the cable companies paid the studios for each showing of the movie, just like always). To the studios DVDX is a change to return to their old ways of doing business.
When Video came out most studios resisted the idea but reluctantly decided to release videos on tape at high prices. Most Studios refused to support LaserDisk. Many studios had an anti-rental policy for their videos. However, the anti-rental policy was struck down by the courts. But, the point here is that the studio's no longer had a pay-per-view economic model with video renting.
DVDX is a return to that environment and there apparently is at least one studio who has bought into the idea completely as its bought it completely and intends (so rumor has it) not to support DVD at all.
Conclusion - I would exit the rental market than participate in with these conditions, much rather use real pay-per-view off of cable than DVDX.
Microsoft's commercial dominance begins and ends with Office. To allow the possibility of having an operating system alternitive with a viable office productivity alternitive is the only thing MS that could reduce MS profits. Porting becomes an obvious means to insure the continued dominance of Office and of MS.
The point of an indemnification is that it prevents someone else from sueing you over whatever is being indemnified. In this particular case, what IBM is promising is to prevent that from occuring but since this is free software, they will not go beyond that.
If a person(s) sue IBM sucessfully over an intellectual property issue then the normal remedy in the case of a sucessful suit is the revocation of all existing software licenses unless the infringer agrees to make sutiable payments. There is no necessitity that the winner of such a suit agrees to license the property so that exisiting licenses can be maintained. Moreover, if such a suit were sucessful, without an indemnity from IBM every user of the property would be liable for damages and be prohibited from using the software. What IBM's license does it to prevent such secondary suits from occuring, e.g. you cannot be sued for a infringement under IBM's license.
This is actually better than most open source software. One more thing, in a contract the word "reasonable" has special meaning - in this case it means that unless the plaintiff has enough evidence to get a injunction issued IBM will not terminate the license.
Slashdot Mirror
Not Really, Compared to the amount of storage on the tape the overall access time for a given file will better than most other methods. I think its great for anything that is accessed sequentially (MP3, AVI,....). In particular I think that it would be useful for storing raw audio data prior to compression.
Before the advent of home video the studios ran only on a "Pay-Per-View" system - you went to a movie house and paid & watched the show. Later, with the networks and later cable TV this was brought to your own home, but still pay-per-view as far as the studios were concerned (the cable companies paid the studios for each showing of the movie, just like always). To the studios DVDX is a change to return to their old ways of doing business.
When Video came out most studios resisted the idea but reluctantly decided to release videos on tape at high prices. Most Studios refused to support LaserDisk. Many studios had an anti-rental policy for their videos. However, the anti-rental policy was struck down by the courts. But, the point here is that the studio's no longer had a pay-per-view economic model with video renting.
DVDX is a return to that environment and there apparently is at least one studio who has bought into the idea completely as its bought it completely and intends (so rumor has it) not to support DVD at all.
Conclusion - I would exit the rental market than participate in with these conditions, much rather use real pay-per-view off of cable than DVDX.
Microsoft's commercial dominance begins and ends with Office. To allow the possibility of having an operating system alternitive with a viable office productivity alternitive is the only thing MS that could reduce MS profits. Porting becomes an obvious means to insure the continued dominance of Office and of MS.
The point of an indemnification is that it prevents someone else from sueing you over whatever is being indemnified. In this particular case, what IBM is promising is to prevent that from occuring but since this is free software, they will not go beyond that.
If a person(s) sue IBM sucessfully over an intellectual property issue then the normal remedy in the case of a sucessful suit is the revocation of all existing software licenses unless the infringer agrees to make sutiable payments. There is no necessitity that the winner of such a suit agrees to license the property so that exisiting licenses can be maintained. Moreover, if such a suit were sucessful, without an indemnity from IBM every user of the property would be liable for damages and be prohibited from using the software. What IBM's license does it to prevent such secondary suits from occuring, e.g. you cannot be sued for a infringement under IBM's license.
This is actually better than most open source software. One more thing, in a contract the word "reasonable" has special meaning - in this case it means that unless the plaintiff has enough evidence to get a injunction issued IBM will not terminate the license.