If you're talking to just the Linux crowd, it'd be a harder sell (I'd buy it, but I'd prefer letting you know that I'm NOT doing Windows development with it...).
If you're talking to the games development companies, it'd be a plus, not a minus. If they use VectorC, they can expect to target two differing PC OS platforms as well as gaming consoles (As you probably well know, while C is portable, most compilers don't behave consistently- it's always better to use the same compiler for all target environments...)- if you do the MacOS X version/PPC Linux version, that would make for two more platforms as well.
Don't wait for Apple. They're not the ones to talk to.
If you're talking multimedia procesing, etc. like you did in an earlier comment, you're going to want to talk to the Yellow Dog Linux people- that's some of the markets they're going to with their small clusters of G4 computers (as in as many as 8 top-end G4's in the same space as Apple's tower...). IBM would be interested for the same reasons.
So far, all the people that have made comments have been thinking in terms of things like Loki or old machines that wouldn't use your stuff well.
Multimedia comes to mind.
Serious number crunching comes to mind.
While gaming's "nonexistent" (I won't bore you with what I know about all of this- suffice it to say that the malaise for Linux gaming is less due to a lack of a market and more due to a lack of a channel to sell and in some cases hardware (i.e. 3D cards...) to run it on.) it's about to have an upturn. It would be NICE for a company that is using your compiler to make their game go be able to make the Linux version run as fast if they so chose to do it.
GCC's ok at either. There ARE better compilers for some things, though.
Depending on the price of the compiler and when it offers C++ support, I might be very interested in purchasing a license to it.
...but many (I'd venture to say most...) of the users HAVE a P3/P4/Athlon/etc. machine in the first place. Don't assume that because it's one of it's big selling points that it's not used on other machines or that because it's popular with the free-beer crowd that others (like game developers or commercial distributions) won't be interested in it.
That way if someone was going to nuke the silos for the silo's sake it'd be less likely to nuke major population centers.
There's two properties available in Texas (Near Abilene...), two good ones in NY around the Adirondaks, another site in Central, KS, and one in Oklahoma near Altus. These are more for eccentrics than just rich people. They're for people that want to be left alone at all costs or want a nice integrated space for their business (which is what it looks like the Wamego site was being used for...) albeit underground.
Depends on the embedded device, but some of them can't use the ARM, MIPS, or PPC because of commercial offerings NOT being there for those architechtures.
ARM's very nice, but it's not the end-all-be-all solution to embedded systems.
If they didn't have a warrant, it might be. Unless it's known to be a warren for warez or hack info, they'd not have enough for probable cause and that would mean they broke into the system without either probable cause or warrant- which, while it's an LEO doing it, still makes it a computer crime in and of itself.
Doing so may be a breach of agreement when you use the software for those purposes. It could open the RIAA and it's member organizations to countersuits, etc.
They're not entirely stupid- they want the upper hand on this situation from start to finish. If they don't go about it in a just-so manner, they don't have the upper hand.
Since GPL/LGPL doesn't prohibit you from selling it, it also doesn't prohibit you from making money off of it from other venues. (I.E. Charging for media and support.)
Using your idea, someone like Red Hat would have to pay the royalty which creates a nightmare morass of trying to keep track of their sales, etc and paying. They are not deriving direct income from the patent protected work (because they're NOT selling it...) but they still have to pay it- which I have a problem with.
Royalties should be charged against the direct sale of something- just like it is in the real world. If I buy a patented device from Wal-Mart, they don't have to pay royalties on the item, the people who made it and sold it originally did. It should be the same way with software patents. Therefore, any Free Software/Open Source that is not "sold" but is distributed freely should owe NOTHING on royalties (since it's not being sold itself.)
Has more to do with me choosing an OS I can control. And being "mainstream" has less to do with Windows PC's (Realize that Windows only has 200 million or so- Televisions have several BILLION installed. At least 100 times more machines. I'll believe that it's "mainstream" when that happens (which isn't likely...))
The fact that WMA is a lossy format is lost on you isn't it?
This means that it inserts artifacts into the sound when it's reproducing it.
MP3 is also a lossy algorithm- different in nature to WMA's algorithm. This means different artifacts.
That means you're better off "ripping" the track with an analog patch cable because the scheme you're suggesting will produce less than ideal sound files in most cases.
In any case, this is a circumvention technique- actionable under the DMCA. You take your chances with this and I'll bet money future versions of WinAmp (if there are any) won't have that feature for that reason.
Well, Target doesn't carry the Nomad and neither does Wal-Mart. But those stores DO carry some of the mentioned MP3 players. Just because Best Buy, CompUSA, CircuitCity, etc. has it doesn't mean that Joe Sixpack has one near him- or that everyone's buying the stuff that you think they are. Don't assume either way, save by what one can actually buy off the shelf and for reasonable prices ($150 or less...)- and most of the WMA players don't fit that bill.
Vector Quantization, also known as "VQ" is used for things like encoding video and has NOTHING to do with vector or line based displays and everything to do with raster images.
Uh, I don't think so... The Rio, Nomad, HipZip, Pocket Concert, and iPaq players support WMA- there's some others...
The Yepp, Digisette, Expanium, Memorex MP3 CD, Archos, MPzip, TDK Mojo, and literally hundreds of OTHER units don't seem to support WMA files right at the moment. It's more of an unsupported format than you'd think and the secure, DRM controlled, format version is currently pretty much Windows-only.
If they have that much NT in their makeup, unless they're using hardware firewalling (Such as a Cisco box) they're going to be using Checkpoint or Guardian on an NT box. That way they don't need that extra Unix expertise.
If you think I'm kidding or trolling, I'm not- they actually THINK that way in business. And there's little wrong with it, in and of itself. It's just the choice of OS they settled on that's the problem.
The comments are over 520 on the list and growing by 1-3 a minute.
Remember:
1) Keep the stuff to clean, coherent comments- no flames or ranting. They won't listen to either.
2) Focus on the issue that any royalty structure is, by it's very nature discrimintory, and that they contradict themselves in the proposal several times.
3) Focus on the issue that a substantial part of the Internet is powered by open source software that will be unable to pursue implementing things because of the licensing issues.
4) Remind them that they exist for the purposes of ensuring that the WWW doesn't become balkanized- which this would do.
5) Spell-check things if at all possible- there's some embarassingly mis-spelled stuff sent in by some important figures.
Who is to say he's NOT with a company that was responsible for that stuff and they just got edged out of membership- they just DID raise the membership fees to $50kUS.
This is the VERY reason why I sent the news item in to/. in the first place.
Above all,
1) Keep your post rational and coherent- no flames please.
2) If you don't have some partially formulated argument of the forms that have been moderated up on here or use the link to archives to get ideas on the good ones- don't be overly verbose and keep to the point.
3) Try to avoid undue Microsoft or corporation bashing. Some have said Alan Cox' letter had too much hyperbole- read closer, it's actually part of his arguments and fits with the reasoning (Realize that over 2/3 of the comittee that formulated this proposal are from big corporate interests such as Apple, Microsoft and HP.). Having said this, much of the best arguments in this vein have been said already and unless you can come up with better ones, I'd avoid it because it will seem like hyperbole or ranting.
4) Try to spell-check things! Some of the stuff is embarassingly mis-spelled in some of the letters.
Considering that this wasn't a news item when I'd sent in the update (as soon as I saw it on Linux Today), it could be that Linux Today scooped them- or Alan's got his own grapevine (entirely concievable...).
At any rate, Slashdot's not the only source of breaking news (it's about 30-40% there for that these days) and neither is Linux Today. You've got to mine the 'net and everywhere else for info- and then spread critical/important details as far and wide as you possibly can. (Of note is the 11th's events- the regular web news sites collapsed under load and/. took up a substantial amount of the slack in that regard- even though it's not normally topical, I'm quite grateful they DID cover things as well as they did.)
The Ammendment comes after the part of Constitutional law that grants Congress the authority to come up with Copyright and Patent laws- this is not to say that some of the later on laws overstep that authority by a long way (I believe they do). So long as they don't come in direct conflict with the First ammendment, the Copyright/Patent laws will hold sway as they DO have the authority of the Constitution behind them.
Not everything you do is something that could be considered "speech" with regards to the First Ammendment.
Parody is protected as something under the First- because it IS speech.
Copying an entire book, movie, tape, CD, etc. isn't "speech" per se and isn't protected under the First. You can claim until you're blue in the face that it's a protest, etc. but nobody will listen because it just doesn't work that way.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're talking to just the Linux crowd, it'd be a harder sell (I'd buy it, but I'd prefer letting you know that I'm NOT doing Windows development with it...).
If you're talking to the games development companies, it'd be a plus, not a minus. If they use VectorC, they can expect to target two differing PC OS platforms as well as gaming consoles (As you probably well know, while C is portable, most compilers don't behave consistently- it's always better to use the same compiler for all target environments...)- if you do the MacOS X version/PPC Linux version, that would make for two more platforms as well.
It's all in who you're really trying to sell to.
Don't wait for Apple. They're not the ones to talk to.
If you're talking multimedia procesing, etc. like you did in an earlier comment, you're going to want to talk to the Yellow Dog Linux people- that's some of the markets they're going to with their small clusters of G4 computers (as in as many as 8 top-end G4's in the same space as Apple's tower...). IBM would be interested for the same reasons.
...it's Loki Games.
So far, all the people that have made comments have been thinking in terms of things like Loki or old machines that wouldn't use your stuff well.
Multimedia comes to mind.
Serious number crunching comes to mind.
While gaming's "nonexistent" (I won't bore you with what I know about all of this- suffice it to say that the malaise for Linux gaming is less due to a lack of a market and more due to a lack of a channel to sell and in some cases hardware (i.e. 3D cards...) to run it on.) it's about to have an upturn. It would be NICE for a company that is using your compiler to make their game go be able to make the Linux version run as fast if they so chose to do it.
GCC's ok at either. There ARE better compilers for some things, though.
Depending on the price of the compiler and when it offers C++ support, I might be very interested in purchasing a license to it.
And Insure++ is their primary competitor (nearly everyone else is licensing stuff from Parasoft for thier bounds/leak checkers...).
...but many (I'd venture to say most...) of the users HAVE a P3/P4/Athlon/etc. machine in the first place. Don't assume that because it's one of it's big selling points that it's not used on other machines or that because it's popular with the free-beer crowd that others (like game developers or commercial distributions) won't be interested in it.
Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
That way if someone was going to nuke the silos for the silo's sake it'd be less likely to nuke major population centers.
There's two properties available in Texas (Near Abilene...), two good ones in NY around the Adirondaks, another site in Central, KS, and one in Oklahoma near Altus. These are more for eccentrics than just rich people. They're for people that want to be left alone at all costs or want a nice integrated space for their business (which is what it looks like the Wamego site was being used for...) albeit underground.
Depends on the embedded device, but some of them can't use the ARM, MIPS, or PPC because of commercial offerings NOT being there for those architechtures.
ARM's very nice, but it's not the end-all-be-all solution to embedded systems.
If they didn't have a warrant, it might be. Unless it's known to be a warren for warez or hack info, they'd not have enough for probable cause and that would mean they broke into the system without either probable cause or warrant- which, while it's an LEO doing it, still makes it a computer crime in and of itself.
Doing so may be a breach of agreement when you use the software for those purposes. It could open the RIAA and it's member organizations to countersuits, etc.
They're not entirely stupid- they want the upper hand on this situation from start to finish. If they don't go about it in a just-so manner, they don't have the upper hand.
Since GPL/LGPL doesn't prohibit you from selling it, it also doesn't prohibit you from making money off of it from other venues. (I.E. Charging for media and support.)
Using your idea, someone like Red Hat would have to pay the royalty which creates a nightmare morass of trying to keep track of their sales, etc and paying. They are not deriving direct income from the patent protected work (because they're NOT selling it...) but they still have to pay it- which I have a problem with.
Royalties should be charged against the direct sale of something- just like it is in the real world. If I buy a patented device from Wal-Mart, they don't have to pay royalties on the item, the people who made it and sold it originally did. It should be the same way with software patents. Therefore, any Free Software/Open Source that is not "sold" but is distributed freely should owe NOTHING on royalties (since it's not being sold itself.)
Has more to do with me choosing an OS I can control. And being "mainstream" has less to do with Windows PC's (Realize that Windows only has 200 million or so- Televisions have several BILLION installed. At least 100 times more machines. I'll believe that it's "mainstream" when that happens (which isn't likely...))
The fact that WMA is a lossy format is lost on you isn't it?
This means that it inserts artifacts into the sound when it's reproducing it.
MP3 is also a lossy algorithm- different in nature to WMA's algorithm. This means different artifacts.
That means you're better off "ripping" the track with an analog patch cable because the scheme you're suggesting will produce less than ideal sound files in most cases.
In any case, this is a circumvention technique- actionable under the DMCA. You take your chances with this and I'll bet money future versions of WinAmp (if there are any) won't have that feature for that reason.
Since that pathway has an effective copy control/protection system in place, anything that strips that out would be a circumvention device.
As long as the DMCA is in place and they're working to get SSSCA in place, you're at risk of being hauled off.
You might want to read the post next time...
"The Rio, Nomad, HipZip, Pocket Concert, and iPaq players support WMA- there's some others... "
That was IN the post I made that you replied to.
Note that "Nomad" IS mentioned.
Well, Target doesn't carry the Nomad and neither does Wal-Mart. But those stores DO carry some of the mentioned MP3 players. Just because Best Buy, CompUSA, CircuitCity, etc. has it doesn't mean that Joe Sixpack has one near him- or that everyone's buying the stuff that you think they are. Don't assume either way, save by what one can actually buy off the shelf and for reasonable prices ($150 or less...)- and most of the WMA players don't fit that bill.
Vector Quantization, also known as "VQ" is used for things like encoding video and has NOTHING to do with vector or line based displays and everything to do with raster images.
Next time, read up a little before commenting...
Uh, I don't think so... The Rio, Nomad, HipZip, Pocket Concert, and iPaq players support WMA- there's some others...
The Yepp, Digisette, Expanium, Memorex MP3 CD, Archos, MPzip, TDK Mojo, and literally hundreds of OTHER units don't seem to support WMA files right at the moment. It's more of an unsupported format than you'd think and the secure, DRM controlled, format version is currently pretty much Windows-only.
If they have that much NT in their makeup, unless they're using hardware firewalling (Such as a Cisco box) they're going to be using Checkpoint or Guardian on an NT box. That way they don't need that extra Unix expertise.
If you think I'm kidding or trolling, I'm not- they actually THINK that way in business. And there's little wrong with it, in and of itself. It's just the choice of OS they settled on that's the problem.
Kodak's claiming that part of it infringes/overlaps on one of their recent imaging patents. (5,459,819)
The comments are over 520 on the list and growing by 1-3 a minute.
Remember:
1) Keep the stuff to clean, coherent comments- no flames or ranting. They won't listen to either.
2) Focus on the issue that any royalty structure is, by it's very nature discrimintory, and that they contradict themselves in the proposal several times.
3) Focus on the issue that a substantial part of the Internet is powered by open source software that will be unable to pursue implementing things because of the licensing issues.
4) Remind them that they exist for the purposes of ensuring that the WWW doesn't become balkanized- which this would do.
5) Spell-check things if at all possible- there's some embarassingly mis-spelled stuff sent in by some important figures.
Who is to say he's NOT with a company that was responsible for that stuff and they just got edged out of membership- they just DID raise the membership fees to $50kUS.
This is the VERY reason why I sent the news item in to /. in the first place.
Above all,
1) Keep your post rational and coherent- no flames please.
2) If you don't have some partially formulated argument of the forms that have been moderated up on here or use the link to archives to get ideas on the good ones- don't be overly verbose and keep to the point.
3) Try to avoid undue Microsoft or corporation bashing. Some have said Alan Cox' letter had too much hyperbole- read closer, it's actually part of his arguments and fits with the reasoning (Realize that over 2/3 of the comittee that formulated this proposal are from big corporate interests such as Apple, Microsoft and HP.). Having said this, much of the best arguments in this vein have been said already and unless you can come up with better ones, I'd avoid it because it will seem like hyperbole or ranting.
4) Try to spell-check things! Some of the stuff is embarassingly mis-spelled in some of the letters.
Considering that this wasn't a news item when I'd sent in the update (as soon as I saw it on Linux Today), it could be that Linux Today scooped them- or Alan's got his own grapevine (entirely concievable...).
/. took up a substantial amount of the slack in that regard- even though it's not normally topical, I'm quite grateful they DID cover things as well as they did.)
At any rate, Slashdot's not the only source of breaking news (it's about 30-40% there for that these days) and neither is Linux Today. You've got to mine the 'net and everywhere else for info- and then spread critical/important details as far and wide as you possibly can. (Of note is the 11th's events- the regular web news sites collapsed under load and
The Ammendment comes after the part of Constitutional law that grants Congress the authority to come up with Copyright and Patent laws- this is not to say that some of the later on laws overstep that authority by a long way (I believe they do). So long as they don't come in direct conflict with the First ammendment, the Copyright/Patent laws will hold sway as they DO have the authority of the Constitution behind them.
Not everything you do is something that could be considered "speech" with regards to the First Ammendment.
Parody is protected as something under the First- because it IS speech.
Copying an entire book, movie, tape, CD, etc. isn't "speech" per se and isn't protected under the First. You can claim until you're blue in the face that it's a protest, etc. but nobody will listen because it just doesn't work that way.