I hope you're not listening too much to those well-known Every-haters over at Ars Technica...
You might replace "intelligently-written" with "backed up with verifiable facts" in my original statement and it would carry the same meaning, even if David does need to clean up his grammar a bit and use a spell-checker more often.
And Intel *is* behind the curve. Just take a look at the numbers. BTW, I have lots of respect for the guys at Intel. It's just very unfortunate that the company seems hopelessly stuck on "backwards compatibility" for it's own sake.
The performance of non-Intel x86 variants is irrelevant in the marketplace. The other companies are entirely dependent on Intel to produce what little innovation there is in the x86 space.
As far as IA-64 goes, well, let's not count unhatched chickens. The thing only taped out the other day, and its a long, long way from shipping. Intel really backed themselves into a wall with EPIC.
The "Big Windows Crowd" will go wherever billg@microsoft.com tells them they're "going today".
Of all the "overnight" services I have ever used (and list includes just about all of them), the *only* organization which has a 100% record delivering my packages on-time, without damage or loss, is the United States Postal Service.
Need I also mention that the USPS will deliver Express Mail on Saturdays and holidays at *no extra charge*? They even deliver on Sundays for Express Mail!
When it absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt, life-or-death, MUST BE THERE, my first choice will always be the US Postal Service.
This would be a more useful argument if I could actually buy an Intel motherboard that did not have an ISA bus on it.
Hello? Anyone home? It's 1999! Why on Gods Green Earth(tm) would anyone still be using ISA in 1999?! Well, at least Windows NT and Linux have Plug & Play...what's that, you say? There's no Plug & Play in Windows NT? Not even in Linux? How odd...
Well, at least with Linux I can recompile the damned kernel everytime I want to add support for a new feature. Yeah, right, that *must* be it...now where's that C library again? What version was that? Libc? Glibc? 2.0? 2.1? Which version of egcs was that? Now where'd that chicken go?
Am I missing something? How is it that you think Apple computers are good for people who don't know "jack" about computers, and then go on to say that one would need "3 degrees and 30 reference books just to learn how to do the equivalent of basic operations on a PC", implying that this is what is necessary to operate a Macintosh?
I am more than capable of changing the oil in my car, as well as performing many other routine maintenance tasks on my car; however, my time is worth more than I pay my dealer to do these things for me. My car also does not have "infinite configurability", yet it seems to be quite useful, even without that feature.
Making those "little details" irrelevant to the end-user does not make the end-user stupid; au contraire, it frees the mind to ponder other, much more important things.
Not that I have anything against learning about those details if they happen to be relevant to your life. They *are* relevant to mine, and that's why I've learned all about them; I take great offense at implications that I am somehow lacking in knowledge simply because I believe the Macintosh Way is a superior paradigm.
Did I forget to mention that I also have Virtual PC on my Mac which runs DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows 98, AND Windows NT, and any other operating system for Intel platforms that I decide to load? I will grant you that the larger systems don't run quickly, but they do run well enough for certain tasks. Sometimes Microsoft products turn out to be the best tool for the task at hand.
Knowledge is NOT power, and Power is not something one "has", it is something one generates. Knowledge is more like potential energy. Potential energy does not generate power; only kinetic energy can generate Power.
Power is a measure of energy output derived from the formula, Work divided by Time. Work is Force applied over (multiplied by) Distance. Force equals Mass times Acceleration. This is basic physics.
For the mathematically challenged, this means that the more Mass I Accelerate, or the quicker I Accelerate an equivalent Mass, the more Force I create. The more Force I apply over a greater Distance, the more Work I do. The more Work I do in a shorter period of Time, the more Power I generate.
Macintosh computers allow a person to accelerate more Mass, more quickly, over a greater Distance, in a shorter period of Time, than *any* other systems. Period.
What Apple is doing is not "enabling computer ignorance", what Apple is doing is making low-level electronics and software engineering knowledge unnecessary for, and irrelevant to, the end-user. Your arguments have no basis in fact.
For a better understand of what is morally correct, try reading Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"; it might open your eyes.
While you're spending so much time figuring out how to set those little dipshit switches and jumpers just to get your sound card (or whatever) to work, I'll be actually getting useful work done that expands the sum of human knowledge.
Apple doesn't need to expand their customers minds, what is need to do is help those customers expand their minds all by themselves by not getting in the way by requiring a user to know the difference between an IRQ and an I/O port.
I have an extremely high level of knowledge about computer systems, from mainframes down to the lowest-level desktop. I advise large organizations on technology purchases. When it came time to spend *my* money, I bought a Macintosh.
My current Mac (7500) is now four years old, and runs the latest system software release (Mac OS X Server 1.0/BeOS 4.5/Mac OS 8.6/MkLinux DR3 QUAD-BOOT). The only upgrade it ever got was a 604/120 card for $19.99.
Have you seen any four-year old 486/Pentium PC's running Windows 2000 effectively, or even *at all*?
Actually, the proliferation of "beige" in products is due, I am told, to an infamous study done earlier in this century (1940's?) by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (otherwise known as 3M), which determined that office workers surrounded by beige-colored objects were more productive than office workers surrounded by other-colored objects.
Since that time, most office equipment has come in innocuous shades of tan, beige, ecru, putty, what-have-you.
Areas where the Apple ][ did innovate include the first-ever structural plastic foam casing.
This book is possibly the single most valuable collection of ideas about open source and free software that has ever been written, and it comes at a point in history that could not be more opportune.
I admit to some small measure of chagrin, having purchased the paper version a couple of weeks ago, at finding the book available on-line. Downloading the book and printing it out on my own equipment would have enabled me to leverage the non-insubstantial investments I have made in coputing hardware, Internet access, printing equipment, toner, paper, and knowledge.
I would have been far less disappointed had ORA released the on-line version at the same time as the printed version. This would have allowed those of us who wished to download the book, while still allowing the printed version to reach the hands of those who have neither the time nor willingness to seek out an on-line book on a subject such as this, a group of people who we in these communities need so desperately to read this work, namely, business managers.
The danger of a work like this, however, is that it will be seen as the ultimate source of thought concerning open source and free software and business practices. I propose that OPA consider a relaunch of this book as a more truly open source project.
ORA should create a Slashdot-like WWW site where public opinions about open source and free software and business practices may be discussed and concentrated. We in these communities should rally behind such a project. As the site matures, ORA can take extracts from the site as material for publishing new versions of the book in printed form. The subjects covered in this book are not the sort that can remain in static form. We must all have the chance to respond to the authors of the included works and the chance to have our opinions included alongside in a forum of like size.
Already we have seen drastic changes in the open-source/free landscape. One of the prime examples of this is the release of significant portions of the source code of previously proprietary software by Apple Computer under the Apple Public Source License and the resulting debate that led to the changes Apple made to the APSL to accomodate the community. This story should be the first new chapter in Version 2 of Open Sources.
The word *must* be spread, and it must be done in a definitive fashion by an organization that is well-respected by both the community and those outside the community. Allow me to be the first to offer my services for the mantenance of this project.
You are mistaking the copyright claim upon the publication itself with a claim upon the music. They are two entirely different things. Were you to transcribe Handel's "Messiah" and publish it yourself, you would have the same right to claim a copyright on your edition, while having no right at all to claim any copyright on the "Messiah" itself.
Maybe ESR hasn't noticed that lately Apple has been making major changes to the ROM architecture in their machines.
The Toolbox ROM is practically a thing of the past at this point. Mac OS 8 shipped with a full image of the ROM on the CD, beginning Apple's strategy of "ROM-in-RAM". Mac OS 8 (and later) will boot on some late-model IBM Power Series (800-series) machines.
Apple's latest version of this strategy is known as the "New World ROM", which is a ROM that only contains the essential boot information. The new G3's all read the Toolbox from the boot drive. Most of Apple's new PCI machines are fully Open Firmware compliant.
Should Apple open the Mac OS source, it will be useless without the Toolbox, since for all intents and purposes the Toolbox *is* the Mac OS.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Apple will open Mac OS. The primary indicator is Apple's Darwin strategy. Apple is not opening the source for the UI or other higher-order functions; these things represent Apple's technology advantage.
The point of this is that Apple has, for many years now, been steadily moving toward a more open hardware platform. The prevailing opinion in the Mac community is that we will soon see new efforts by Apple to support compatible hardware platforms under conditions that are far less detrimental to Apple as a company than their previous attempts at cloning.
Remember, Apple isn't a software company, nor are they truly a hardware company. What Apple *is* is a *design* company. The fact that Apple frequently has to invent new technologies to support its design vision is the proof of this statement.
Ah, but it is that simple, and I'm not talking about free beer, you are. I'm talking about commerce. The open and proprietary software models are complementary and both necessary for the advancement of the entire industry.
Companies like Apple are not in business to write free software (yet). Apple does not have a business model that would be viable in the free software market, and it will be a long time, if ever, before they do.
Why do you claim to be rightfully incensed at LucasFilm's right to release the Star Wars trailers exclusively as Sorenson-encoded QuickTime? From where does this right to be incensed arise?
Should we require a law that all content providers warn all potential viewers that their content may be playable only on certain systems? How would you feel if you were required to warn all potential downloaders of your software that it may not run on Windows? After all, is it not more reasonable to suggest that the needs of the majority might take precedence over the needs of the minority? This is *not* a question of basic human rights.
Free markets are not to be revered, they are to be tolerated only as far as they go. When the human race develops an acceptable substitute, rest assured, I will be quick to adjust. The power of the free market, as well as free software is this: if you don't like the dominance of a particular technology, create a new one. If it is superior, it will eventually win through.
What bothers me about your post in the implication that the Apple/Sorenson deal is somehow unfair. Misguided, perhaps, but unfair, certainly not. Did you honestly expect every QuickTime file in the world to be playable through xanim? Sorenson files don't even play in QuickTime releases before 3.0!
Perpetual monopolies are nearly impossible to achieve in a world where free development tools like GNU/Linux and gcc exist.
Witness the decreasing relevance of the Wintel duopoly. Perhaps this could be accelerated if free software developers were more willing to support alternative platforms rather than continuing this unhealthy reliance on cheap Intel-based hardware.
By all means, criticize, where the criticism is warranted; however, people should not criticize Apple for not releasing software that they want and Apple controls.
Apple has the right to determine the disposition of its software, just as you have the right to determine the disposition of yours.
Personally, I believe Apple has made some serious mistakes with the APSL. To ensure the widest acceptance of Darwin or any other project within the targeted acceptance group, Apple should free those projects from any possiblity of single-party control, whether its own or that of licensors.
I fail to see how Apple could be significantly hurt by releasing the source code to certain of their technologies, but I can certainly see how people would not want to invest time and energy in a project that might be ultimately doomed to failure. Still, the decision is Apple's, not ours. Our decision is to accept or not accept this addition to the store of public knowledge.
Do not confuse your passion for open software with a mandate for everyone else to follow the same path.
What I fail to see is how the release of QuickTime code is entirely useless without corresponding codec code. Anyone is welcome to write a codec that will work with QuickTime and release that code under any source license they choose. How can we deny Apple, Sorenson, or anyone else that right without being hypocritical?
I am also a proponent of all forms of software, whether open, closed, or free. I also believe, as a creator, in the validity of intellectual property protection.
Intellectual property protection laws, *used properly*, are meant to encourage creativity and competition, not to undermine them. Without the ability to ensure an exclusive economic benefit for themselves, creators of all types would quickly find themselves less and less able to secure a livelihood through the use of their talents.
The argument you make seems to be that the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others is immoral. I disagree. I believe that competition is much more important to the betterment of humanity than is charity.
Please elucidate upon these points:
What do you define as a durable good? Why is software not included in your definition?
What, exactly, is your point in claiming that software should not be sold as a durable good?
Where is your basis for claiming that free software provides an economic benefit for more prople than other forms of software?
I think I made my point rather clear in my original post: If you don't like a particular piece of software's license terms, use another package, or go write your own software, and distribute it as you please.
Just please spare us the complaints if the rest of the world doesn't follow the same path. This isn't a life or death issue.
I was just pointing out that we should be thanking Mr. Gates for contributing to a center for knowledge quite unlike his investment in Microsoft Corporation instead of assuming that he will be forcing more MS crap down the throats of academia.
After all, who do you think knows more than we do just how bad off Microsoft is? Steve Jobs? Larry Ellison? Scott McNealy? Steve Case?
Would you trust *your* company to an OS containing enough code for any five other OS's? If you would, you're a fool (and I mean that in the nicest sense of the word).
At lot of the talk here has been dedicated to criticism of, among other things, the closed nature of QuickTime encoder/decoders, and the general dissatisfaction with pseudo-open source licensing practices.
Putting aside the fact that Apple Computer does not own the rights to many of the codecs used with QuickTime, and therefore, cannot release the source code to them without consent of the rightholder, if you don't like the things Apple Computer (or any other company or individual, for that matter) has created or done, create or do your own thing.
Distribute it any way you like, under any license you so desire, for any fee you would like to charge, under any restriction you see fit.
Stop this pointless complaining about the RIGHTS of others to do as they see fit, PLEASE.
Corporations do not exist to provide software free of charge or restriction. They exist to provide their consituents (by which I mean not only shareholders, but employees and related third-parties) with a livelihood.
How many Open Source(tm) programs would have been written without some form of monetary support? I would venture to claim *zero*.
Does not Linus Torvalds eat while writing the Linux kernel, or RMS while writing GNU software? How do they obtain their food? Does it magically appear, like manna from heaven?
I think not.
The unfortunate fact of capitalism is that money makes the world go 'round. We all have to eat, obtain shelter, etc., and the most successful, by many measures, form of value exchange the human race has come up with is capitalism; therefore, in our world, we must exchange something of value (i.e., money) for other things of value (i.e., software and food).
For every thing created by human hands, somewhere it was paid for, if not in money, then by the labor of its human creator, who also must eat.
Why do many people seem to believe that a corporation has no right, or find it morally repugnant, for a corporation to attempt to profit in any way from the fruits of its labor or research, and yet find it perfectly acceptable for a member of the "Open Source Community(tm) (sic!)" to derive a profit (and there are many definitions of the word "profit") from his or her efforts?
For people who live in the binary world, this is a ludicrous situation.
Don't bother responding with arguments concerning Apple's supposed subversion of the so-called Open Source(tm) or free software movements, these things are, by definition, incapable of being subverted. So long as one person continues to write free or Open Source(tm) software, there will continue to be a free or Open Source(tm) software movement.
One could sooner subvert the value of zero.
We were all blessed with free will at birth; if you don't like Apple's terms, or anyone else's, don't accept them. If you don't want to fix Apple's bugs without recompense that you feel is acceptable, do not do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you're not listening too much to those well-known Every-haters over at Ars Technica...
You might replace "intelligently-written" with "backed up with verifiable facts" in my original statement and it would carry the same meaning, even if David does need to clean up his grammar a bit and use a spell-checker more often.
And Intel *is* behind the curve. Just take a look at the numbers. BTW, I have lots of respect for the guys at Intel. It's just very unfortunate that the company seems hopelessly stuck on "backwards compatibility" for it's own sake.
The performance of non-Intel x86 variants is irrelevant in the marketplace. The other companies are entirely dependent on Intel to produce what little innovation there is in the x86 space.
As far as IA-64 goes, well, let's not count unhatched chickens. The thing only taped out the other day, and its a long, long way from shipping. Intel really backed themselves into a wall with EPIC.
The "Big Windows Crowd" will go wherever billg@microsoft.com tells them they're "going today".
Of all the "overnight" services I have ever used (and list includes just about all of them), the *only* organization which has a 100% record delivering my packages on-time, without damage or loss, is the United States Postal Service.
Need I also mention that the USPS will deliver Express Mail on Saturdays and holidays at *no extra charge*? They even deliver on Sundays for Express Mail!
When it absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt, life-or-death, MUST BE THERE, my first choice will always be the US Postal Service.
I believe Wired, or maybe ID, reported on this chair about a year ago.
This would be a more useful argument if I could actually buy an Intel motherboard that did not have an ISA bus on it.
Hello? Anyone home? It's 1999! Why on Gods Green Earth(tm) would anyone still be using ISA in 1999?! Well, at least Windows NT and Linux have Plug & Play...what's that, you say? There's no Plug & Play in Windows NT? Not even in Linux? How odd...
Well, at least with Linux I can recompile the damned kernel everytime I want to add support for a new feature. Yeah, right, that *must* be it...now where's that C library again? What version was that? Libc? Glibc? 2.0? 2.1? Which version of egcs was that? Now where'd that chicken go?
What is this, the stone age?
Am I missing something? How is it that you think Apple computers are good for people who don't know "jack" about computers, and then go on to say that one would need "3 degrees and 30 reference books just to learn how to do the equivalent of basic operations on a PC", implying that this is what is necessary to operate a Macintosh?
I am more than capable of changing the oil in my car, as well as performing many other routine maintenance tasks on my car; however, my time is worth more than I pay my dealer to do these things for me. My car also does not have "infinite configurability", yet it seems to be quite useful, even without that feature.
Making those "little details" irrelevant to the end-user does not make the end-user stupid; au contraire, it frees the mind to ponder other, much more important things.
Not that I have anything against learning about those details if they happen to be relevant to your life. They *are* relevant to mine, and that's why I've learned all about them; I take great offense at implications that I am somehow lacking in knowledge simply because I believe the Macintosh Way is a superior paradigm.
Did I forget to mention that I also have Virtual PC on my Mac which runs DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows 98, AND Windows NT, and any other operating system for Intel platforms that I decide to load? I will grant you that the larger systems don't run quickly, but they do run well enough for certain tasks. Sometimes Microsoft products turn out to be the best tool for the task at hand.
Knowledge is NOT power, and Power is not something one "has", it is something one generates. Knowledge is more like potential energy. Potential energy does not generate power; only kinetic energy can generate Power.
Power is a measure of energy output derived from the formula, Work divided by Time. Work is Force applied over (multiplied by) Distance. Force equals Mass times Acceleration. This is basic physics.
For the mathematically challenged, this means that the more Mass I Accelerate, or the quicker I Accelerate an equivalent Mass, the more Force I create. The more Force I apply over a greater Distance, the more Work I do. The more Work I do in a shorter period of Time, the more Power I generate.
Macintosh computers allow a person to accelerate more Mass, more quickly, over a greater Distance, in a shorter period of Time, than *any* other systems. Period.
That would only be relevant if the were actually a gap. The two designs are so similar as to be confusing to the consumer.
What Apple is doing is not "enabling computer ignorance", what Apple is doing is making low-level electronics and software engineering knowledge unnecessary for, and irrelevant to, the end-user. Your arguments have no basis in fact.
For a better understand of what is morally correct, try reading Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"; it might open your eyes.
While you're spending so much time figuring out how to set those little dipshit switches and jumpers just to get your sound card (or whatever) to work, I'll be actually getting useful work done that expands the sum of human knowledge.
Apple doesn't need to expand their customers minds, what is need to do is help those customers expand their minds all by themselves by not getting in the way by requiring a user to know the difference between an IRQ and an I/O port.
I have an extremely high level of knowledge about computer systems, from mainframes down to the lowest-level desktop. I advise large organizations on technology purchases. When it came time to spend *my* money, I bought a Macintosh.
My current Mac (7500) is now four years old, and runs the latest system software release (Mac OS X Server 1.0/BeOS 4.5/Mac OS 8.6/MkLinux DR3 QUAD-BOOT). The only upgrade it ever got was a 604/120 card for $19.99.
Have you seen any four-year old 486/Pentium PC's running Windows 2000 effectively, or even *at all*?
Go back to class, little monkey.
Ask your law or economics teachers what the term "trade dress" means.
You should learn more about what constitutes a trademark, copyright, or patent before you spout off.
Actually, the proliferation of "beige" in products is due, I am told, to an infamous study done earlier in this century (1940's?) by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (otherwise known as 3M), which determined that office workers surrounded by beige-colored objects were more productive than office workers surrounded by other-colored objects.
Since that time, most office equipment has come in innocuous shades of tan, beige, ecru, putty, what-have-you.
Areas where the Apple ][ did innovate include the first-ever structural plastic foam casing.
Does anyone know if this affects the Darwin 0.2 binary release?
This book is possibly the single most valuable collection of ideas about open source and free software that has ever been written, and it comes at a point in history that could not be more opportune.
I admit to some small measure of chagrin, having purchased the paper version a couple of weeks ago, at finding the book available on-line. Downloading the book and printing it out on my own equipment would have enabled me to leverage the non-insubstantial investments I have made in coputing hardware, Internet access, printing equipment, toner, paper, and knowledge.
I would have been far less disappointed had ORA released the on-line version at the same time as the printed version. This would have allowed those of us who wished to download the book, while still allowing the printed version to reach the hands of those who have neither the time nor willingness to seek out an on-line book on a subject such as this, a group of people who we in these communities need so desperately to read this work, namely, business managers.
The danger of a work like this, however, is that it will be seen as the ultimate source of thought concerning open source and free software and business practices. I propose that OPA consider a relaunch of this book as a more truly open source project.
ORA should create a Slashdot-like WWW site where public opinions about open source and free software and business practices may be discussed and concentrated. We in these communities should rally behind such a project. As the site matures, ORA can take extracts from the site as material for publishing new versions of the book in printed form. The subjects covered in this book are not the sort that can remain in static form. We must all have the chance to respond to the authors of the included works and the chance to have our opinions included alongside in a forum of like size.
Already we have seen drastic changes in the open-source/free landscape. One of the prime examples of this is the release of significant portions of the source code of previously proprietary software by Apple Computer under the Apple Public Source License and the resulting debate that led to the changes Apple made to the APSL to accomodate the community. This story should be the first new chapter in Version 2 of Open Sources.
The word *must* be spread, and it must be done in a definitive fashion by an organization that is well-respected by both the community and those outside the community. Allow me to be the first to offer my services for the mantenance of this project.
You are mistaking the copyright claim upon the publication itself with a claim upon the music. They are two entirely different things. Were you to transcribe Handel's "Messiah" and publish it yourself, you would have the same right to claim a copyright on your edition, while having no right at all to claim any copyright on the "Messiah" itself.
Maybe ESR hasn't noticed that lately Apple has been making major changes to the ROM architecture in their machines.
The Toolbox ROM is practically a thing of the past at this point. Mac OS 8 shipped with a full image of the ROM on the CD, beginning Apple's strategy of "ROM-in-RAM". Mac OS 8 (and later) will boot on some late-model IBM Power Series (800-series) machines.
Apple's latest version of this strategy is known as the "New World ROM", which is a ROM that only contains the essential boot information. The new G3's all read the Toolbox from the boot drive. Most of Apple's new PCI machines are fully Open Firmware compliant.
Should Apple open the Mac OS source, it will be useless without the Toolbox, since for all intents and purposes the Toolbox *is* the Mac OS.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Apple will open Mac OS. The primary indicator is Apple's Darwin strategy. Apple is not opening the source for the UI or other higher-order functions; these things represent Apple's technology advantage.
The point of this is that Apple has, for many years now, been steadily moving toward a more open hardware platform. The prevailing opinion in the Mac community is that we will soon see new efforts by Apple to support compatible hardware platforms under conditions that are far less detrimental to Apple as a company than their previous attempts at cloning.
Remember, Apple isn't a software company, nor are they truly a hardware company. What Apple *is* is a *design* company. The fact that Apple frequently has to invent new technologies to support its design vision is the proof of this statement.
Ah, but it is that simple, and I'm not talking about free beer, you are. I'm talking about commerce. The open and proprietary software models are complementary and both necessary for the advancement of the entire industry.
Companies like Apple are not in business to write free software (yet). Apple does not have a business model that would be viable in the free software market, and it will be a long time, if ever, before they do.
Why do you claim to be rightfully incensed at LucasFilm's right to release the Star Wars trailers exclusively as Sorenson-encoded QuickTime? From where does this right to be incensed arise?
Should we require a law that all content providers warn all potential viewers that their content may be playable only on certain systems? How would you feel if you were required to warn all potential downloaders of your software that it may not run on Windows? After all, is it not more reasonable to suggest that the needs of the majority might take precedence over the needs of the minority? This is *not* a question of basic human rights.
Free markets are not to be revered, they are to be tolerated only as far as they go. When the human race develops an acceptable substitute, rest assured, I will be quick to adjust. The power of the free market, as well as free software is this: if you don't like the dominance of a particular technology, create a new one. If it is superior, it will eventually win through.
What bothers me about your post in the implication that the Apple/Sorenson deal is somehow unfair. Misguided, perhaps, but unfair, certainly not. Did you honestly expect every QuickTime file in the world to be playable through xanim? Sorenson files don't even play in QuickTime releases before 3.0!
Perpetual monopolies are nearly impossible to achieve in a world where free development tools like GNU/Linux and gcc exist.
Witness the decreasing relevance of the Wintel duopoly. Perhaps this could be accelerated if free software developers were more willing to support alternative platforms rather than continuing this unhealthy reliance on cheap Intel-based hardware.
By all means, criticize, where the criticism is warranted; however, people should not criticize Apple for not releasing software that they want and Apple controls.
Apple has the right to determine the disposition of its software, just as you have the right to determine the disposition of yours.
Personally, I believe Apple has made some serious mistakes with the APSL. To ensure the widest acceptance of Darwin or any other project within the targeted acceptance group, Apple should free those projects from any possiblity of single-party control, whether its own or that of licensors.
I fail to see how Apple could be significantly hurt by releasing the source code to certain of their technologies, but I can certainly see how people would not want to invest time and energy in a project that might be ultimately doomed to failure. Still, the decision is Apple's, not ours. Our decision is to accept or not accept this addition to the store of public knowledge.
Do not confuse your passion for open software with a mandate for everyone else to follow the same path.
What I fail to see is how the release of QuickTime code is entirely useless without corresponding codec code. Anyone is welcome to write a codec that will work with QuickTime and release that code under any source license they choose. How can we deny Apple, Sorenson, or anyone else that right without being hypocritical?
Oh yes, it blows so much ass that MPEG decided to use it as the basis for MPEG-4.
Why would MPEG do that if the MPEG-1, MPEG-2, or AVI formats were superior?
I doubt anyone would argue that MPEG caved into pressure from Apple; certainly Microsoft has much more marketing muscle than lil' ol' Apple.
Gee, that *must* be why MPEG picked QuickTime as the basis for their next generation standard.
QuickTime must really suck bad.
I get it.
I am also a proponent of all forms of software, whether open, closed, or free. I also believe, as a creator, in the validity of intellectual property protection.
Intellectual property protection laws, *used properly*, are meant to encourage creativity and competition, not to undermine them. Without the ability to ensure an exclusive economic benefit for themselves, creators of all types would quickly find themselves less and less able to secure a livelihood through the use of their talents.
The argument you make seems to be that the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others is immoral. I disagree. I believe that competition is much more important to the betterment of humanity than is charity.
Please elucidate upon these points:
What do you define as a durable good? Why is software not included in your definition?
What, exactly, is your point in claiming that software should not be sold as a durable good?
Where is your basis for claiming that free software provides an economic benefit for more prople than other forms of software?
I think I made my point rather clear in my original post: If you don't like a particular piece of software's license terms, use another package, or go write your own software, and distribute it as you please.
Just please spare us the complaints if the rest of the world doesn't follow the same path. This isn't a life or death issue.
The stupid parser removed my MUD prompt, so I'm sure that last joke didn't make much sense...
(44hp 78mv 82ma) amper sighs heavily.
-m
How many times can I say "Of course..." in one post?
amper trips over his tongue.
:)
Of course, what I'd *really* like right now is for Apple to fscking update MkLinux; DR3 is nearly a year old now.
Of course, they probably need the MkLinux guys to port Mac OS X and Darwin to a newer version of Mach.
Why is it that they couldn't do that sooner? MkLinux was on Mach 3 almost two years ago!
so I missed a few things...
I was just pointing out that we should be thanking Mr. Gates for contributing to a center for knowledge quite unlike his investment in Microsoft Corporation instead of assuming that he will be forcing more MS crap down the throats of academia.
After all, who do you think knows more than we do just how bad off Microsoft is? Steve Jobs? Larry Ellison? Scott McNealy? Steve Case?
Would you trust *your* company to an OS containing enough code for any five other OS's? If you would, you're a fool (and I mean that in the nicest sense of the word).
;) -m
At lot of the talk here has been dedicated to criticism of, among other things, the closed nature of QuickTime encoder/decoders, and the general dissatisfaction with pseudo-open source licensing practices.
Putting aside the fact that Apple Computer does not own the rights to many of the codecs used with QuickTime, and therefore, cannot release the source code to them without consent of the rightholder, if you don't like the things Apple Computer (or any other company or individual, for that matter) has created or done, create or do your own thing.
Distribute it any way you like, under any license you so desire, for any fee you would like to charge, under any restriction you see fit.
Stop this pointless complaining about the RIGHTS of others to do as they see fit, PLEASE.
Corporations do not exist to provide software free of charge or restriction. They exist to provide their consituents (by which I mean not only shareholders, but employees and related third-parties) with a livelihood.
How many Open Source(tm) programs would have been written without some form of monetary support? I would venture to claim *zero*.
Does not Linus Torvalds eat while writing the Linux kernel, or RMS while writing GNU software? How do they obtain their food? Does it magically appear, like manna from heaven?
I think not.
The unfortunate fact of capitalism is that money makes the world go 'round. We all have to eat, obtain shelter, etc., and the most successful, by many measures, form of value exchange the human race has come up with is capitalism; therefore, in our world, we must exchange something of value (i.e., money) for other things of value (i.e., software and food).
For every thing created by human hands, somewhere it was paid for, if not in money, then by the labor of its human creator, who also must eat.
Why do many people seem to believe that a corporation has no right, or find it morally repugnant, for a corporation to attempt to profit in any way from the fruits of its labor or research, and yet find it perfectly acceptable for a member of the "Open Source Community(tm) (sic!)" to derive a profit (and there are many definitions of the word "profit") from his or her efforts?
For people who live in the binary world, this is a ludicrous situation.
Don't bother responding with arguments concerning Apple's supposed subversion of the so-called Open Source(tm) or free software movements, these things are, by definition, incapable of being subverted. So long as one person continues to write free or Open Source(tm) software, there will continue to be a free or Open Source(tm) software movement.
One could sooner subvert the value of zero.
We were all blessed with free will at birth; if you don't like Apple's terms, or anyone else's, don't accept them. If you don't want to fix Apple's bugs without recompense that you feel is acceptable, do not do so.
Write your own software, set your own terms.