It'd be ironic if the price tag includes a lot of services for set-up, installation, and maintenance of the supercluster. I just saw a Dell TV ad that was lambasting IBM for the services that get sold alongside major server iron.
19 ``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling soft- 20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's 21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com- 22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers' 23 contents over the Internet.''.
Doesn't this most accurately describe a Web browser? Web sites routinely store data on users' machines in the form of cookies and the whole point of the browser itself is to search other computers' contents over the Internet.
I guarantee you that the USA-only restriction is a factor of restrictions on the music licences that Apple was able to negotiate, not a deliberate decision on Apple's part. But, that restriction will likely be overcome in the future as the record labels see what money is to be made by embracing digital files rather than spitting on their customers.
"Keyboarding" class was a prerequisite class when I was in high school (late 80s, early 90s), at least if you wanted to take any computer-type courses. Oddly, we learned on electric typewriters. Now, I think, they learn via Word.
It is a gross generalization to say that "openness generalizes across dimensions." Providing Linux support just opens up one more market segment where HP and its ilk can cheat its customers through deceptive claims. HP's aim is to get as many people churning paper and ink as it can. How else can it prop up its PC business?
Apple not a monopoly. That's a nice fiction, but fiction nonetheless. Are there any other purveyors of PPC hardware out there? Nope. Apple holds a monopoly on Mac-compatible hardware, it's just not as profitable a monopoly as Microsoft's. But they still charge monopolistic prices (which, some argue, Microsoft does not.)
Another issue here is that the employees who are left when a company comes to its bitter end are generally viewed as the "most valuable," having made it through many many rounds of layoffs. So the first batch of layoffs, people considered to be below par, get substantial severence, rewarded for sucking. Subsequent rounds of layoffs have smaller and smaller severence packages. Those who are still around at the bitter end commonly receive nothing for enduring the vast majority of the misery that the company has wrought. How can anyone fault them for taking part in a bit of "self-compensation"?
Nows the time for Apple to scoop up the BeOS engineering team and get them crackin' on Mac OS X. Otherwise they're gonna go work for the enemy and we don't want that. They sure as heck aren't going to sit around and support the BeOS for free, if it turns into OSS.
While reading the section covering the sales of stand alone products (i.e. Sony sells a VCR and relenquishes responsibility for what is done with the device) it occured to me that Hotline avoided the contributory infringement issue (probably unwittingly) by offering its products as stand alone applications.
Technically, Hotline is not a P2P application in that clients login to a central server. These servers are independently operated, unlike Napster which hosts the central servers themselves. It is similar to a P2P app in that one generally requires access to a HL "tracker" which lists the addresses of active HL file servers. Hotline Software provides a tracker for public use, but it strictly monitors the servers listed on it, something many other (more popular;-)) trackers do not. HL has, in this way, protected itself from accusations of contributory or vicarious infringement despite the fact that the VAST majority of Hotline servers are used exclusively for the trading of infringing material (software, movies, music, etc.) Further, HL has deliberately positioned its software as a business solution that just happens to be used recreationally, as well. In this way they have neatly documented substantial non-infringing uses.
There are so many holes in this article and so little time to respond. Here's a stream of thoughts:
The definition of "gamer" needs to be clarfied before we start going overboard with any future predictions about their behavior. The vast majority of those who play console and PC games are likely to be casual users, participating in game playing activity for less than an hour a day.
The type of game skills that various different types of games develop are highly varied (strategy versus sports versus action, for example).
Video games (like all programs) rely on hard-and-fast rules. How will those hard-core gamers (with the highest levels of game "training") handle real-life situations where the rules are not clearly stated, leave a lot of room for interpretation and don't clearly distiguish a "winner." I fear they will handle it poorly.
The same way that Sony loses money on PlayStations, but makes it up on the sales of games, HP makes razor thin margins on the sales of inkjet printers, but makes it all back on the sales of the color ink cartridges. Their Instant Delivery application, which allows you to schedule websites to be printed overnight, was specifically designed to force users to expend their ink cartridges faster and they asked their program partners to present more color on their pages offered for overnight printing... this print-TV thing sounds like the same sort of program.
ILM's contribution to Phantom Menace was less than groundbreaking. They were doing straightforward CGI, just on a massive scale. Is adding scalability a groundbreaking achievement? Perhaps, but under that logic, Windows2000 is a groundbreaking operating system...
What I primarily objected to with the Special Edition was the alteration of many scenes by adding pedestrian CGI effects that had no positive impact on the storytelling. In one case, (Greedo shooting Han first) altering the scene had a major impact on the story, for the worst.
In light of The Matrix winning all four of the major technical Oscars last night, perhaps George Lucas should give up on his crusade to digitize every last aspect of movie making, as least until the tech gets up to snuff so it's not so obvious. Lucas may now be in the same phase of his career as Stan Lee, much revered father of Marvel comics. Now is the time to enjoy your legendary status, but don't do anything to screw it up. George did a hatchet job on his own classics with that "Special Edition" stunt and then turned in a lame excuse for a prequel with Phantom Menace. It is obvious from fan reaction that the future lies with efforts like The Matrix and that George's days of glory are over. Same applies to Stan Lee. Have you seen his latest effort over at shockwave.com? It takes a big man to know when to quit.
This is complete speculation, but I think it is a plausible scenario.
Navigator 6 will contain the Gecko layout engine developed by Mozilla, but it will not be the Mozilla browser. I'm assuming that AOL/Netscape has been working on a parallel browser effort, using some Mozilla components. Navigator 6 is supposed to contain an integrated AOL Instant Messenger and porobably some other features that AOL thinks will give it the leg up on IE5 (aside from a bigger version number!).
Navigator 5 is most likely the version number for the plain-vanilla Mozilla browser without the bells and whistles. Ultimately, this is a dead project since only a minority (mainly Slashdot readers) would choose the plain version over the tricked-out Navigator 6...
There is a lot of talk about XML, CSS, SVG, PNG and a bunch of other three letter acronyms taking over for HTML and pushing web technology forward, but I think WAP will be the most widely and quickly implmentable client-side technology. For once, instead of different companies (I'm not naming names) trying to push their individual proprietary technologies and tags, a group of companies has come together to try to push ONE markup langage. This is the primary reason WAP will succeed, because there is an overriding commercial interest by many, many companies to have it work. While MS and AOL squabble about instant messaging, the primarily European WAP Forum is moving ahead with their phone/data standard (granted, these are not the same purpose, but compariable efforts). Start boning up on WAP development, kids...
Nevertheless, how do people feel about the WAP being pushed by admittedly private companies who retain the copyrights to the WAP standard and could pull the rug out from the rest of us at any moment?
I wouldn't count on the AppleInsider specs as being the final word, or even expect the new iMac to come multiple variations. Steve Jobs has a deep burning hatred for the rumors sites and has been known to spread disinformation to them from time to time. the high-end "best" model described seems to conflict with the low end G4s at this point so I'm wary about that prediction actually coming to fuition.
and what EXACTLY is 'great' about the iBook? Colors? Curves?
The primary thing that is good about the iBook is the same thing that's was good the orignal Mac and the iMac, they bring advanced features and concepts to people who wouldn't ordinarily have the time or patience to learn them or the understanding to grasp them. For the iBook, that component is pervasive computing, being able to treat the computer like a natural part of your everyday experience. The wireless networking option is truly forward thinking for a consumer machine (don't forget who it's aimed at). This will be GREAT for schools.
Believe it or not, some people in computing are thinking about something other than the next revision to the Linux kernel...
Gimme a break. ZDNet isn't exactly targeting the fringe, so it can't be full of jargon like "60Mpolys". Saying "60 Million polygons per second" isn't a pointer to Crabb's cluelessness, but the phrase he used ("how's that grab you?") is just lazy writing.
I'm still not sold on AltiVec being a big deal just yet, but the Apple has a much better chance of having AltiVec adopted by the majority of developers than Intel did with MMX. Oddly, in this case, the smaller market share for the MacOS works in its favor as Apple only has to convine a handful of major players (Adobe, Macromedia, Avid, etc.) to support the instruction set and the rest of the developers will flal into lockstep. We'll see how it plays out, but most likely not for two years or so.
The keys to success are:
Would you like some swamp land with that rumor?
on
Apple Sale Rumors
·
· Score: 1
This rumor has been running around in the background for many months. AppleInsider annouced that a Disney buyout was immenent at least two or three months ago, but that never materialized, obviously. Oddly, this article was written by Don Crabb, a longtime Mac commentator, so it's hard to believe he hasn't heard these stories for a long time. He must have been up against a killer deadline and couldn't think of anything else to talk about. It's total hooey.
Wow. And here I was thinking all along that the Open Source community was more interested in what kind of code you give back to the community, not how much money you donate. If we're talking about code, man-hours, etc. I think Apple's given us quite a lot, with even more to come. If we're talking money, then let's give Intel and IBM the applause they deserve for sinking all that dough into Red Hat.
Re:NOT A TRADEMARK issue. Any /. fool can tell the
on
The Two LinuxHQs?
·
· Score: 1
I suppose it speaks well of you that YOU could not tell the difference and thus are not just any fool...
GPL applies to copyrightable content, be it code, traditional writing, etc. It DOES NOT cover trademark issues, which are quite different. For instance, although Red Hat distributes software under the GPL, the name "Red Hat", their funky little logo, and anything else in the tradedress that identifies the product as having come from Red Hat is trademarkable and not covered by the GPL. This limits anyone else's ability to use those trademarks in non-RedHat products. Similarly, the name and tradedress of "LinuxHQ" likely do not fall under the GPL which applies (applied?) to the content, unless this was explicitly stated on the site.
I am continually surprised at how many people think that organizations which are already widely recognized and hugely popular would want/need extra publicity from people giving their products away for free. The Grateful Dead ALREADY have wide visibility and great press. This is quite a different situation from that of a unknown software application, utility, etc. which needs to ramp up its visibility and use in a rapid way. While there are Open Content licenses which may apply, they are most useful to organizations which are seeking wide (and cheap) distribution, not for those which have already attained this.
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be ironic if the price tag includes a lot of services for set-up, installation, and maintenance of the supercluster. I just saw a Dell TV ad that was lambasting IBM for the services that get sold alongside major server iron.
19 ``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling soft-
20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
23 contents over the Internet.''.
Doesn't this most accurately describe a Web browser? Web sites routinely store data on users' machines in the form of cookies and the whole point of the browser itself is to search other computers' contents over the Internet.
I guarantee you that the USA-only restriction is a factor of restrictions on the music licences that Apple was able to negotiate, not a deliberate decision on Apple's part. But, that restriction will likely be overcome in the future as the record labels see what money is to be made by embracing digital files rather than spitting on their customers.
"Keyboarding" class was a prerequisite class when I was in high school (late 80s, early 90s), at least if you wanted to take any computer-type courses. Oddly, we learned on electric typewriters. Now, I think, they learn via Word.
It is a gross generalization to say that "openness generalizes across dimensions." Providing Linux support just opens up one more market segment where HP and its ilk can cheat its customers through deceptive claims. HP's aim is to get as many people churning paper and ink as it can. How else can it prop up its PC business?
Apple not a monopoly. That's a nice fiction, but fiction nonetheless. Are there any other purveyors of PPC hardware out there? Nope. Apple holds a monopoly on Mac-compatible hardware, it's just not as profitable a monopoly as Microsoft's. But they still charge monopolistic prices (which, some argue, Microsoft does not.)
Okay, so your response should be "how can we get computer access for everyone?", not "Vint Cerf is a capitalist bigot."
Another issue here is that the employees who are left when a company comes to its bitter end are generally viewed as the "most valuable," having made it through many many rounds of layoffs. So the first batch of layoffs, people considered to be below par, get substantial severence, rewarded for sucking. Subsequent rounds of layoffs have smaller and smaller severence packages. Those who are still around at the bitter end commonly receive nothing for enduring the vast majority of the misery that the company has wrought. How can anyone fault them for taking part in a bit of "self-compensation"?
Nows the time for Apple to scoop up the BeOS engineering team and get them crackin' on Mac OS X. Otherwise they're gonna go work for the enemy and we don't want that. They sure as heck aren't going to sit around and support the BeOS for free, if it turns into OSS.
While reading the section covering the sales of stand alone products (i.e. Sony sells a VCR and relenquishes responsibility for what is done with the device) it occured to me that Hotline avoided the contributory infringement issue (probably unwittingly) by offering its products as stand alone applications.
Technically, Hotline is not a P2P application in that clients login to a central server. These servers are independently operated, unlike Napster which hosts the central servers themselves. It is similar to a P2P app in that one generally requires access to a HL "tracker" which lists the addresses of active HL file servers. Hotline Software provides a tracker for public use, but it strictly monitors the servers listed on it, something many other (more popular ;-)) trackers do not. HL has, in this way, protected itself from accusations of contributory or vicarious infringement despite the fact that the VAST majority of Hotline servers are used exclusively for the trading of infringing material (software, movies, music, etc.) Further, HL has deliberately positioned its software as a business solution that just happens to be used recreationally, as well. In this way they have neatly documented substantial non-infringing uses.
The definition of "gamer" needs to be clarfied before we start going overboard with any future predictions about their behavior. The vast majority of those who play console and PC games are likely to be casual users, participating in game playing activity for less than an hour a day.
The type of game skills that various different types of games develop are highly varied (strategy versus sports versus action, for example).
Video games (like all programs) rely on hard-and-fast rules. How will those hard-core gamers (with the highest levels of game "training") handle real-life situations where the rules are not clearly stated, leave a lot of room for interpretation and don't clearly distiguish a "winner." I fear they will handle it poorly.
The same way that Sony loses money on PlayStations, but makes it up on the sales of games, HP makes razor thin margins on the sales of inkjet printers, but makes it all back on the sales of the color ink cartridges. Their Instant Delivery application, which allows you to schedule websites to be printed overnight, was specifically designed to force users to expend their ink cartridges faster and they asked their program partners to present more color on their pages offered for overnight printing... this print-TV thing sounds like the same sort of program.
ILM's contribution to Phantom Menace was less than groundbreaking. They were doing straightforward CGI, just on a massive scale. Is adding scalability a groundbreaking achievement? Perhaps, but under that logic, Windows2000 is a groundbreaking operating system...
What I primarily objected to with the Special Edition was the alteration of many scenes by adding pedestrian CGI effects that had no positive impact on the storytelling. In one case, (Greedo shooting Han first) altering the scene had a major impact on the story, for the worst.
In light of The Matrix winning all four of the major technical Oscars last night, perhaps George Lucas should give up on his crusade to digitize every last aspect of movie making, as least until the tech gets up to snuff so it's not so obvious. Lucas may now be in the same phase of his career as Stan Lee, much revered father of Marvel comics. Now is the time to enjoy your legendary status, but don't do anything to screw it up. George did a hatchet job on his own classics with that "Special Edition" stunt and then turned in a lame excuse for a prequel with Phantom Menace. It is obvious from fan reaction that the future lies with efforts like The Matrix and that George's days of glory are over. Same applies to Stan Lee. Have you seen his latest effort over at shockwave.com? It takes a big man to know when to quit.
This is complete speculation, but I think it is a plausible scenario.
Navigator 6 will contain the Gecko layout engine developed by Mozilla, but it will not be the Mozilla browser. I'm assuming that AOL/Netscape has been working on a parallel browser effort, using some Mozilla components. Navigator 6 is supposed to contain an integrated AOL Instant Messenger and porobably some other features that AOL thinks will give it the leg up on IE5 (aside from a bigger version number!).
Navigator 5 is most likely the version number for the plain-vanilla Mozilla browser without the bells and whistles. Ultimately, this is a dead project since only a minority (mainly Slashdot readers) would choose the plain version over the tricked-out Navigator 6...
Nevertheless, how do people feel about the WAP being pushed by admittedly private companies who retain the copyrights to the WAP standard and could pull the rug out from the rest of us at any moment?
I wouldn't count on the AppleInsider specs as being the final word, or even expect the new iMac to come multiple variations. Steve Jobs has a deep burning hatred for the rumors sites and has been known to spread disinformation to them from time to time. the high-end "best" model described seems to conflict with the low end G4s at this point so I'm wary about that prediction actually coming to fuition.
and what EXACTLY is 'great' about the iBook? Colors? Curves?
The primary thing that is good about the iBook is the same thing that's was good the orignal Mac and the iMac, they bring advanced features and concepts to people who wouldn't ordinarily have the time or patience to learn them or the understanding to grasp them. For the iBook, that component is pervasive computing, being able to treat the computer like a natural part of your everyday experience. The wireless networking option is truly forward thinking for a consumer machine (don't forget who it's aimed at). This will be GREAT for schools.
Believe it or not, some people in computing are thinking about something other than the next revision to the Linux kernel...
RealVideo and Windows MediaPlayer
(sponsored by Microsoft and Intel, oddly enough)
Streaming QuickTime (4.0)
I'm still not sold on AltiVec being a big deal just yet, but the Apple has a much better chance of having AltiVec adopted by the majority of developers than Intel did with MMX. Oddly, in this case, the smaller market share for the MacOS works in its favor as Apple only has to convine a handful of major players (Adobe, Macromedia, Avid, etc.) to support the instruction set and the rest of the developers will flal into lockstep. We'll see how it plays out, but most likely not for two years or so.
The keys to success are:
This rumor has been running around in the background for many months. AppleInsider annouced that a Disney buyout was immenent at least two or three months ago, but that never materialized, obviously. Oddly, this article was written by Don Crabb, a longtime Mac commentator, so it's hard to believe he hasn't heard these stories for a long time. He must have been up against a killer deadline and couldn't think of anything else to talk about. It's total hooey.
Wow. And here I was thinking all along that the Open Source community was more interested in what kind of code you give back to the community, not how much money you donate. If we're talking about code, man-hours, etc. I think Apple's given us quite a lot, with even more to come. If we're talking money, then let's give Intel and IBM the applause they deserve for sinking all that dough into Red Hat.
GPL applies to copyrightable content, be it code, traditional writing, etc. It DOES NOT cover trademark issues, which are quite different. For instance, although Red Hat distributes software under the GPL, the name "Red Hat", their funky little logo, and anything else in the tradedress that identifies the product as having come from Red Hat is trademarkable and not covered by the GPL. This limits anyone else's ability to use those trademarks in non-RedHat products. Similarly, the name and tradedress of "LinuxHQ" likely do not fall under the GPL which applies (applied?) to the content, unless this was explicitly stated on the site.
I am continually surprised at how many people think that organizations which are already widely recognized and hugely popular would want/need extra publicity from people giving their products away for free. The Grateful Dead ALREADY have wide visibility and great press. This is quite a different situation from that of a unknown software application, utility, etc. which needs to ramp up its visibility and use in a rapid way. While there are Open Content licenses which may apply, they are most useful to organizations which are seeking wide (and cheap) distribution, not for those which have already attained this.