All the more power to them, however the community should focus on creating, and making things better, not trying to pick fights
Hallowe'en Documents.
"Linux is like Communism"
"The GPL will steal all of your hard-earned IP."
"The GPL is like Pac-man."
"We're going to support FreeBSD but not Linux because the license is better...for developers. Really."
Who's the one picking a fight here?
...hasn't anyone ever thought that there are Windows programmers who develop things on their own, post them at sites like Tucows, and are actually happy with using Windows.
Oh, I know there are people perfectly happy with using and developing on Windows. I don't wish to deny them that choice. The problem is, Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else, by making sure Microsoft "standards" are more prevalent than any other "standards", real or perceived, and ensuring you can only take advantage of MS "standards" on MS platforms. Individual actions alone may not be "smoking guns," but the sum of their actions and behaviour towards any potential competitors and developers leads me to believe they wish to deny me and millions of others a choice we don't begrudge their customers.
That is wrong. I don't mind them innovating. I do mind them assimilating and trying to make sure the only way is the Microsoft way. I'm a consumer too, and I demand a choice of software and available tools, even if MS wishes to deny me one.
But for all you/.ers in Canada you can watch all the episodes for those series weekly and in the B5 case week nights on the Space channel.
To my great chagrin, I ran across this tidbit on Space's website. Space will apparently stop running B5 on July 31. The license simply ran out. It may be some time before B5 comes back.
This thread is a good, informative read for you fellow Canuck B5 fans out there. If anyone in the Toronto area wants to get together to watch either the final ep on July 31, or the 5-episode farewell marathon on August 6, contact me and we'll try to arrange something. Might not be a bad call; if the final ep of TNG got the friggin' SkyDome, the final ep of B5 on Space can at least get someone's living room:)
Re:A couple possible technical differences
on
DVD-Audio on PC's?
·
· Score: 2
This is to say nothing of the fact that most recording studio equipment is nowhere near the quality required for recording these new formats properly - in a typical studio the best digital audio recorders they have are 20-bit, 48kHz ADATs...
Tell me about it; we're getting at least one (and hopefully two) Tascam MX-2424s in for recording. Our school currently lives off of a series of DA-88/38s for multitrack recording - Just Not Good Enough! We're also planning on either rebuilding one studio with some swank equipment for mixing, or going to a nearby studio with the equipment we're trying to get.
Funny you mention ADAT; I've seen exactly one ADAT recorder, at a professional audio store, looking lost and forgotten. My few encounters with the Real Professional World hasn't led to any ADAT run-ins, although I do recall one of the engineers at a recent small conference in Toronto saying "Don't get me started on ADAT":).
The reason CD succeeded tape and vinyl is because your typical guy could hear the difference, with amplifiers and speakers that they already owned.
Heh, quick way to start an audiophile war; "Vinyl sounds better than CD!" I could probably go for hours trying to describe my perception of vinyl and CD sound, but in short, I find vinyl sounds warmer, but not necessarily "better" than CD.
SACD and DVD-Audio require both better audio hardware than the average guy has and better recording equipment than the average studio has to even begin to notice the difference.
Point taken, and that's the part I have the hardest time dealing with; we want to create such spectacular soundscapes, and about ten people in the world will be able to enjoy it in the comfort of their own home at this point:)
The multi-channels are good though, and if DVD-Audio especially is ever going to make it mainstream, then it should be that which the marketers focus on rather than the quality aspects.
Hence, the usefulness of DVD-A/V players integrated into home theater setups. The audio reproduction won't be the best in a "Joe Well-Off Average" system, but it will at least be slightly better than CD, in addition to the same fun surround stuff Joe would get from his DVD movies. After that, it's all about having good content available to make Joe want to use the DVD-Audio features.
Re:A couple possible technical differences
on
DVD-Audio on PC's?
·
· Score: 3
DVD video clocks in at 10 megabits; it's the equivalent of a 9 speed CD-ROM.
I now see where my error came from.
After doing some more digging through specs and FAQs, yes, the DVD-Video max bitrate is 10.08 Mbps. The normal max audio bitrate is 3.1 Mbps. However, there is a non-standard digital PCM audio output available in DVD-Video that can produce 24 bit, 96 kHz, running at - wait for it! - 6.144 Mbps. *That* explains where I got that bitrate from; I originally heard it at a conference on DVD-Audio/SACD in reference to "maximum bitrate;" although I should have known being at an audio conference, it wasn't specified that this referred to audio bitrate only.
Sidenote from the DVD FAQ; the CSS license doesn't allow for digital output of CSS-protected PCM streams at 96 MHz; the player must downsample to 48. The inability to legally get digital PCM audio output at high bitrates was a sore point among the engineers I heard from at said conference. Try to find a DVD-Audio player that will give you digital PCM outputs. Good luck, and get ready to shake your head in disbelief:)
Anyway, yeah, now that I look back over the notes, it should be possible to support DVD-Audio in software using existing DVD-ROM drives. However, it would require at least some software rewrites, and possibly a lot of large rewrites due to the completely different processes a DVD-Audio stream goes through during decoding. There's the need to support the things I mentioned above (CSS2, MLP, SMART, and of course you need to pay licenses for those:), among other things I can't imagine I missed. There isn't any decoding hardware available (that I know of) for DVD-Audio streams like there is for DVD-Video that incorporate the above decoders, so the audio on slow machines (ie; my Pentium II 266) will be just unlistenable.
There are barriers, but quite frankly, they're easily surmounted. There just isn't any large demand right now for DVD-Audio playing on computers, not enough to justify the costs of software and hardware development for the beancounters. Unfortunate, but reality just sucks sometimes.
A couple possible technical differences
on
DVD-Audio on PC's?
·
· Score: 5
1) CSS2: Remember the DVD Group/Consortium/Circlejerk popping off about CSS being cracked and having to develop a new algorithm? In this case, it might be just a matter of the accompanying software implementing CSS2, though a circuit change might be necessary within the DVD-ROM itself. I'm not entirely sure on this; there's a specific circuit in DVD-ROM drives to carry CSS info, but it might be just for key exchange data transmission.
2) Bandwidth: I wish I knew where my DVD drive manual was right now, because I don't feel like slogging through Creative's site. DVD-Audio has a higher bandwidth limit than DVD-Video; 9.6 Mb/s as opposed to 6.144 Mb/s. A slightly better laser is necessary (I think; I'm extrapolating from what I know of the format), and the data path coming out of the drive needs to be able to handle 9.6 Mb/s of data coming down the pipe. IDE and SCSI might handle this without sneezing; I'm not going to take completely wild guesses without studying the docs.
3) MLP and SMART: Meridian Lossless Packing is a wunderbar compression scheme that allows for more music to be packed on the disc and through the data stream. A decoder for this is necessary. As well, there's a downmixing scheme called SMART (again, don't ask when I don't have the docs in front of me) that attempts to mix multiple channels into a stereo mix. I'm not sure of anyone actually using this - who wants to trust the computer with your high-end audio mixes? - but it's necessary in DVD-Audio players.
CSS2, MLP and SMART decoding might be possible within software, but it would take a nice high-end chip, or, a dedicated DVD-Audio card with the firmware to handle that decoding. The "normal" DVD-Audio streams are Linear PCM, the same stuff on CDs, only at much higher bitrates, sampling rates, and with multiple channels. As you said, the Dolby 5.1/DTS tracks are there for compatibility. I've heard little to nothing about DVD-Audio-capable DVD-ROMs, simply because it's seen as an audiophile format at this point. Most people get off on two channel stereo CDs.
I find it unfortunate most people my age (around 21) think Mp3 and CD are as good as it gets, and having "theater-quality" sound is left to the theaters and a few insane audiophiles. I'm working with a group on a DVD-Audio project composed of all original music by a series of Canadian groups, and we're all in our early twenties. I've heard DVD-Audio in all its glory, and it's worth the investment in equipment if you're even a borderline audiophile. The competing format SACD is also a worthy option, especially if you want to have discs you can let your non-audiophile friends borrow, although they won't get the superior SACD sound.
If this is a "blow-by-blow" account, then could someone, I dunno, involved in the mess explain that little comment Taco made for about 20 minutes on Sunday about when the "qualified personnel" arrived, "[they] discovered that she wasn't actuually as qualified as we had hoped. Then she quit, thus terminating 3 local star systems."
Was Rob just popping off at random, or was that little bit removed trying to cover/.'s ass in the face of a potential libel suit?
I'm sure the GeForce8 will knock my socks off, but I'll be damned if I'll be able to find space for the cooling unit. A garage might be able to handle it...
Flooding this firm with e-mails is a waste of time. They made a business decision based on actual sales, support costs, and so forth.
Well, you had a level-headed, good post going...
Face it: Linux is harder to support than Windows. Moderate this down if you want, but it won't change that fact.
Yep, the reverse-psychology martyr comment. Knew this one was coming, just not so early...
How many times have you seen a product released for one distribution of Linux that won't run on some other? Your support staff has to be familiar with Gnome, KDE, IceWM, and every other GUI that's been pasted on Linux.
Ummmmm.....I'm thinking. Aside from DeadHat 7's binary incompatibility (and that hasn't lasted long, it seems), releasing a program for one distro should work, or be able to work, on all, unless the company limits itself to a certain package manager format - and even that's not a complete barrier, thanks to certain software meant to translate one package management format to another.
1. Pick KDE, Gnome, or some other GUI and cease development and inclusion of the others.
No thanks. I happen to like knowing that I can run apps "coded" for one desktop without problems in another, as long as the libraries are installed. What's more important is agreeing on a common component communication protocol - KParts, Bonobo, something. Getting programs to work cleanly with one another across several desktops may be far more important than "standardizing" on one desktop. There's no need to limit desktop preferences when the two main ones are fairly similar in function, and the main problem is interoperability.
2. Standardize where files go, a minimum file set in any standard install, and so forth.
This is actually being worked on...Linux Standards Base.
[Windows retains compatibility...] Compare that to the dismal compatability between different versions and distributions of Linux.
Ummmm...I fail to see this in software designated as "release", aside from Freedom. Beta and development software, yeah, but that's why it's beta. Windows isn't exactly perfect for forward compatibility and compatibility between the 9x and NT streams, the former of which is being mercy-killed.
4. Stop competing with every company that releases a commercial linux product. If a company invests 5 man-years creating an innovative commercial product for Linux, within six months of its release, there will be a GPL copycat program to perform the same function for free.
And as soon as you can point out an example of this, the GPL developers might listen to you. Or, they might continue working on their own products anyway. "Stop competing"... sounds like what Microsoft wants Linux and other GPL'd software to do. Welcome to the free market.
There are commercial Linux products I considered buying - WordPerfect 8, for example. Thing is, it lacked something offered by free(r) software; MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint compatibility. StarOffice has this, to some extent, KWord supports Word97 to some extent, and work is being put into increasing compatibility all the time.
I can think a better use of $50 to insure that your genes get propagated. It's called asking out that cute girl in class, taking her to a fancy restaurant, then knocking her up.
The University of Utah, as do most universities, has a code of conduct. If he violated it, then they have no obligation to support his speech by lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.
That would be OK, if they would allow him to restart the site elsewhere. However, they're not; the U has actually claimed IP rights over the entire site - all of Dan's work, all of the stories, and all of the comments posted by users. He has been threatened with legal action if he tries to restart the site elsewhere using his offsite backups. I could see that particular action being legal (if hard to swallow) were Dan paid to create the site under University sanction...but he didn't. He did it voluntarily for the student government.
Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him (through use of their equipment), and he must find another sponsor.
As I mentioned above, he very clearly is being oppressed, since the University won't let him find another sponsor.
The following portion of the 2600 filing not only stabs the MPAA/Government's rhetoric directly in the heart, it describes the purpose of DeCSS; to access the content on a DVD and stream it off the disk:
Moreover, even when the "functionality" of DeCSS is considered, it is important to remember the limited function of this particular program. Despite the Government's inflammatory rhetoric, DeCSS is not intrinsically harmful. No one can use DeCSS to "shut off navigational systems on airplanes or shut down smoke detectors in public buildings." By itself, DeCSS does not even perform any infringing activity. A person can use DeCSS to do only one thing -- access the content on a DVD. From that point a person must choose what to do with the decrypted movie. She could play it on a Linux computer, copy a snippet for a book report, make a personal back-up copy, or feed it into a database to be used for scholarly research, all permissible, fair uses of the DVD content. See e.g. Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 322.
That pretty much covers everything we've been saying here and elsewhere about the nature of DeCSS.
I also suspect, as many otheres here do, that 2600 will lose, simply because of its "hacker reputation" instead of due to any substantive factors. And that's rather sad. 2600, I believe, was morally correct in this case.
Too bad my opinion won't be the one that decides 2600's fate.
I'm not sure urination is covered in either license. In fact, I'm positive use of software isn't covered by the GPL, and I don't see the BSD license going off into Bizarro World and restricting you from pissing on the software.
So, yes, if I were GPLd or BSDd, you could pee on me.
However, I'm PDPL'd - same as the GPL, except no peeing, pooping, puking, or busting a nut on me. Sorry there, chap.
And OpenBSD users are left without any firewalling solution.
Oh come now, do you really think the OpenBSD team would release a new version without firewalling, a necessary option in pretty much all free Unices? It's just as you said; chances are, a replacement will be written or adapted within days.
My money's on ipfw dropping in within days, unless there are license issues there. As far as I know, ipfw is BSD-licensed, so there shouldn't be any issues).
This seems like a nice opportunity to add iptables to *BSD. Iptables is the linux version of ipf. Some people claim that iptables is superior (or at least more flexible and easier to understand) to ipf....
Actually, I find it much more likely OpenBSD will modify ipfw from the other *BSDs. ipf is an optional replacement in the other two BSDs, and Darren has no problem with their distributions since no modifications were made by the Free/NetBSD teams to his code.
As well, there's the GPL issue...I'd imagine Theo might have something (ok, a helluva lot:) to say about that.
I'm guessing Darren has no problem with the other two BSDs since I guess they don't modify ipf before distributing it.
The message you refer to, and the whole mess in general, give me the impression Darren is a bit...touchy. Perhaps understandable under the circumstances, but though I agree with his legal stance, I emotionally still think he's being a bit of a jerk, as comes across with lines like "I wish you'd quit stirring things up" when the guy he was replying to brought up a legitimate point that needed to be answered. Of course, I didn't see the entire message the quoted poster sent, but Darren still comes across as a little...erm...defensive:)
So Darren Reed gets his wish, and the OpenBSD people will no longer be modifying his code without his permission.
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
Two lessons to be drawn from this mess:
1) Carefully read the licenses on code you intend to use before you actually use it, and feel free to get any questions you have cleared up. The worst that can happen (in theory...) is that the lawyers give you an answer you don't like, and you can't convince the developer to agree to otherwise. Which leads to the second lesson:
2) Don't use code you can't/won't adhere to the licensing restrictions for. Free/OSS licenses are rooted in copyright law, using it in an unorthodox fashion to allow instead of restrict freedom, but still relying on its existence for their own. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL code. If you can't use Windows without being able to see the source and fix patches on your own, and you don't have a whack of cash for the right/the stomach to sign the NDA, don't use Windows code.
If the developer's being a bit of a jerk about an ambiguous part of his/her license, screw 'em, switch to a freer/Freer alternative. There's tons of GPL'd and BSD'd code out there for the studying and using; why waste your time trying to pry a privilege from someone who doesn't want to give you that privilege?
I know, I know - easier said than done, and I'm sure you have several objections and points to bring up. Point being, it could have been much, much nastier. As it is, Reed's code won't benefit from the advantages of open source/free software as quickly as the BSD/GPL alternatives will, but if that's the way he wants it, fine by him. That's his right, just as it's Theo's right to tell him to shove off and take his code with him.
First: don't flame me if I'm blatantly, clearly way off in wackyland on this one. I'm just going off what I've read in the linked articles.
The only mention of "Netscape" comes in the NikkeiBP article, a single mention in a paragraph midway down the page claiming Sony will likely sell a hard drive unit with Netscape and one of the SSL technologies pre-loaded. No mention of Netscape is found in the RSA press release, and there is nary a mention of the version of NS expected to be included.
My first thought was "why wouldn't Sony go with a customized version of IE?" Several ideas quickly leaped to mind; no Windows infrastructure in the PS2, MS will be competing directly with Sony within months, MS hasn't said a word about such a deal, and other, less-developed nagging thoughts.
I don't know why Sony would go with an ancient, cruddy codebase like the 4.x series. Outside of the Windows and Mac platforms (and maybe not even then), the Java support is atrocious, and the browser is extremely prone to crashing. Unless Sony uses the Source and does some mad fixing of the 4.x code, I don't really see them using 4.77 in the PS2.
Netscape 6 was a brainfart. Enough said.
The only possibilities that make anything close to sense in my mind:
1) Sony uses the 4.x codebase, does some fixes and tweaking
2) Sony uses the Mozilla/6.xx codebase, doing any necessary massive bugfixes to the code, but possibly waiting for the 6.5 release, which I've caught the rare passing mention of in Bugzilla. I have no idea if Netscape ever plans on doing another branch from the Mozilla trunk; I personally think that would be a very wise idea, giving a big boost to the Mozilla project's profile, as well as Netscape's credibility, no thanks to that 6.0 business.
2b) Sony uses Gecko and builds a simple browser around it, including PSM 2.0. Better option for them, IMO.
3) Sony doesn't bother with Netscape, the NikkeiBP report is off on that point, and Sony has their own plans that no one will be able to guess at.
Take your pick, can't wait to see how this development turns out...
He said he would be willing to give up some privacy for greater convenience. Most of us do. I give up some privacy by using my tivo. I give up some privacy by shopping at Amazon. I give up some privacy by using credit cards for purchases. I give up some privacy by using the safeway club card to get grocery discounts. I give up some privacy by buying an airline ticket, renting a car or checking in to a hotel.
I loathe using credit cards, for the very reason that I know a near-permanent record of every use of it is being made, and such information - even incorrect - can be sold or handed over to, say, the FBI, or your favourite direct marketers, without letting you know, without even cutting you in on the profits from said sale.
Now, why should you give up some privacy by buying an airline ticket, renting a car, or checking into a hotel? Such information should be shared between two entities; you, and the company you're making the purchase from. That information shouldn't be shared with anyone else, outside of family and proper authorities in an emergency. It sure as hell shouldn't be sold to marketers, advertisers, and the highest bidder.
If people and companies could be trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt not to give other parties that have no business knowing your/my purchasing habits or medical history such information, I'd be more comfortable with McNealy's vision of convenience over privacy. Unfortunately, giving up privacy often means making oneself a wide-open target for "marketing research" and "data mining." We just aren't civilized yet to properly use personal information, instead of abusing it and whipping it around to anyone who will pay good money.
You see, absolute privacy is INCONVIENT. We are not talking about credit card information, or Social Securtiy information here, we are talking about the fact that if you have a heart attack, you will be very happy that the ambulance driver has the ability to access your Medical Records on the spot to save your paranoid ass.
If the only people who could get access to information about me were the people who really needed it, I'd be comfortable with McNealy's vision. For very good reason, I'm not, and neither should you. There's a reason I usually fake my information when filling out forms on the web, regularly reject cookies from most sites when I don't need them, and at least try to obfuscate my e-mail address - or, even better, fake that, too. I don't mind medical personnel having access to my medical information; in fact, those are the only people who should have access to that. No one else. Unfortunately, providing any sort of personal information to anyone seems to be blanket permission to sell it to the highest bidder.
Having all of my personal information readily available will be nice and convenient...when I can believe that such information won't be sold and misused without my knowledge. Until then, no go.
Slashdot Mirror
All the more power to them, however the community should focus on creating, and making things better, not trying to pick fights
...hasn't anyone ever thought that there are Windows programmers who develop things on their own, post them at sites like Tucows, and are actually happy with using Windows.
Hallowe'en Documents.
"Linux is like Communism"
"The GPL will steal all of your hard-earned IP."
"The GPL is like Pac-man."
"We're going to support FreeBSD but not Linux because the license is better...for developers. Really."
Who's the one picking a fight here?
Oh, I know there are people perfectly happy with using and developing on Windows. I don't wish to deny them that choice. The problem is, Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else, by making sure Microsoft "standards" are more prevalent than any other "standards", real or perceived, and ensuring you can only take advantage of MS "standards" on MS platforms. Individual actions alone may not be "smoking guns," but the sum of their actions and behaviour towards any potential competitors and developers leads me to believe they wish to deny me and millions of others a choice we don't begrudge their customers.
That is wrong. I don't mind them innovating. I do mind them assimilating and trying to make sure the only way is the Microsoft way. I'm a consumer too, and I demand a choice of software and available tools, even if MS wishes to deny me one.
Call it paranoia, but that's the view from here.
But for all you /.ers in Canada you can watch all the episodes for those series weekly and in the B5 case week nights on the Space channel.
To my great chagrin, I ran across this tidbit on Space's website. Space will apparently stop running B5 on July 31. The license simply ran out. It may be some time before B5 comes back.
This thread is a good, informative read for you fellow Canuck B5 fans out there. If anyone in the Toronto area wants to get together to watch either the final ep on July 31, or the 5-episode farewell marathon on August 6, contact me and we'll try to arrange something. Might not be a bad call; if the final ep of TNG got the friggin' SkyDome, the final ep of B5 on Space can at least get someone's living room:)
This is to say nothing of the fact that most recording studio equipment is nowhere near the quality required for recording these new formats properly - in a typical studio the best digital audio recorders they have are 20-bit, 48kHz ADATs...
Tell me about it; we're getting at least one (and hopefully two) Tascam MX-2424s in for recording. Our school currently lives off of a series of DA-88/38s for multitrack recording - Just Not Good Enough! We're also planning on either rebuilding one studio with some swank equipment for mixing, or going to a nearby studio with the equipment we're trying to get.
Funny you mention ADAT; I've seen exactly one ADAT recorder, at a professional audio store, looking lost and forgotten. My few encounters with the Real Professional World hasn't led to any ADAT run-ins, although I do recall one of the engineers at a recent small conference in Toronto saying "Don't get me started on ADAT":).
The reason CD succeeded tape and vinyl is because your typical guy could hear the difference, with amplifiers and speakers that they already owned.
Heh, quick way to start an audiophile war; "Vinyl sounds better than CD!" I could probably go for hours trying to describe my perception of vinyl and CD sound, but in short, I find vinyl sounds warmer, but not necessarily "better" than CD.
SACD and DVD-Audio require both better audio hardware than the average guy has and better recording equipment than the average studio has to even begin to notice the difference.
Point taken, and that's the part I have the hardest time dealing with; we want to create such spectacular soundscapes, and about ten people in the world will be able to enjoy it in the comfort of their own home at this point:)
The multi-channels are good though, and if DVD-Audio especially is ever going to make it mainstream, then it should be that which the marketers focus on rather than the quality aspects.
Hence, the usefulness of DVD-A/V players integrated into home theater setups. The audio reproduction won't be the best in a "Joe Well-Off Average" system, but it will at least be slightly better than CD, in addition to the same fun surround stuff Joe would get from his DVD movies. After that, it's all about having good content available to make Joe want to use the DVD-Audio features.
DVD video clocks in at 10 megabits; it's the equivalent of a 9 speed CD-ROM.
I now see where my error came from.
After doing some more digging through specs and FAQs, yes, the DVD-Video max bitrate is 10.08 Mbps. The normal max audio bitrate is 3.1 Mbps. However, there is a non-standard digital PCM audio output available in DVD-Video that can produce 24 bit, 96 kHz, running at - wait for it! - 6.144 Mbps. *That* explains where I got that bitrate from; I originally heard it at a conference on DVD-Audio/SACD in reference to "maximum bitrate;" although I should have known being at an audio conference, it wasn't specified that this referred to audio bitrate only.
Sidenote from the DVD FAQ; the CSS license doesn't allow for digital output of CSS-protected PCM streams at 96 MHz; the player must downsample to 48. The inability to legally get digital PCM audio output at high bitrates was a sore point among the engineers I heard from at said conference. Try to find a DVD-Audio player that will give you digital PCM outputs. Good luck, and get ready to shake your head in disbelief:)
Anyway, yeah, now that I look back over the notes, it should be possible to support DVD-Audio in software using existing DVD-ROM drives. However, it would require at least some software rewrites, and possibly a lot of large rewrites due to the completely different processes a DVD-Audio stream goes through during decoding. There's the need to support the things I mentioned above (CSS2, MLP, SMART, and of course you need to pay licenses for those:), among other things I can't imagine I missed. There isn't any decoding hardware available (that I know of) for DVD-Audio streams like there is for DVD-Video that incorporate the above decoders, so the audio on slow machines (ie; my Pentium II 266) will be just unlistenable.
There are barriers, but quite frankly, they're easily surmounted. There just isn't any large demand right now for DVD-Audio playing on computers, not enough to justify the costs of software and hardware development for the beancounters. Unfortunate, but reality just sucks sometimes.
1) CSS2: Remember the DVD Group/Consortium/Circlejerk popping off about CSS being cracked and having to develop a new algorithm? In this case, it might be just a matter of the accompanying software implementing CSS2, though a circuit change might be necessary within the DVD-ROM itself. I'm not entirely sure on this; there's a specific circuit in DVD-ROM drives to carry CSS info, but it might be just for key exchange data transmission.
2) Bandwidth: I wish I knew where my DVD drive manual was right now, because I don't feel like slogging through Creative's site. DVD-Audio has a higher bandwidth limit than DVD-Video; 9.6 Mb/s as opposed to 6.144 Mb/s. A slightly better laser is necessary (I think; I'm extrapolating from what I know of the format), and the data path coming out of the drive needs to be able to handle 9.6 Mb/s of data coming down the pipe. IDE and SCSI might handle this without sneezing; I'm not going to take completely wild guesses without studying the docs.
3) MLP and SMART: Meridian Lossless Packing is a wunderbar compression scheme that allows for more music to be packed on the disc and through the data stream. A decoder for this is necessary. As well, there's a downmixing scheme called SMART (again, don't ask when I don't have the docs in front of me) that attempts to mix multiple channels into a stereo mix. I'm not sure of anyone actually using this - who wants to trust the computer with your high-end audio mixes? - but it's necessary in DVD-Audio players.
CSS2, MLP and SMART decoding might be possible within software, but it would take a nice high-end chip, or, a dedicated DVD-Audio card with the firmware to handle that decoding. The "normal" DVD-Audio streams are Linear PCM, the same stuff on CDs, only at much higher bitrates, sampling rates, and with multiple channels. As you said, the Dolby 5.1/DTS tracks are there for compatibility. I've heard little to nothing about DVD-Audio-capable DVD-ROMs, simply because it's seen as an audiophile format at this point. Most people get off on two channel stereo CDs.
I find it unfortunate most people my age (around 21) think Mp3 and CD are as good as it gets, and having "theater-quality" sound is left to the theaters and a few insane audiophiles. I'm working with a group on a DVD-Audio project composed of all original music by a series of Canadian groups, and we're all in our early twenties. I've heard DVD-Audio in all its glory, and it's worth the investment in equipment if you're even a borderline audiophile. The competing format SACD is also a worthy option, especially if you want to have discs you can let your non-audiophile friends borrow, although they won't get the superior SACD sound.
...and whose leader will give speeches for a measly $100,000
Their leader is Bill Clinton?
If this is a "blow-by-blow" account, then could someone, I dunno, involved in the mess explain that little comment Taco made for about 20 minutes on Sunday about when the "qualified personnel" arrived, "[they] discovered that she wasn't actuually as qualified as we had hoped. Then she quit, thus terminating 3 local star systems."
/.'s ass in the face of a potential libel suit?
Was Rob just popping off at random, or was that little bit removed trying to cover
Jes' wondering...
I'm sure the GeForce8 will knock my socks off, but I'll be damned if I'll be able to find space for the cooling unit. A garage might be able to handle it...
Of course there's life on Europa! Don't you remember that documentary, uhhh, whatzit called...the one that ended with that message...oh yeah.
:P.
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT FOR EUROPA.
MAKE NO LANDINGS THERE.
Yeah. Incontrivertible proof. So there
...is if the disc set were released regionless. That way, everyone would be able to enjoy the set, not just people in Region 1.
It's a really blatant troll, but I'll bite:
Flooding this firm with e-mails is a waste of time. They made a business decision based on actual sales, support costs, and so forth.
Well, you had a level-headed, good post going...
Face it: Linux is harder to support than Windows. Moderate this down if you want, but it won't change that fact.
Yep, the reverse-psychology martyr comment. Knew this one was coming, just not so early...
How many times have you seen a product released for one distribution of Linux that won't run on some other? Your support staff has to be familiar with Gnome, KDE, IceWM, and every other GUI that's been pasted on Linux.
Ummmmm.....I'm thinking. Aside from DeadHat 7's binary incompatibility (and that hasn't lasted long, it seems), releasing a program for one distro should work, or be able to work, on all, unless the company limits itself to a certain package manager format - and even that's not a complete barrier, thanks to certain software meant to translate one package management format to another.
1. Pick KDE, Gnome, or some other GUI and cease development and inclusion of the others.
No thanks. I happen to like knowing that I can run apps "coded" for one desktop without problems in another, as long as the libraries are installed. What's more important is agreeing on a common component communication protocol - KParts, Bonobo, something. Getting programs to work cleanly with one another across several desktops may be far more important than "standardizing" on one desktop. There's no need to limit desktop preferences when the two main ones are fairly similar in function, and the main problem is interoperability.
2. Standardize where files go, a minimum file set in any standard install, and so forth.
This is actually being worked on...Linux Standards Base.
[Windows retains compatibility...] Compare that to the dismal compatability between different versions and distributions of Linux.
Ummmm...I fail to see this in software designated as "release", aside from Freedom. Beta and development software, yeah, but that's why it's beta. Windows isn't exactly perfect for forward compatibility and compatibility between the 9x and NT streams, the former of which is being mercy-killed.
4. Stop competing with every company that releases a commercial linux product. If a company invests 5 man-years creating an innovative commercial product for Linux, within six months of its release, there will be a GPL copycat program to perform the same function for free.
And as soon as you can point out an example of this, the GPL developers might listen to you. Or, they might continue working on their own products anyway. "Stop competing"... sounds like what Microsoft wants Linux and other GPL'd software to do. Welcome to the free market.
There are commercial Linux products I considered buying - WordPerfect 8, for example. Thing is, it lacked something offered by free(r) software; MS Word, Excel, and PowerPoint compatibility. StarOffice has this, to some extent, KWord supports Word97 to some extent, and work is being put into increasing compatibility all the time.
I can think a better use of $50 to insure that your genes get propagated. It's called asking out that cute girl in class, taking her to a fancy restaurant, then knocking her up.
Welllllll.... until the asteroid hits, anyway.
"Destroy them utterly" was a direct quote from L Ron Hubbard, referring to dealing with enemies of his cult.
Close. The actual quote is "ruin him utterly." Same difference, really; it's all Fair Game in the end.
And now that I've said this...let the Dead Agenting from the other side begin!
The University of Utah, as do most universities, has a code of conduct. If he violated it, then they have no obligation to support his speech by lending him their servers, bandwidth, domain name, etc.
That would be OK, if they would allow him to restart the site elsewhere. However, they're not; the U has actually claimed IP rights over the entire site - all of Dan's work, all of the stories, and all of the comments posted by users. He has been threatened with legal action if he tries to restart the site elsewhere using his offsite backups. I could see that particular action being legal (if hard to swallow) were Dan paid to create the site under University sanction...but he didn't. He did it voluntarily for the student government.
Flikx is not being oppressed, he simply lost the support of those sponsoring him (through use of their equipment), and he must find another sponsor.
As I mentioned above, he very clearly is being oppressed, since the University won't let him find another sponsor.
The following portion of the 2600 filing not only stabs the MPAA/Government's rhetoric directly in the heart, it describes the purpose of DeCSS; to access the content on a DVD and stream it off the disk:
Moreover, even when the "functionality" of DeCSS is considered, it is important to remember the limited function of this particular program. Despite the Government's inflammatory rhetoric, DeCSS is not intrinsically harmful. No one can use DeCSS to "shut off navigational systems on airplanes or shut down smoke detectors in public buildings." By itself, DeCSS does not even perform any infringing activity. A person can use DeCSS to do only one thing -- access the content on a DVD. From that point a person must choose what to do with the decrypted movie. She could play it on a Linux computer, copy a snippet for a book report, make a personal back-up copy, or feed it into a database to be used for scholarly research, all permissible, fair uses of the DVD content. See e.g. Universal, 111 F.Supp.2d at 322.
That pretty much covers everything we've been saying here and elsewhere about the nature of DeCSS.
I also suspect, as many otheres here do, that 2600 will lose, simply because of its "hacker reputation" instead of due to any substantive factors. And that's rather sad. 2600, I believe, was morally correct in this case.
Too bad my opinion won't be the one that decides 2600's fate.
Justice will prevail.
If you believe that, I have an election I'd like to sell you.
I'm not sure urination is covered in either license. In fact, I'm positive use of software isn't covered by the GPL, and I don't see the BSD license going off into Bizarro World and restricting you from pissing on the software.
So, yes, if I were GPLd or BSDd, you could pee on me.
However, I'm PDPL'd - same as the GPL, except no peeing, pooping, puking, or busting a nut on me. Sorry there, chap.
And OpenBSD users are left without any firewalling solution.
Oh come now, do you really think the OpenBSD team would release a new version without firewalling, a necessary option in pretty much all free Unices? It's just as you said; chances are, a replacement will be written or adapted within days.
My money's on ipfw dropping in within days, unless there are license issues there. As far as I know, ipfw is BSD-licensed, so there shouldn't be any issues).
This seems like a nice opportunity to add iptables to *BSD. Iptables is the linux version of ipf. Some people claim that iptables is superior (or at least more flexible and easier to understand) to ipf ....
Actually, I find it much more likely OpenBSD will modify ipfw from the other *BSDs. ipf is an optional replacement in the other two BSDs, and Darren has no problem with their distributions since no modifications were made by the Free/NetBSD teams to his code.
As well, there's the GPL issue...I'd imagine Theo might have something (ok, a helluva lot:) to say about that.
I'm guessing Darren has no problem with the other two BSDs since I guess they don't modify ipf before distributing it.
The message you refer to, and the whole mess in general, give me the impression Darren is a bit...touchy. Perhaps understandable under the circumstances, but though I agree with his legal stance, I emotionally still think he's being a bit of a jerk, as comes across with lines like "I wish you'd quit stirring things up" when the guy he was replying to brought up a legitimate point that needed to be answered. Of course, I didn't see the entire message the quoted poster sent, but Darren still comes across as a little...erm...defensive:)
(no flames please, just my personal impressions)
So Darren Reed gets his wish, and the OpenBSD people will no longer be modifying his code without his permission.
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
Two lessons to be drawn from this mess:
1) Carefully read the licenses on code you intend to use before you actually use it, and feel free to get any questions you have cleared up. The worst that can happen (in theory...) is that the lawyers give you an answer you don't like, and you can't convince the developer to agree to otherwise. Which leads to the second lesson:
2) Don't use code you can't/won't adhere to the licensing restrictions for. Free/OSS licenses are rooted in copyright law, using it in an unorthodox fashion to allow instead of restrict freedom, but still relying on its existence for their own. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL code. If you can't use Windows without being able to see the source and fix patches on your own, and you don't have a whack of cash for the right/the stomach to sign the NDA, don't use Windows code.
If the developer's being a bit of a jerk about an ambiguous part of his/her license, screw 'em, switch to a freer/Freer alternative. There's tons of GPL'd and BSD'd code out there for the studying and using; why waste your time trying to pry a privilege from someone who doesn't want to give you that privilege?
I know, I know - easier said than done, and I'm sure you have several objections and points to bring up. Point being, it could have been much, much nastier. As it is, Reed's code won't benefit from the advantages of open source/free software as quickly as the BSD/GPL alternatives will, but if that's the way he wants it, fine by him. That's his right, just as it's Theo's right to tell him to shove off and take his code with him.
First: don't flame me if I'm blatantly, clearly way off in wackyland on this one. I'm just going off what I've read in the linked articles.
The only mention of "Netscape" comes in the NikkeiBP article, a single mention in a paragraph midway down the page claiming Sony will likely sell a hard drive unit with Netscape and one of the SSL technologies pre-loaded. No mention of Netscape is found in the RSA press release, and there is nary a mention of the version of NS expected to be included.
My first thought was "why wouldn't Sony go with a customized version of IE?" Several ideas quickly leaped to mind; no Windows infrastructure in the PS2, MS will be competing directly with Sony within months, MS hasn't said a word about such a deal, and other, less-developed nagging thoughts.
I don't know why Sony would go with an ancient, cruddy codebase like the 4.x series. Outside of the Windows and Mac platforms (and maybe not even then), the Java support is atrocious, and the browser is extremely prone to crashing. Unless Sony uses the Source and does some mad fixing of the 4.x code, I don't really see them using 4.77 in the PS2.
Netscape 6 was a brainfart. Enough said.
The only possibilities that make anything close to sense in my mind:
1) Sony uses the 4.x codebase, does some fixes and tweaking
2) Sony uses the Mozilla/6.xx codebase, doing any necessary massive bugfixes to the code, but possibly waiting for the 6.5 release, which I've caught the rare passing mention of in Bugzilla. I have no idea if Netscape ever plans on doing another branch from the Mozilla trunk; I personally think that would be a very wise idea, giving a big boost to the Mozilla project's profile, as well as Netscape's credibility, no thanks to that 6.0 business.
2b) Sony uses Gecko and builds a simple browser around it, including PSM 2.0. Better option for them, IMO.
3) Sony doesn't bother with Netscape, the NikkeiBP report is off on that point, and Sony has their own plans that no one will be able to guess at.
Take your pick, can't wait to see how this development turns out...
He said he would be willing to give up some privacy for greater convenience. Most of us do. I give up some privacy by using my tivo. I give up some privacy by shopping at Amazon. I give up some privacy by using credit cards for purchases. I give up some privacy by using the safeway club card to get grocery discounts. I give up some privacy by buying an airline ticket, renting a car or checking in to a hotel.
I loathe using credit cards, for the very reason that I know a near-permanent record of every use of it is being made, and such information - even incorrect - can be sold or handed over to, say, the FBI, or your favourite direct marketers, without letting you know, without even cutting you in on the profits from said sale.
Now, why should you give up some privacy by buying an airline ticket, renting a car, or checking into a hotel? Such information should be shared between two entities; you, and the company you're making the purchase from. That information shouldn't be shared with anyone else, outside of family and proper authorities in an emergency. It sure as hell shouldn't be sold to marketers, advertisers, and the highest bidder.
If people and companies could be trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt not to give other parties that have no business knowing your/my purchasing habits or medical history such information, I'd be more comfortable with McNealy's vision of convenience over privacy. Unfortunately, giving up privacy often means making oneself a wide-open target for "marketing research" and "data mining." We just aren't civilized yet to properly use personal information, instead of abusing it and whipping it around to anyone who will pay good money.
You see, absolute privacy is INCONVIENT. We are not talking about credit card information, or Social Securtiy information here, we are talking about the fact that if you have a heart attack, you will be very happy that the ambulance driver has the ability to access your Medical Records on the spot to save your paranoid ass.
If the only people who could get access to information about me were the people who really needed it, I'd be comfortable with McNealy's vision. For very good reason, I'm not, and neither should you. There's a reason I usually fake my information when filling out forms on the web, regularly reject cookies from most sites when I don't need them, and at least try to obfuscate my e-mail address - or, even better, fake that, too. I don't mind medical personnel having access to my medical information; in fact, those are the only people who should have access to that. No one else. Unfortunately, providing any sort of personal information to anyone seems to be blanket permission to sell it to the highest bidder.
Having all of my personal information readily available will be nice and convenient...when I can believe that such information won't be sold and misused without my knowledge. Until then, no go.
Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.
In that case, please give me your name, home address, and phone number.