What's the point of anything faster for an appliance that doesn't do anything except stream video ? Heck, a media centre could damn near get away with only 10baseT.
If Mac OS X is truly the foundation of the iPhone, buggy apps shouldn't be able to do the things you and Steve are warning against. Stability of the phone or network shouldn't be jeopardized by renegade user-installed applications because the OS and the networking protocol should lock them down to acceptable behavior.
That argument makes no sense. If a poorly written application running on one mobile phone has the potential to bring down the west coast network then logically a malicous hacker should be able to bring down that same network.
The concern isn't a rogue application on _one_ mobile, it's a rogue application on ten million of them.
Folks, it's time to get it through your heads. Guess what the most amazing interfaces (and I'm not an apple or MS fanboy) are developed on today? UNIX - I'm talking about the Apple OS X and iPod interfaces.
Except it's not the UNIXness that makes OS X interesting, nor enables or encourages its "innovation".
"OS X" could just have easily (and even likely) have been sitting on top of BeOS or Windows NT, and would *still* have been the platform it is today.
I'm glad someone mentioned BSD because with BSD a company can just take *your* hard work and say screw you.
No, they can't. Clearly, you understand neither the spirit and intent, nor actual implications, of the BSDL.
The code you release under the BSDL is, and always will be, available under the BSDL. Someone else can only "take your hard work and screw you" if they add some "hard work" of their own.
Contrast to the GPL, which requires you give away your "hard work", even if the GPLed code you're using is but a miniscule fraction of your project.
It boils down to this: The BSDL exists to keep *your code* "free". The GPL exists to impose "freedom" on *other people's* code.
So now the answer to why the free-desktop developers are wedded to Linux: we got screwed before that's why.
Free-desktop developers are "wedded" to Linux because it's the Windows of the unix world.
Apple has taken the other way. Add functionality to existing devices that sorta fulfills a purpose. Then make a device specifically designed for the purpose. Later add functions in subsequent iterations. Look at the AppleTV. It's not a computer. You can't use it as such.
The trouble with the AppleTV is it's not really, well, anything. It's basically a portal to the iTunes Store, and that's all (which is great if you get all your entertainment from the iTunes Store - but how many people really do that, especially over the age of, say, 25 ?). IMHO (and I may well end up being wrong), all most people are going to see it as is another box to connect to the TV, another remote control to keep track of and a lot of money for something that doesn't really do much they can't already do.
IMHO, the "killer feature" of MCE is that it consolidates just about every function you'd want to have coming through your TV into a single box (and a single remote !).
(Then there's the whole "WTF ! Only 720p ?" issue, but I digress.)
I really think the AppleTV is a solution in search of a problem.
You obviously don't understand the market this is aimed at. Anyone who knows how to do this will DO this, but for my money, the convenience of having a device that JUST carries anything in my iTunes library over to my TV with ease is perfect for my needs. I have a Core 2 Duo Mac to do my ripping and buying of music. I just want something easy to watch the movies I buy and rip on my TV without having to mess with too many extras.
What I don't get is why these devices have to "like" a certain media at all. The AppleTV likes Apple-friendly MP4. The Xbox 360 likes WMV. Or you need third party software to transcode. Processing power required for any modern codec isn't an issue. Is it licensing costs that limit the amount of codec support? Pressure to include/account for DRM?
For the AppleTV, it's because Apple sells "MP4" media. The AppleTV is a portal into the iTune store that you plug into your TV. It's not an alternative to MCE or MCE Extenders like the XBox360 (or, if it is, it's a woefully inadequate one).
For Windows MCE, your criticism doesn't really hold, because you can install whatever codecs you want and MCE will use them (the reason why Microsoft only supports their own codecs out of the box should be pretty obvious).
I must admit I think Apple has missed the target badly with the AppleTV. It doesn't really _do_ all that much (and costs a lot for that small amount of functionality), it's yet another box to find space (and inputs) for and yet another remote control to keep track of. I cannot see my parents being interested in something of such limited functionality, for example, whereas I *can* see them being interested in an of-the-shelf MCE box that replaces their Digital TV receiver, Satellite TV receiver, PVR and DVD player with a *single box* and *single remote*, while also giving them easy access to streaming content from the web and (possible) movies stored on a home server somewhere (admittedly that last one is probably a stretch for my parents).
I would certainly not consider an AppleTV to replace my Mac Mini running MCE - precisely because the main reason I went the MCE route was to consolidate all the functionality i want into a single box.
How expensive would it be to make a little set top box with computer guts, 512MB of flash storage, and a DVD drive? With economies of scale, I'd bet that it could be done for a cost of under 50 $USD.
How much it costs to make and how much it costs to buy are only very loosely connected.
I don't have the background to engineer a device like that, but I know from seeing XMBC on an original Xbox that it would be stupid simple on today's hardware. Hell, the Xbox with XBMC can do 720 by 480, and it wasn't even designed for it! Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo each had a chance with their consoles to strike a major blow to the others with this unencumbered capability and each of them missed it.
On the contrary, I think Windows MCE+Windows Home Server[+XBox360] is going to see a _huge_ amount of growth over the next 1 - 2 years. I don't think Microsoft have missed that opportunity in the slightest.
I have a feeling that while Microsoft, Apple, Sony, and media companies are all squabbling over how to play protected content or leveraging another type of business, a Chinese, Korean, or Taiwanese company will deliver a cheap little codec-agnostic device that does all this, and all other crippled devices and services will be made irrelevant.
Such a device will not succeed because there will be no official content for it (well, not from any major publishers anyway).
Look, no-one outside of Slashdot cares about DRM (yet). It's *not* anything the average consumer will perceive as a disadvantage, because (assuming they even know what it is) a) it's not particularly intrusive for most and b) the alternative is not having any content *at all*.
[...] this artical only references one of many deals made that year.
Microsoft certainly owned _some_ Apple stock, but they came nowhere near "a substantial share".
I remeber the SEC going over every penny making sure that all the transactions were legal. Microsoft also did a coulple other things in good faith that year becasue it was in deep poo poo, and around the time microsoft monopoly ruling. and wanted it to look like apple was a viable competitor, [...]
In the context of the anti-trust case, Microsoft and Apple were not competitors - so it wouldn't have mattered a whit how well (or badly) they were doing.
[...] which at the time apples market share was a joke, as was its balance sheet. (no offense to you mac people, PLEASE REALIZE THIS IS NOLOGER THE CASE, just stating facts to the best of my recolection) Im actually impressed that i remembered this 10 years later, wow.
At the time of Microsoft's $150 million investment (in non-voting stock), Apple had over a billion dollars *in cash* available. The suggestions that Microsoft "bailed Apple out" are ridiculous on their face - it was widely considered to be an unofficial payoff for Apple to drop their ongoing legal matters against Microsoft (ironic that Apple's subsequently soaring stock price probably made Microsoft quite a bit of money).
Interestingly enough, with a little planning and having some statically linked binaries around (like busybox) you can actually recover from this live on a linux system.
I have to question how "live" such a system would _actually_ be.
Try removing the equivalent under windows and recovering without a reboot.
I think it's pretty safe to say the "equivalent" would nuke the vast majority of unix machines beyond any hope of quick and easy recovery. You, yourself, indicate it needs "planning" to be able to do.
Fundamentally, if you have a service that requires 24/7 availability but is impacted by a server failure - be it from hardware failure or sysadmin butterfingers - then you have a broken architecture.
I'm more concerned about the people who wish to skulk around society without being seen or leaving footprint. I don't see this as impacting free speech/press/right to protest/etc. Which would make me concerned.
Anonymity is a fundamental building block of democracy, free speech and free society in general. When you can be quickly and easily identified, without your consent and knowledge, you have no anonymity.
You are labouring under the misapprehension that the law - and its enforcers - is/are inherently objective, free from corruption, thorough and never wrong.
In case you haven't noticed, the current Apple OS is BSD.
No, it's not. *Parts* of it are BSD, but pretty much all of the parts that actually make OS X interesting and useful, are not. Further, the fact that some parts are BSDL code, has little bearing on most people's decision to use OS X.
Justice Thomas Penfield Jackson decided Microsoft was a monopoly, and that they had "taken actions to crush threats to the monopoly." His ruling was that Microsoft be split into an operating system division and a division for everything else. Microsoft appealed and under the pro business Bush admin. the DOJ dropped it's case.
Of course, the utter practical impossibility of making such a split probably had no influence at all on that decision (not to mention monumental stupidity of having the courts define what is and isn't part of an "operating system")...
Trust me this has been proven, and know what you are talking about the next time you question me.
The anti-trust case had no interest in how Microsoft acquired its market dominating position, merely what it did with it afterwards.
It's been proven that Microsoft has dominated the market not by creating a superior product, but by superior (often times unethical) business practices.
A pertinent fact, because it supports the argument that an Operating System's security (from a design and implementation perspective) and its "security record" do not necessarily share a causative relationship.
In addition, in server space the numbers are much more even, and Apache/Unix servers outnumber Windows/IIS servers. Yet all the server malware is for Windows NT-based servers and not Apache/Unix based servers.
You appear to be changing the rules halfway through your comparison.
I'd say that post wasn't very eloquent but it's true.
It's not true, and that person isn't very eloquent because their bias clouds their ability to think rationally.
Which brings me to the link you posted....
[...] don't even try to reason with them, as they're hopelessly mired in rationalisation.
Of the things to become "hopelessly mired" in, I can't see how "rationalisation" would be one to be particularly ashamed of.
Marketshare is an intrinsic and inescapable aspect of "security" - at least in the way Slashdot defines "security". To argue otherwise requires the abandonment of intelligence, common sense, basic mathematical knowledge and rational thought in favour of the "Microsoft sucks" groupthink most Slashdotters wear as a badge of honour.
If you're not smart enough to realize that modern Unices are more secure by design you haven't actually looked into things.
"Modern unixes" (by which, I'm assuming, you're referring to implementations like SE Linux) are a vanishingly small proportion of installations - properly configured ones even more so. The vast, vast majority of unix machines do not take meaningful advantage of functionality like SE Linux, nor are they likely to any time soon.
Nimda attacked Microsoft Windows servers. There is no equivalent to Nimda for Apache/Unix servers even though Apache/Unix servers are more common than Windows servers.
Nimda attacked *all* Windows machines - and there are a hell of a lot more of them on the internet than there are of anything else. Additionally, IIRC, it was also exploiting holes that had already been patched.
I have long felt that athiesm is just another religion. It's a belief in an unprovable truth. Some have faith there IS a god, some have faith there is NOT a god.
Whoa there, tiger. Equating the attitude that there is no god because there isn't even a decent *theoretical argument* - let alone observable evidence - to support its existence, with religion, is a grossly incorrect abuse of the word "faith".
well, i guess i'll paraphrase my previous post, since you didnt read it. vista does not allow you to use lossless high-quality audio passthru like spdif of digital.
I did read your post. You are wrong. To counter your specific example, Vista does not disable S/PDIF pass-through.
this does not have ANYTHING to do with media, let alone "DRM encumbered media." this is a case of hardware being crippled at an OS level to prevent DRM circumvention. i wrote a song for you to explain the whole thing called "FUD me? FUD you!" but i must have saved the raw audio file as "DRM encumbered" because vista wont let me play that thru spdif either.
Vista will not magically add DRM to content that does not have it - the usage (or not) of DRM to restrict output is wholely and solely in the hands of a) the application and b) the content producer.
Slashdot Mirror
But 10/100 only for a media centre?
What's the point of anything faster for an appliance that doesn't do anything except stream video ? Heck, a media centre could damn near get away with only 10baseT.
If Mac OS X is truly the foundation of the iPhone, buggy apps shouldn't be able to do the things you and Steve are warning against. Stability of the phone or network shouldn't be jeopardized by renegade user-installed applications because the OS and the networking protocol should lock them down to acceptable behavior.
Where do you get that idea from ?
That argument makes no sense. If a poorly written application running on one mobile phone has the potential to bring down the west coast network then logically a malicous hacker should be able to bring down that same network.
The concern isn't a rogue application on _one_ mobile, it's a rogue application on ten million of them.
Folks, it's time to get it through your heads. Guess what the most amazing interfaces (and I'm not an apple or MS fanboy) are developed on today? UNIX - I'm talking about the Apple OS X and iPod interfaces.
Except it's not the UNIXness that makes OS X interesting, nor enables or encourages its "innovation".
"OS X" could just have easily (and even likely) have been sitting on top of BeOS or Windows NT, and would *still* have been the platform it is today.
I'm glad someone mentioned BSD because with BSD a company can just take *your* hard work and say screw you.
No, they can't. Clearly, you understand neither the spirit and intent, nor actual implications, of the BSDL.
The code you release under the BSDL is, and always will be, available under the BSDL. Someone else can only "take your hard work and screw you" if they add some "hard work" of their own.
Contrast to the GPL, which requires you give away your "hard work", even if the GPLed code you're using is but a miniscule fraction of your project.
It boils down to this: The BSDL exists to keep *your code* "free". The GPL exists to impose "freedom" on *other people's* code.
So now the answer to why the free-desktop developers are wedded to Linux: we got screwed before that's why.
Free-desktop developers are "wedded" to Linux because it's the Windows of the unix world.
Apple has taken the other way. Add functionality to existing devices that sorta fulfills a purpose. Then make a device specifically designed for the purpose. Later add functions in subsequent iterations. Look at the AppleTV. It's not a computer. You can't use it as such.
The trouble with the AppleTV is it's not really, well, anything. It's basically a portal to the iTunes Store, and that's all (which is great if you get all your entertainment from the iTunes Store - but how many people really do that, especially over the age of, say, 25 ?). IMHO (and I may well end up being wrong), all most people are going to see it as is another box to connect to the TV, another remote control to keep track of and a lot of money for something that doesn't really do much they can't already do.
IMHO, the "killer feature" of MCE is that it consolidates just about every function you'd want to have coming through your TV into a single box (and a single remote !).
(Then there's the whole "WTF ! Only 720p ?" issue, but I digress.)
I really think the AppleTV is a solution in search of a problem.
You obviously don't understand the market this is aimed at. Anyone who knows how to do this will DO this, but for my money, the convenience of having a device that JUST carries anything in my iTunes library over to my TV with ease is perfect for my needs. I have a Core 2 Duo Mac to do my ripping and buying of music. I just want something easy to watch the movies I buy and rip on my TV without having to mess with too many extras.
Won't a $20 cable and Front Row let you do that ?
What I don't get is why these devices have to "like" a certain media at all. The AppleTV likes Apple-friendly MP4. The Xbox 360 likes WMV. Or you need third party software to transcode. Processing power required for any modern codec isn't an issue. Is it licensing costs that limit the amount of codec support? Pressure to include/account for DRM?
For the AppleTV, it's because Apple sells "MP4" media. The AppleTV is a portal into the iTune store that you plug into your TV. It's not an alternative to MCE or MCE Extenders like the XBox360 (or, if it is, it's a woefully inadequate one).
For Windows MCE, your criticism doesn't really hold, because you can install whatever codecs you want and MCE will use them (the reason why Microsoft only supports their own codecs out of the box should be pretty obvious).
I must admit I think Apple has missed the target badly with the AppleTV. It doesn't really _do_ all that much (and costs a lot for that small amount of functionality), it's yet another box to find space (and inputs) for and yet another remote control to keep track of. I cannot see my parents being interested in something of such limited functionality, for example, whereas I *can* see them being interested in an of-the-shelf MCE box that replaces their Digital TV receiver, Satellite TV receiver, PVR and DVD player with a *single box* and *single remote*, while also giving them easy access to streaming content from the web and (possible) movies stored on a home server somewhere (admittedly that last one is probably a stretch for my parents).
I would certainly not consider an AppleTV to replace my Mac Mini running MCE - precisely because the main reason I went the MCE route was to consolidate all the functionality i want into a single box.
How expensive would it be to make a little set top box with computer guts, 512MB of flash storage, and a DVD drive? With economies of scale, I'd bet that it could be done for a cost of under 50 $USD.
How much it costs to make and how much it costs to buy are only very loosely connected.
I don't have the background to engineer a device like that, but I know from seeing XMBC on an original Xbox that it would be stupid simple on today's hardware. Hell, the Xbox with XBMC can do 720 by 480, and it wasn't even designed for it! Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo each had a chance with their consoles to strike a major blow to the others with this unencumbered capability and each of them missed it.
On the contrary, I think Windows MCE+Windows Home Server[+XBox360] is going to see a _huge_ amount of growth over the next 1 - 2 years. I don't think Microsoft have missed that opportunity in the slightest.
I have a feeling that while Microsoft, Apple, Sony, and media companies are all squabbling over how to play protected content or leveraging another type of business, a Chinese, Korean, or Taiwanese company will deliver a cheap little codec-agnostic device that does all this, and all other crippled devices and services will be made irrelevant.
Such a device will not succeed because there will be no official content for it (well, not from any major publishers anyway).
Look, no-one outside of Slashdot cares about DRM (yet). It's *not* anything the average consumer will perceive as a disadvantage, because (assuming they even know what it is) a) it's not particularly intrusive for most and b) the alternative is not having any content *at all*.
Is this site a lie?
No.
However, you need to read about the architecture of NT to understand why it's irrelevant.
[...] this artical only references one of many deals made that year.
Microsoft certainly owned _some_ Apple stock, but they came nowhere near "a substantial share".
I remeber the SEC going over every penny making sure that all the transactions were legal. Microsoft also did a coulple other things in good faith that year becasue it was in deep poo poo, and around the time microsoft monopoly ruling. and wanted it to look like apple was a viable competitor, [...]
In the context of the anti-trust case, Microsoft and Apple were not competitors - so it wouldn't have mattered a whit how well (or badly) they were doing.
[...] which at the time apples market share was a joke, as was its balance sheet. (no offense to you mac people, PLEASE REALIZE THIS IS NOLOGER THE CASE, just stating facts to the best of my recolection) Im actually impressed that i remembered this 10 years later, wow.
At the time of Microsoft's $150 million investment (in non-voting stock), Apple had over a billion dollars *in cash* available. The suggestions that Microsoft "bailed Apple out" are ridiculous on their face - it was widely considered to be an unofficial payoff for Apple to drop their ongoing legal matters against Microsoft (ironic that Apple's subsequently soaring stock price probably made Microsoft quite a bit of money).
It is not really a conspiracy but a well known fact that they do not publish large portions of their api's.
You are wrong.
This fact has been brought up in court numerous times.
Cite some examples.
Just recently they tried to hold back the security api until it became public they where doing so.
This is not correct.
If it was just a conspiracy they would not be having to produce a actual published api for the EU.
The EU has asked for documentation of protocols, not APIs.
I dont know if you remember, but at one point microsoft owned a substantial share of apples stock [...]
No, they didn't.
Interestingly enough, with a little planning and having some statically linked binaries around (like busybox) you can actually recover from this live on a linux system.
I have to question how "live" such a system would _actually_ be.
Try removing the equivalent under windows and recovering without a reboot.
I think it's pretty safe to say the "equivalent" would nuke the vast majority of unix machines beyond any hope of quick and easy recovery. You, yourself, indicate it needs "planning" to be able to do.
Fundamentally, if you have a service that requires 24/7 availability but is impacted by a server failure - be it from hardware failure or sysadmin butterfingers - then you have a broken architecture.
I'm more concerned about the people who wish to skulk around society without being seen or leaving footprint. I don't see this as impacting free speech/press/right to protest/etc. Which would make me concerned.
Anonymity is a fundamental building block of democracy, free speech and free society in general. When you can be quickly and easily identified, without your consent and knowledge, you have no anonymity.
You are labouring under the misapprehension that the law - and its enforcers - is/are inherently objective, free from corruption, thorough and never wrong.
In case you haven't noticed, the current Apple OS is BSD.
No, it's not. *Parts* of it are BSD, but pretty much all of the parts that actually make OS X interesting and useful, are not. Further, the fact that some parts are BSDL code, has little bearing on most people's decision to use OS X.
Justice Thomas Penfield Jackson decided Microsoft was a monopoly, and that they had "taken actions to crush threats to the monopoly." His ruling was that Microsoft be split into an operating system division and a division for everything else. Microsoft appealed and under the pro business Bush admin. the DOJ dropped it's case.
Of course, the utter practical impossibility of making such a split probably had no influence at all on that decision (not to mention monumental stupidity of having the courts define what is and isn't part of an "operating system")...
Trust me this has been proven, and know what you are talking about the next time you question me.
The anti-trust case had no interest in how Microsoft acquired its market dominating position, merely what it did with it afterwards.
I think he's referring to the anti-trust cases Microsoft has been in.
Then he'll probably be disappointed to know they don't support his position.
It's been proven that Microsoft has dominated the market not by creating a superior product, but by superior (often times unethical) business practices.
Where ?
Windows XP systems, yes. Not Win9x.
A pertinent fact, because it supports the argument that an Operating System's security (from a design and implementation perspective) and its "security record" do not necessarily share a causative relationship.
In addition, in server space the numbers are much more even, and Apache/Unix servers outnumber Windows/IIS servers. Yet all the server malware is for Windows NT-based servers and not Apache/Unix based servers.
You appear to be changing the rules halfway through your comparison.
Does this mean the main stream is finally (slowly) catching on to the reality of choices?
No, it means the choices are catching on to the reality of being mainstream.
It would make my day if the world would wake up and realize that they have options when they sit down in front of a computer.
It would make my day if the world woke up and started using their computers in a safe fashion - and have much the same end result, as well.
I'd say that post wasn't very eloquent but it's true.
It's not true, and that person isn't very eloquent because their bias clouds their ability to think rationally.
Which brings me to the link you posted....
Of the things to become "hopelessly mired" in, I can't see how "rationalisation" would be one to be particularly ashamed of.
Marketshare is an intrinsic and inescapable aspect of "security" - at least in the way Slashdot defines "security". To argue otherwise requires the abandonment of intelligence, common sense, basic mathematical knowledge and rational thought in favour of the "Microsoft sucks" groupthink most Slashdotters wear as a badge of honour.
If you're not smart enough to realize that modern Unices are more secure by design you haven't actually looked into things.
"Modern unixes" (by which, I'm assuming, you're referring to implementations like SE Linux) are a vanishingly small proportion of installations - properly configured ones even more so. The vast, vast majority of unix machines do not take meaningful advantage of functionality like SE Linux, nor are they likely to any time soon.
Nimda attacked Microsoft Windows servers. There is no equivalent to Nimda for Apache/Unix servers even though Apache/Unix servers are more common than Windows servers.
Nimda attacked *all* Windows machines - and there are a hell of a lot more of them on the internet than there are of anything else. Additionally, IIRC, it was also exploiting holes that had already been patched.
I have long felt that athiesm is just another religion. It's a belief in an unprovable truth. Some have faith there IS a god, some have faith there is NOT a god.
Whoa there, tiger. Equating the attitude that there is no god because there isn't even a decent *theoretical argument* - let alone observable evidence - to support its existence, with religion, is a grossly incorrect abuse of the word "faith".
There is no "faith" required to be atheist.
Control + Click is the same thing as right-clicking with a mouse, and that has been true since pre-OS X days.
To the application, yes.
To the user, no (which is the point).
well, i guess i'll paraphrase my previous post, since you didnt read it. vista does not allow you to use lossless high-quality audio passthru like spdif of digital.
I did read your post. You are wrong. To counter your specific example, Vista does not disable S/PDIF pass-through.
this does not have ANYTHING to do with media, let alone "DRM encumbered media." this is a case of hardware being crippled at an OS level to prevent DRM circumvention. i wrote a song for you to explain the whole thing called "FUD me? FUD you!" but i must have saved the raw audio file as "DRM encumbered" because vista wont let me play that thru spdif either.
Vista will not magically add DRM to content that does not have it - the usage (or not) of DRM to restrict output is wholely and solely in the hands of a) the application and b) the content producer.