unitron wrote: "Iran and China I don't know that much about. Don't like what I hear on the news about their governments, though."
This is the most important aspect of the argument to me, unitron. People disarmed by law don't have much say against their government. China makes a good example of this -- until Chinese people can freely speak your mind, publish a newspaper, criticize the government, not to mention live freely in other ways, at least.
More people have been killed by their own governments in this century than have been killed by gun accidents or criminal attacks. Saying that someone else said it doesn't make it true, but I agree with the reasoning in this quote I found on Eric Raymond's gun page:
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
Thoughts,
timothy
p.s. For now, plenty of gun-bearing Americans continue to hold the government of/this/ country (since that's where I'm writing from) at least partly in check. The more the merrier.;)
You wrote: "Anywhere on EARTH where it still matters" is INCLUSIVE rather than EXCULSIVE. We Americans may be many things, but so far I don't hear any of us laying claims to the Aurora Borealis (heck, most of us have never seen one). We also apparently don't have a monopoly on arrogance and bigotry."
Like you say, I was trying to be inclusive. This came in the inbox last evening, and was raised again on IRC -- late last night;) I posted it quickly in the hopes that people on earth -- all of it!=) -- who still had nighttime could go and check it out.
Then again, I hope the objections were trolls anyhow.
Rombuu wrote "..if you were a) motivated and b) technically inclined enough to do this, would you be using Apple hardware in the first place?"
Well, conceivably, sure!
No one will deny that Apple has made some stinkers, but they also have a pretty good record (compared to most computer companies) at making well-crafted products.
It's not my primary computer any more, but I do have a happily functioning SE/30 on my island of desks, and have always thought of it as one the coolest machines I've ever seen. What it does, it does very nicely.
And I've seen few PC cases as easy to work with as the G3 case, or the swing-out-side PowerMac case of a few years ago (I forget the model name). Not my aesthetics quite, but installing a new drive in a G3 is much nicer than taking apart / cutting fingers on most cases.
If you or your parents etc are / were late-hippy types, I think you can find the story reprinted in the 1980 or 86 Whole Earth Catalog.
There's also a strange film I've seen about a teacher who wanted to demonstrate the power of conformity etc by telling her kids that everyone with blue eyes was superior to those without out -- and the kids rigidly enforced this "truth." When the teacher revealed that she'd been 'wrong' and really it's the blue-eyes who were inferior, all the non-blues were quick to prove that this, too, was true.
Cycon wrote: "The more corporate-oriented distributions will quite likely wait until 2.4 has had a chance to stabelize a bit longer, especially the distributions targetted at servers - Redhat for instance, and probably Caldera and Corel as well."
True enough -- some distribs. do emphasize stability over speed, and Mandrake is a good example of one that will probably feature New Toy X first. I probably should have said something like "I hope that at least/some/ distributions make his estimate conservative" or similar.
Periscope wrote: "Yes, in fact there are DVD players available for Linux. I contacted/. a couple of months ago regarding the upcoming LinDVD software DVD player from Intervideo and they finally ran the story the other day:-) Anyway, the LinDVD software player was demonstrated at CEBIT several months ago and people reprted that it was very good.So this is not "vaporware" but rather "betaware" in that it exists and has been demonstrated but will not be released for a couple of months."
I wouldn't call it available if it won't be out for months. =) Promising, exciting, hope-inspiring, maybe -- but available is when someone can download (or walk into CompUSA or wherever), install, and play.
"It's no exaggeration to say that a lot of hardware sales have been because Windows does not take advantage of hardware the way that Linux and other UNIX variants do"
"No, not an exaggeration. Just an indication of how little you know about the reasons people have for purchasing newer hardware."
Well, one reason people purchase new hardware is to use it for a webserver; if they're running any current Microsoft OS, that means they're running uneccessary overhead. How significant that is depends on their use. Everyone's MMV =)
And I know that my Pentium 100 runs slackware with X a lot nicer and smoother than it does Win98.
Zagato-sama wrote: "I'm curious, why is it that whenever someone does muster up the courage to say something mildly positive about Microsoft, they follow it up with "I don't want to sound like a MS flunk/supporter/etc" ?"
Well, if you mean me, I think you mischaracterize me! =) I'm not apologizing, only saying that I have mixed feelings on the overall 'issue' of Microsoft. Linux has been my primary desktop for several years, and Linux is one of the various free or Free choices that the world's Microsoft users have to choose.
That they don't / haven't... well, it's not because of coercion, only (mostly) because sticking with MS offers the path of least resistance, for good and for bad.
Anonymous Coward wrote: "Even if they didn't the US laws apply to any company doing business in the US. So unless Microsoft intended to sell it's products only outside of the US whats the point?"
Hmmm. I have to plead ignorance of how that would work and exactly what the ramifications would be. But I don't think the US refuses allow companies which might be deemed monopolies if they were on US soil to import their products here. Look at OPEC...
Anonymous Coward wrote: "Linux has the inherent advantage that it would be difficult or impossible for it to exercise monopoly power in an anticompetitive way."
This is why I am a big fan of free / Free software:) Linux devpt is anarchistic / synergistic / other-wordistic:) that system is to the advantage of anyone who uses it, or develops it, or is inspired by the success of Linux to dream of and develop the Next Big Computer Thing. The presence and huge growth of Linux is what to me foils most arguments about 'software monopoly' in general though.
A.C. also wrote "Any precedent set by the Microsoft case would be nigh-useless in regulating Linux. Linux [d]evelopment is international anyway; any one country trying to make life difficult for developers would see coordination move outside its jurisdiction."
I've seen the idea floated (here on/. and elsewhere) that MS ought to move to Canada, which has smart folks and, until recently, considerably better laws about the export of cryptographic tools. It's not too far from Redmond, and IMHO the weather is better. I see some good motivations for MS to move their most officious POP to somewhere else, but naturally it'd be a big task to do this. (It's like being an armchair quarterback for a team you're not fond of, and not being much into American football anyhow...)
locust wrote: "I think its more likely that microsoft, beset by a large number of class actions suits will give way to the next 'demon' of the computing industry."
I think this is a good point. People like to have a villain, and Bill Gates (who can come across as smug, complacent and conniving, whether or not these qualities reflect his true nature) has filled that role in the software / business world for a while.
Frankly, I can't think of any great replacements right now. Maybe Jeff Bezos, who has recently patented the business method of "referring to the CEO of a large company as 'The Devil,' 'Lucifer' or any variant of these."
timothy
Moderate parent of this up, please! (Informative)
on
Two By Katz
·
· Score: 2
Zagato-sama wrote: "Revenge against a company that makes software? Oh dear. Move over Hitler, there's a new villain making way. *eyerolls*"
lol!
I think there are legimate gripes with Microsoft, but Zagato-Sama has made a point that doesn't get made enough, except by some very -ahem- 'suspect' sources. Namely, that Microsoft is a company which had made a bunch of "good enough" software for 20 years, put hundreds of thousands of hours and enough money to sink boats into designing interfaces and such, distributed an affordable (or rather, 'more affordable than contemporary competitors') GUI OS, employed thousands of people etc.
There seems to be a frightening smugness in some of the prescriptions that people have for Microsoft -- like being barred from the software industry for "malpractice." Whaaaa?! What if it was you?
The impression that an alien would get reading descriptions of Microsoft in the popular press and esp. on fora like slashdot might be that Microsoft is attacking the people of earth, and that anyone who used windows was doing so drugged and at knifepoint, with gritted teeth, and reaching for the cyanide pill. Nothin' doin' -- people have been using MS for the same reason that (as the saying goes) nobody every got fired for buying IBM -- inertia, laziness, other priorities, or (surely, at least in some cases) preference. Businesses can decide that compatibility with their clients / partners / suppliers is the single most important aspect of an OS. (That's why open file formats are important, and why people should demand them from software providers.)
There is danger is turning over something as important as software to the wisdom of government regulators.
Just thoughts,
timothy
p.s. I feel like Bruce Perens right now. Not that he'd agree with me, just that my wrists hurt from typing so much.
RayChuang wrote (in part): "You reap what you sow. You have just set back the computer industry six years or more as we have just set the stage for the 'balkanization' of the computer industry with multiple competing standards."
I disagree with the thrust of this claim. And I am *not* in favor of breaking up MS -- making me probably a minority both as a slashdot reader and slashdot author, though I've not seen any real poll data;) -- but not for this reason. In fact, I think a flood of competing 'standards' (none of which is truly fixed, perfect or universally accepted) is the best thing that could happen to the computer industry, and the thing which is most harmful about Microsoft's market dominance.
Why? Because a robust marketplace of ideas is anything but abstract in the computer world. Ideas in the form of bits really are competing for acceptance, based on the interaction of human prejudices, interface, capabilities, availability.
There are simultaneous upheavals in the hardware world as well as the software world -- and not just whether chips are 32 or 64 bits, or whether they take RAMBUS memory. The whole idea of what computers are for, whether they ought to be special-purpose or general (and as part of this, whether the processing power that defines the abstract "computer" available to a given person / organization ought to be distributed or all in one place) is still up in the air.
We could 'standardize' on something -- new law passed tomorrow says "You may only use MS Windows 2000, rev 2 or below" -- but that's not how a free market works, or ought to. Standards shift, mindsets change, the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Sure, the software environment will affect the hardware environment, but in the case of OSes running on commodity hardware (as is the case with Linux, the various BSDs, Be, Solaris and others*), why should a breakup of MS per se have an effect on hardware sales? It could go/either way/ is all I'm saying. It's no exaggeration to say that a lot of hardware sales have been because Windows does not take advantage of hardware the way that Linux and other UNIX variants do.
Just thoughts,
timothy
*I'm ignoring the other processors these can run on only because they're not germane to this line of reasoning.
MaxwellSilverHammer wrote: "Be, Inc. clearly does not hold a monopoly on Intel/AMD/et al. based PCs. There is a big difference."
Does Microsoft?
And even if they did (which I deny, and it would be easy enough to list a bunch of the entrants which prove the point), ought not the same rules apply to firms in the same line of business? If not, some firms would be favored over others by the government, and that seems wrong to me.
If Linux and MS were reversed in marketshare (as I think they concievably could be 8 or 10 years from now), couldn't MS complain that their market position is being hurt because the competition is giving away what they'd like to sell? I ask seriously -- what precendent do you want set?
mudshark wrote: "It's pretty trivial for a DAW to do this. All you need is to produce a sum of the M (omni) signal and the S (figure eight with null axis directed at the source) signal. That's one channel. Now do a difference of the two signals, and that's the other channel. Voila, M-S stereo."
Yes, I know what needs to be done; I'm just wondering if there is software running under Linux which does this. (Does slab?)
thanks for further opening the "what does OSS mean" can of worms;) with the excellent Jecklin Disc page you link to. I'd never heard of these before, though they certainly remind me in concept of various binaural-recording dummy heads.
Does anyone know of a software / hardware combination under Linux or other free OS which allows for this?
Ideally, I would like to make multiple 2-track recordings simultaneously of the same subjects, in order to go back and compare the differences in approach, mic placement, mic type, etc, and M-S is one thing I've heard about but don't have the equipment to do right now.
yankehack wrote (in part): "how else will you motivate companies to act if not for regulation?" I consider regulation the worst possible motivation for companies to act. Officializing all aspects of behavior is what most frightens me about most "moralistic" regulation, which is what I would consider most of the things being considered against Microsoft. (If Microsoft were dumping cancerous substances into drinking water, I'd be all for instant action -- different kind of case.)
"MS isn't exactly encouraging software development or OS deployment for PC component makers unless it is on MS terms. The 'market' isn't a market at all because of the predominance and (not necessarily desire for) but a real need to run the OS on most consumer "magic tv set" desktops."
Let them hand out all the rope they want. If they are unfriendly to hardware developers, there will be (as there has been) a strong movement to make the hardware work with other OSes. And as for magic TV sets, again -- free, open-source stuff seems like a smarter choice. If it is, cool - the companies that use it benefit. If ac company considers proprietary stuff (from MS or someone else) to be the better choice, fine -- let them. They will have to eat the fruit of their choices.
"And it is pretty clear that this situation, no matter how much we want it to, will change anytime soon. "
I dunno - I think the overall change in the last three years alone has been incredibly positive. For the small- and medium-sized server market, where is Linux now compared to that long ago, and where is Windows? Apache runs more than MS's competitor or anything else. I think it credits MS too much to believe that their preponderance means a monopoly.
"Additionally, what do you propose for the companies whose innovations are being stifled because of MS marketshare? (READ:NETSCAPE) Don't just tell me that you expect them to just develop for Linux and the slashdot crowd."
I don't propose anything at all!:) Only freedom to release software that is good, bad, or indifferent -- and flourish, die or stagnate as fate allows. (Looking forward to Netscape 6, for instance.)
timothy
p.s. On the other hand, there are some aspects of the economy which are clearly/not/ "free markets" -- like the huge waste pit that is government spending in general. Since those are our tax dollars (no matter what country you live in) at play, it is important there that factors other than the inertia of market dominance govern purchasing behavior. That's where regulation and oversight makes some sense to me.
After all, anyone who maintains a certain operating system in their organization in order to ensure compatibility with a government agency which also uses it must be a little puzzled by the one-hand-doesn't-know-the-other actions of the Justice Department and the FTC.
"The Future and Its Enemies", by Virginia (Postrel)?
(And "Atlas Shrugged," of course.;) )
The trouble with regulation is that no matter how well intentioned, it bears unintended consequences. Limiting the extent and nature of voluntary transactions is bad in the long term for all involved, and for opening up possibilities which might make any of today's companies obsolete.
Offializing Microsoft's market position with regulations which specify on a pretty micro-level "You can step only onto this line... you can bundle only certain hardware with your OS... an 'OS' officially consists only of these elements (etc)" will hurt other companies in aggregate more than it would ever help Microsoft customers.
Actually, now I am secretly glad I didn't try to "correct" the England part;) all these other posts are revealing intricacies I didn't know about re. Scottish vs. English vs. Berwick Upen Tweed (wherever that may be!). Now I'm sorry I even put UK in the head! Sheesh...
maznaz wrote: " this ruling affects the UK so go England is hardly appropriate, I'm sure the poster knows the difference betweent the UK and England but a lot of idnorant people read these articles."
I left the original poster's comment intact, but I did put UK in the head. You're right though; so I hope your post gets bumped up as informative / insightful.
1) I wrote and posted the article. I hope Rob likes it, but I have no telepathic link to him. No one at VA knows me in particular, or how to reach me any better than the rest of the world does, since my email address is public knowledge.
2) Related to that last part, it would be pretty hard (and silly) for slashdot to ignore things that are related to VA Linux. The fact is, like Red Hat (and General Motors, and the Crips), VA does a lot of stuff. If we did ignore anything related to VA, it would mean not talking about projected hosted by sourceforge, or about VA buying other companies, for good or for ill.
See conspiracies where you will, of course, but q) bad-mouthing Rob really doesn't make sense here that I can see and w) our story choices aren't perfect, but they're hardly made by puppetmaster VA evil geniuses.
Thanks for considering,
timothy
MPAA's VP of Public Relations says: Sigma
on
Protesting DMCA
·
· Score: 5
I talked to Rich Taylor, the VO of PR for the MPAA (say that fast!), and he said that there is a "correctly" licensed DVD player for Linux from Sigma.
He seemed unsure about availability, though, and promised to send me more information. He forwarded to me a press release, which can be found on the Web at:
It says, in part:Sigma Designs, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIGM), a recognized leader in digital video solutions, announced today that it will add Linux support to its new REALmagicâ NetStreamÔ 2000 card and EM8400 progressive MPEG-2/DVD decoder chip."
The Sigma Website, however, still says such support is coming "soon."
The company, and their plans to release a Linux DVD player, have been discussed here on slashdot before.
Slashdot Mirror
"Iran and China I don't know that much about. Don't like what I hear on the news about their governments, though."
This is the most important aspect of the argument to me, unitron. People disarmed by law don't have much say against their government. China makes a good example of this -- until Chinese people can freely speak your mind, publish a newspaper, criticize the government, not to mention live freely in other ways, at least.
More people have been killed by their own governments in this century than have been killed by gun accidents or criminal attacks. Saying that someone else said it doesn't make it true, but I agree with the reasoning in this quote I found on Eric Raymond's gun page:
-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
Thoughts,
timothy
p.s. For now, plenty of gun-bearing Americans continue to hold the government of
You wrote: "Anywhere on EARTH where it still matters" is INCLUSIVE rather than EXCULSIVE. We Americans
may be many things, but so far I don't hear any of us laying claims to the Aurora Borealis (heck, most of us have never seen one). We also apparently don't have a monopoly on arrogance and bigotry."
Like you say, I was trying to be inclusive. This came in the inbox last evening, and was raised again on IRC -- late last night;) I posted it quickly in the hopes that people on earth -- all of it!=) -- who still had nighttime could go and check it out.
Then again, I hope the objections were trolls anyhow.
Cordially,
timothy
Rombuu wrote "..if you were a) motivated and b) technically inclined enough to do this, would you be using Apple hardware in the first place?"
... errr, yeah.
Well, conceivably, sure!
No one will deny that Apple has made some stinkers, but they also have a pretty good record (compared to most computer companies) at making well-crafted products.
And as the article emmett posted the other day pointed out, the Airport is really just some COTS parts stuck together handily, and at not a bad price for the convenience.
It's not my primary computer any more, but I do have a happily functioning SE/30 on my island of desks, and have always thought of it as one the coolest machines I've ever seen. What it does, it does very nicely.
And I've seen few PC cases as easy to work with as the G3 case, or the swing-out-side PowerMac case of a few years ago (I forget the model name). Not my aesthetics quite, but installing a new drive in a G3 is much nicer than taking apart / cutting fingers on most cases.
So
timothy
If you or your parents etc are / were late-hippy types, I think you can find the story reprinted in the 1980 or 86 Whole Earth Catalog.
There's also a strange film I've seen about a teacher who wanted to demonstrate the power of conformity etc by telling her kids that everyone with blue eyes was superior to those without out -- and the kids rigidly enforced this "truth." When the teacher revealed that she'd been 'wrong' and really it's the blue-eyes who were inferior, all the non-blues were quick to prove that this, too, was true.
Anyone know the name of that one?
timothy
Cycon wrote: "The more corporate-oriented distributions will quite likely wait until 2.4 has had a chance to stabelize a bit longer, especially the distributions targetted at servers - Redhat for instance, and probably Caldera and Corel as well."
/some/ distributions make his estimate conservative" or similar.
True enough -- some distribs. do emphasize stability over speed, and Mandrake is a good example of one that will probably feature New Toy X first. I probably should have said something like "I hope that at least
timothy
Periscope wrote:
"Yes, in fact there are DVD players available for Linux. I contacted
I wouldn't call it available if it won't be out for months. =) Promising, exciting, hope-inspiring, maybe -- but available is when someone can download (or walk into CompUSA or wherever), install, and play.
timothy
... yes, but "while no one was watching"?!
...
Actually, there were only a few comments at the time, I thought it was better to do it than ignore it.
It was my fault. Sorry for any inconvenience
timothy
"No, not an exaggeration. Just an indication of how little you know about the reasons people have for purchasing newer hardware."
Well, one reason people purchase new hardware is to use it for a webserver; if they're running any current Microsoft OS, that means they're running uneccessary overhead. How significant that is depends on their use. Everyone's MMV =)
And I know that my Pentium 100 runs slackware with X a lot nicer and smoother than it does Win98.
Cheers,
timothy
Zagato-sama wrote: "I'm curious, why is it that whenever someone does muster up the courage to say something mildly positive about Microsoft, they follow it up with "I don't want to sound like a MS flunk/supporter/etc" ?"
... well, it's not because of coercion, only (mostly) because sticking with MS offers the path of least resistance, for good and for bad.
Well, if you mean me, I think you mischaracterize me! =) I'm not apologizing, only saying that I have mixed feelings on the overall 'issue' of Microsoft. Linux has been my primary desktop for several years, and Linux is one of the various free or Free choices that the world's Microsoft users have to choose.
That they don't / haven't
my thought,
timothy
Anonymous Coward wrote: "Even if they didn't the US laws apply to any company doing business in the US. So unless Microsoft intended to sell it's products only outside of the US whats the point?"
...
Hmmm. I have to plead ignorance of how that would work and exactly what the ramifications would be. But I don't think the US refuses allow companies which might be deemed monopolies if they were on US soil to import their products here. Look at OPEC
Interesting point, though.
timothy
Anonymous Coward wrote: "Linux has the inherent advantage that it would be difficult or impossible for it to exercise monopoly power in an anticompetitive way."
:) Linux devpt is anarchistic / synergistic / other-wordistic :) that system is to the advantage of anyone who uses it, or develops it, or is inspired by the success of Linux to dream of and develop the Next Big Computer Thing. The presence and huge growth of Linux is what to me foils most arguments about 'software monopoly' in general though.
/. and elsewhere) that MS ought to move to Canada, which has smart folks and, until recently, considerably better laws about the export of cryptographic tools. It's not too far from Redmond, and IMHO the weather is better. I see some good motivations for MS to move their most officious POP to somewhere else, but naturally it'd be a big task to do this. (It's like being an armchair quarterback for a team you're not fond of, and not being much into American football anyhow ...)
This is why I am a big fan of free / Free software
A.C. also wrote "Any precedent set by the Microsoft case would be nigh-useless in regulating Linux. Linux [d]evelopment is international anyway; any one country trying to make life difficult for developers would see coordination move outside its jurisdiction."
I've seen the idea floated (here on
timothy
locust wrote: "I think its more likely that microsoft, beset by a large number of class actions suits will give way to the next 'demon' of the computing industry."
I think this is a good point. People like to have a villain, and Bill Gates (who can come across as smug, complacent and conniving, whether or not these qualities reflect his true nature) has filled that role in the software / business world for a while.
Frankly, I can't think of any great replacements right now. Maybe Jeff Bezos, who has recently patented the business method of "referring to the CEO of a large company as 'The Devil,' 'Lucifer' or any variant of these."
timothy
t
Zagato-sama wrote:
"Revenge against a company that makes software? Oh dear. Move over Hitler, there's a new villain making way. *eyerolls*"
lol!
I think there are legimate gripes with Microsoft, but Zagato-Sama has made a point that doesn't get made enough, except by some very -ahem- 'suspect' sources. Namely, that Microsoft is a company which had made a bunch of "good enough" software for 20 years, put hundreds of thousands of hours and enough money to sink boats into designing interfaces and such, distributed an affordable (or rather, 'more affordable than contemporary competitors') GUI OS, employed thousands of people etc.
There seems to be a frightening smugness in some of the prescriptions that people have for Microsoft -- like being barred from the software industry for "malpractice." Whaaaa?! What if it was you?
The impression that an alien would get reading descriptions of Microsoft in the popular press and esp. on fora like slashdot might be that Microsoft is attacking the people of earth, and that anyone who used windows was doing so drugged and at knifepoint, with gritted teeth, and reaching for the cyanide pill. Nothin' doin' -- people have been using MS for the same reason that (as the saying goes) nobody every got fired for buying IBM -- inertia, laziness, other priorities, or (surely, at least in some cases) preference. Businesses can decide that compatibility with their clients / partners / suppliers is the single most important aspect of an OS. (That's why open file formats are important, and why people should demand them from software providers.)
There is danger is turning over something as important as software to the wisdom of government regulators.
Just thoughts,
timothy
p.s. I feel like Bruce Perens right now. Not that he'd agree with me, just that my wrists hurt from typing so much.
RayChuang wrote (in part): "You reap what you sow. You have just set back the computer industry six years or more as we have just set the stage for the 'balkanization' of the computer industry with multiple competing standards."
/either way/ is all I'm saying. It's no exaggeration to say that a lot of hardware sales have been because Windows does not take advantage of hardware the way that Linux and other UNIX variants do.
I disagree with the thrust of this claim. And I am *not* in favor of breaking up MS -- making me probably a minority both as a slashdot reader and slashdot author, though I've not seen any real poll data;) -- but not for this reason. In fact, I think a flood of competing 'standards' (none of which is truly fixed, perfect or universally accepted) is the best thing that could happen to the computer industry, and the thing which is most harmful about Microsoft's market dominance.
Why? Because a robust marketplace of ideas is anything but abstract in the computer world. Ideas in the form of bits really are competing for acceptance, based on the interaction of human prejudices, interface, capabilities, availability.
There are simultaneous upheavals in the hardware world as well as the software world -- and not just whether chips are 32 or 64 bits, or whether they take RAMBUS memory. The whole idea of what computers are for, whether they ought to be special-purpose or general (and as part of this, whether the processing power that defines the abstract "computer" available to a given person / organization ought to be distributed or all in one place) is still up in the air.
We could 'standardize' on something -- new law passed tomorrow says "You may only use MS Windows 2000, rev 2 or below" -- but that's not how a free market works, or ought to. Standards shift, mindsets change, the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Sure, the software environment will affect the hardware environment, but in the case of OSes running on commodity hardware (as is the case with Linux, the various BSDs, Be, Solaris and others*), why should a breakup of MS per se have an effect on hardware sales? It could go
Just thoughts,
timothy
*I'm ignoring the other processors these can run on only because they're not germane to this line of reasoning.
MaxwellSilverHammer wrote: "Be, Inc. clearly does not hold a monopoly on Intel/AMD/et al. based PCs. There is a big difference."
Does Microsoft?
And even if they did (which I deny, and it would be easy enough to list a bunch of the entrants which prove the point), ought not the same rules apply to firms in the same line of business? If not, some firms would be favored over others by the government, and that seems wrong to me.
If Linux and MS were reversed in marketshare (as I think they concievably could be 8 or 10 years from now), couldn't MS complain that their market position is being hurt because the competition is giving away what they'd like to sell? I ask seriously -- what precendent do you want set?
Just thoughts,
timothy
mudshark wrote: "It's pretty trivial for a DAW to do this. All you need is to produce a sum of the M (omni) signal and the S (figure eight with null axis directed at the source) signal. That's one channel. Now do a difference of the two signals, and that's the other channel. Voila, M-S stereo."
;) with the excellent Jecklin Disc page you link to. I'd never heard of these before, though they certainly remind me in concept of various binaural-recording dummy heads.
Yes, I know what needs to be done; I'm just wondering if there is software running under Linux which does this. (Does slab?)
thanks for further opening the "what does OSS mean" can of worms
timothy
M-S, or Mid-Side, stereo recording is a a really neat way to capture ambience and be able to vary the perception of stereo depth.
Does anyone know of a software / hardware combination under Linux or other free OS which allows for this?
Ideally, I would like to make multiple 2-track recordings simultaneously of the same subjects, in order to go back and compare the differences in approach, mic placement, mic type, etc, and M-S is one thing I've heard about but don't have the equipment to do right now.
Anyone doing this?
timothy
yankehack wrote (in part):
:) Only freedom to release software that is good, bad, or indifferent -- and flourish, die or stagnate as fate allows. (Looking forward to Netscape 6, for instance.)
/not/ "free markets" -- like the huge waste pit that is government spending in general. Since those are our tax dollars (no matter what country you live in) at play, it is important there that factors other than the inertia of market dominance govern purchasing behavior. That's where regulation and oversight makes some sense to me.
"how else will you motivate companies to act if not for regulation?"
I consider regulation the worst possible motivation for companies to act. Officializing all aspects of behavior is what most frightens me about most "moralistic" regulation, which is what I would consider most of the things being considered against Microsoft. (If Microsoft were dumping cancerous substances into drinking water, I'd be all for instant action -- different kind of case.)
"MS isn't exactly encouraging software development or OS deployment for PC component makers unless it is on MS terms. The 'market' isn't a market at all because of the predominance and (not necessarily desire for) but a real need to run the OS on most consumer "magic tv set" desktops."
Let them hand out all the rope they want. If they are unfriendly to hardware developers, there will be (as there has been) a strong movement to make the hardware work with other OSes. And as for magic TV sets, again -- free, open-source stuff seems like a smarter choice. If it is, cool - the companies that use it benefit. If ac company considers proprietary stuff (from MS or someone else) to be the better choice, fine -- let them. They will have to eat the fruit of their choices.
"And it is pretty clear that this situation, no matter how much we want it to, will change anytime soon.
"
I dunno - I think the overall change in the last three years alone has been incredibly positive. For the small- and medium-sized server market, where is Linux now compared to that long ago, and where is Windows? Apache runs more than MS's competitor or anything else. I think it credits MS too much to believe that their preponderance means a monopoly.
"Additionally, what do you propose for the companies whose innovations are being stifled because of MS marketshare? (READ:NETSCAPE) Don't just tell me that you expect them to just develop for Linux and the slashdot crowd."
I don't propose anything at all!
timothy
p.s. On the other hand, there are some aspects of the economy which are clearly
After all, anyone who maintains a certain operating system in their organization in order to ensure compatibility with a government agency which also uses it must be a little puzzled by the one-hand-doesn't-know-the-other actions of the Justice Department and the FTC.
are intrigued by this line of argument:
... you can bundle only certain hardware with your OS ... an 'OS' officially consists only of these elements (etc)" will hurt other companies in aggregate more than it would ever help Microsoft customers.
"The Future and Its Enemies", by Virginia (Postrel)?
(And "Atlas Shrugged," of course.;) )
The trouble with regulation is that no matter how well intentioned, it bears unintended consequences. Limiting the extent and nature of voluntary transactions is bad in the long term for all involved, and for opening up possibilities which might make any of today's companies obsolete.
Offializing Microsoft's market position with regulations which specify on a pretty micro-level "You can step only onto this line
imho,
timothy
Actually, now I am secretly glad I didn't try to "correct" the England part;) all these other posts are revealing intricacies I didn't know about re. Scottish vs. English vs. Berwick Upen Tweed (wherever that may be!). Now I'm sorry I even put UK in the head! Sheesh ...
(But how will this affect my sanchitha?)
timothy
maznaz wrote: " this ruling affects the UK so go England is hardly appropriate, I'm sure the poster knows the difference betweent the UK and England but a lot of idnorant people read these articles."
I left the original poster's comment intact, but I did put UK in the head. You're right though; so I hope your post gets bumped up as informative / insightful.
Cordially,
timothy
A few points for clarity:
1) I wrote and posted the article. I hope Rob likes it, but I have no telepathic link to him. No one at VA knows me in particular, or how to reach me any better than the rest of the world does, since my email address is public knowledge.
2) Related to that last part, it would be pretty hard (and silly) for slashdot to ignore things that are related to VA Linux. The fact is, like Red Hat (and General Motors, and the Crips), VA does a lot of stuff. If we did ignore anything related to VA, it would mean not talking about projected hosted by sourceforge, or about VA buying other companies, for good or for ill.
See conspiracies where you will, of course, but q) bad-mouthing Rob really doesn't make sense here that I can see and w) our story choices aren't perfect, but they're hardly made by puppetmaster VA evil geniuses.
Thanks for considering,
timothy
I talked to Rich Taylor, the VO of PR for the MPAA (say that fast!), and he said that there is a "correctly" licensed DVD player for Linux from Sigma.
He seemed unsure about availability, though, and promised to send me more information. He forwarded to me a press release, which can be found on the Web at:
It says, in part:Sigma Designs, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIGM), a recognized leader in digital video solutions, announced today that it will
add Linux support to its new REALmagicâ NetStreamÔ 2000 card and EM8400 progressive MPEG-2/DVD decoder chip."
The Sigma Website, however, still says such support is coming "soon."
The company, and their plans to release a Linux DVD player, have been discussed here on slashdot before.
It's not a FAQ, but you might want to look at these documents at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
timothy