The new panasonic plasmas coming out later this year will do 1080p from 50 inches up. The bigger question is is if the HDMI connectors are v1.3, which will accept 1080p input. Current HDMI won't (1080i max). I'm guessing they will include 1.3, but it hasn't been confirmed yet.
Given the quality of the scalers in most good plasmas (panasonic, fujitsu, pioneer, etc), it's almost impossible to tell the difference between 1080i and 720p.
So, now we're adding another cost to "free" software. Bandwidth costs. If I install server software with this clause, I have to pay for the bandwidth people use to download it. Wonderful. (And yes, I know the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer. But let's be honest, most people use gpl code because it's free as in beer.) I hope linux doesn't add this clause, because that'd be a fun download to pay for.
I'm also sure the network admins are going to love having to open up an extra port through firewalls and VPNs (maybe) so that my GPL3 server code can have its download code available. Which I'm sure will be secure. Oh wait, I should look at the code to audit it? Well, that costs money too. "waaah, you should be doing that anyway." well, yes, but now you just added another vector of attack to audit and lock down. anyway you look at it, it's an increased cost.
This just opens up a can of worms. Just some quick, off the top of my head problems:
1. If I have a 20 server cluster running, do they all need download points, or just one? 2. If I limit downloads, am I violating the not modifying download clause? Have fun quantifying this one. 3. Now we'll have to distinguish between GPL2, GPL3 w/download, and GPL3 w/o download. Joy. Esp explaining that up the chain. 4. As above, "required" download ports or urls or any other mechanism are not going to sit well with security and network folks. Esp. when this server software might be behind several layers of security. Yes, even for a public site. Think a database server feeding a website. Or does that apply? Who knows? 5. Two projects with download clauses are merged (say, a server and a plugin for that server). Two ports? If I merge them (if that's even possible), am I violating?
All I see this doing is adding massive uncertainty, additional costs, and driving down the popularity of GPL licenses and software. It's a hard sell as it is now in corporate circles. Plus MS will just love this. Look how hard it is to get rid of the infected/viral meme. This will be worse.
Noir by K.W. Jeter is an interesting future mystery novel where the protagonist is an IP cop. Has a pretty gruesome penalty:
From an amazon reviewer:
"The penalty for selling someone else's intellectual property in Jeter's world is to have one's brain and spinal cord forcefully removed and placed on life support. The offender's still-living, still-aware neural tissue is then used to make stereo cables or to control small household appliances for the personal amusement of the artist or author that was wronged."
Obviously not what we have here, but maybe a cautionary tale, in the vein of 1984 and a brave new world. The rest of the book isn't bad either, sort of a film noir book merged with bladerunner...
I don't understand the distinction of development shops. If anything, developers are less tolerant of poorly performing tools than consumers, at least in my experience...
I think Apple will be trying hard over the next couple of years to push into Hollywood, with servers and renderfarms. Who know what negotiations will result in? Remember, margins on those big servers are much higher than iMac of the week to cheap-ass consumers.
Here's a link on porting Java apps to Mac OS X, eg, menu bar issues, tweaks that don't break cross-platform compatibility but help the Mac experience. Pretty good.
Perfomance wise, it's pretty snappy. On Mac OS X, the initial startup is somewhat slow, but only if you haven't started a JVM previously. Subsequent startups are quite quick.
Looks like it's a subscription model, but you can run it offline.
Has a ton of open source tools packaged up and ready to install natively on Mac OS X. Not limited to GNU, as I saw Tomcat, PostgreSQL, Python etc. on the software list
You know, stuff like this will keep getting passed until several (hundred) congresspeople wake up and find that their bank accounts have been cleaned out, and their credit cards maxed out, because you can buy anyone's personal info for $39.95.
Slashdot Mirror
The new panasonic plasmas coming out later this year will do 1080p from 50 inches up. The bigger question is is if the HDMI connectors are v1.3, which will accept 1080p input. Current HDMI won't (1080i max). I'm guessing they will include 1.3, but it hasn't been confirmed yet.
Given the quality of the scalers in most good plasmas (panasonic, fujitsu, pioneer, etc), it's almost impossible to tell the difference between 1080i and 720p.
So, now we're adding another cost to "free" software. Bandwidth costs. If I install server software with this clause, I have to pay for the bandwidth people use to download it. Wonderful. (And yes, I know the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer. But let's be honest, most people use gpl code because it's free as in beer.) I hope linux doesn't add this clause, because that'd be a fun download to pay for.
I'm also sure the network admins are going to love having to open up an extra port through firewalls and VPNs (maybe) so that my GPL3 server code can have its download code available. Which I'm sure will be secure. Oh wait, I should look at the code to audit it? Well, that costs money too. "waaah, you should be doing that anyway." well, yes, but now you just added another vector of attack to audit and lock down. anyway you look at it, it's an increased cost.
This just opens up a can of worms. Just some quick, off the top of my head problems:
1. If I have a 20 server cluster running, do they all need download points, or just one?
2. If I limit downloads, am I violating the not modifying download clause? Have fun quantifying this one.
3. Now we'll have to distinguish between GPL2, GPL3 w/download, and GPL3 w/o download. Joy. Esp explaining that up the chain.
4. As above, "required" download ports or urls or any other mechanism are not going to sit well with security and network folks. Esp. when this server software might be behind several layers of security. Yes, even for a public site. Think a database server feeding a website. Or does that apply? Who knows?
5. Two projects with download clauses are merged (say, a server and a plugin for that server). Two ports? If I merge them (if that's even possible), am I violating?
All I see this doing is adding massive uncertainty, additional costs, and driving down the popularity of GPL licenses and software. It's a hard sell as it is now in corporate circles. Plus MS will just love this. Look how hard it is to get rid of the infected/viral meme. This will be worse.
http://macwindows.com/
Their articles are pretty good (right sidebar).
http://afp548.com/
It's a great site with lots of very informative, down and dirty technical articles. They also have a forum where you can post questions.
The same guys produce some utilities designed to make VPN and DNS easier...
From an amazon reviewer: "The penalty for selling someone else's intellectual property in Jeter's world is to have one's brain and spinal cord forcefully removed and placed on life support. The offender's still-living, still-aware neural tissue is then used to make stereo cables or to control small household appliances for the personal amusement of the artist or author that was wronged."
Obviously not what we have here, but maybe a cautionary tale, in the vein of 1984 and a brave new world. The rest of the book isn't bad either, sort of a film noir book merged with bladerunner...
another excellent resource for mac os x admins
http://afp548.com.
Lots of great articles/software.
I especially like their ipsec articles and software (flying raccoon articles, vaporsec)
As for free software in java, try looking at all the serverside tools.
jakarta
jboss
(and about a million other projects...)
for client developer tools
tigris
I don't understand the distinction of development shops. If anything, developers are less tolerant of poorly performing tools than consumers, at least in my experience...
Intellij IDEA
I love apple as much as anyone else, but don't forget Firewire has copy protection built in. Maybe not thanks to apple, but who knows...
5C and Firewire
Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP)
I think Apple will be trying hard over the next couple of years to push into Hollywood, with servers and renderfarms. Who know what negotiations will result in? Remember, margins on those big servers are much higher than iMac of the week to cheap-ass consumers.
And how many CDs have you bought where you like all the songs? Right...
I figure I'd spend about $2-$5 for CD's in my collection, on average. Maybe more in "best-of" compliations.
I'd be happy to have this choice...
--pete
mp3.com has a preview stream, if you'd like to listen to it first...
Here's a link on porting Java apps to Mac OS X, eg, menu bar issues, tweaks that don't break cross-platform compatibility but help the Mac experience. Pretty good.
Thinkfree.com
Release Notes, with lots of info.
Perfomance wise, it's pretty snappy. On Mac OS X, the initial startup is somewhat slow, but only if you haven't started a JVM previously. Subsequent startups are quite quick.
Looks like it's a subscription model, but you can run it offline.
I've seen this demoed at java one this week. Looks cool. Runs on java...
--pete
Has a ton of open source tools packaged up and ready to install natively on Mac OS X. Not limited to GNU, as I saw Tomcat, PostgreSQL, Python etc. on the software list
Morons.
Here