like I said, I understand the motivations from the "industry" side. I was just wondering more whether there would be a better way to finance TV in this day and age.
The advertising model grew out of specific historic needs. Some of these needs are true today, others are not.
I understand what the industry giants are trying to do... I was thinking more about a pay-for-content (not necessarily pay-per-view) model without advertising. Obviously, many people, including the advertisers themselves, would fight this. Should consumers also fight something like that, too?
I understand the greed motivations of Disney et al in moving towards a charge-for-every-movement-of-a-bit system. I also understand why laws such as the SSSCA/CBDTPA. So, don't jump down my throat for this question.
My question is, essentially, what's wrong with pay per view? I mean, is advertising really a better model for you and I? As viewers, sure we get loads of content for free, but doesn't advertising have it's own effect on the content?
For example, advertisers tend to like shows that are non-controversial (unless it's sensationally controversial, like Temptation Island or The Bachelor) and inoffensive. Regardless of their precise preferences, their preferences tend to more directly impact on what shows make it on the air than our own preferences.
Aside from that, wouldn't it be more efficient for me as a consumer to directly pay the producer of the content?
Anyway, I'm just curious about what people think about this. Is it really better to have an advertising driven TV industry or not?
I read the review, then poked around the gobeProductive online help. It looks like, from the lack of any mention of a TOC. that table of contents is not supported. Which really sucks.
If you're writing a word processor, here is my common-word-features-that-most-other-word-processo rs-mis s-list.:-):
1) TOC generation from heading styles
2) Outline mode (integrated with styles)
Someone once showed me how easy it was to use the outline mode in Word to write a basic outline of your document (just think section titles) and then fill it in. After you've generated the outline, the entries in the outline automatically become section headings, which then are automatically included in generated TOCs.
Awesome feature, which is one of the few reasons I stick with Word if I have windows around (right now, I have VMWare running on my work PC, which is the only place I have a licensed copy of word and windows). I'm seriously considering Word for my iBook, though.:-(
I think OpenOffice does most of this, BTW, so I'm anxiously awaiting the release.
I share your concerns about interoperability and the upgrade cycle. However, this move is a good thing. All the major OSes out there need to think about file systems as more than just a filename and data. This is because humans are capable of doing more than that, and we shouldn't be limited by what computers used to be able to do.
For example, think of a boring filing cabinet. While you can just create dividers and add more filing cabinets, humans do much more than that. For example, at my doctor's office, they color code each folder. In addition, they apply stickers to the tab on the folders for certain indicators (last update of the file by year, insurance type, which doctor I usually see, since there are several there, etc). As a result, simply by scanning the shelves, they can tell a number of things about the files without having to pull them out and open them up.
Same thing about the FS. It would be nice to be able to tell something about the file without having to issue the open call. That's a good thing. Currently, most apps limit themselves to one hint (the extension). What's wrong with more?
Everything you pointed out in your message, while valid questions, are mostly elementary engineering problems. For example, the two file/different extension problem can be solved a number of ways (MacOS already has to deal with this condition, for example).
In the future, it might be better to have RFCs for an new, standard FTP or whatever that allows a metadata section as part of the DATA transfer. This wouldn't be too hard either (HTTP already could get away with this, since you can define whatever headers, more or less, that you want).
The real concern is interoperability. I can imagine a "compatibility mode" for network aware services, like file sharing or FTP/Web, that present file names to the remote user in the old filename.extension format. That's actually almost trivial.
Namesys is already working on reiserfs (which does something similar). BeOS had something similar, too. NTFS already ran into part of the problem (which stream do you want). We shouldn't hold back because it might require some compatibility for a short period...
Realize that I'm a big skeptic when it comes to Microsoft... I'm worried that they won't do anything to help non-Windows interop. But as an idea, I'm all for the updated FS. To borrow your own phrasing, a file is a file, but I want more hints to help user applications like searching through files (how do you know a file contains an ID3 tag?)
Sorry, I should think harder before I post. One reason they might not supply KDE is that it probably has different packaging requirements for the other channels. In other words, the Opera, StarOffice, et al channels all offer packages integrate fairly nicely with GNOME. In other words, paths and installation directories, icons, and that type of thing. It may just mean that they have to modify those packages (in these other channels) to be KDE friendly.
It's not a great reason, but I can see how they may want to focus on one (moving) target instead of two.
You really should email them and ask, though, if you want to see KDE available.
You can find most of the Ximian guys on IRC, or here, for that matter. And I've found them to be very responsive to emails.
Look, you're acting as if I said they were perfect. I never made that claim. The poster I was responding to said that s/he would spend money on a single stop to update everything. I was just pointing out that RedCarpet was closer to that than how he portrayed RC.
I would ask them about KDE and see what they say. The KDE packages are available, BTW, in the RedHat channel, for example, and are kept up to date as RedHat updates them, I think. As a result, I believe you're no worse off than if you used RHN, but you get the other channels, too.:-)
I'm not certain about the last part, because I don't run KDE. But, they do keep the base packages available (updated to the latest versions from RH for your distro version)... easier than rummaging for the CDs if I need a base package.
The only problem I'm seeing right now is that the new RC isn't working once I activated the premium features... have to send an email in.:-( That's disappointing.
Except that Red Carpet does everything you just asked for. I keep ALL my systems up to date via Red Carpet. I *don't* use RHN, and I don't have to hit any other sites for anything else.
RedHat updates? Available. Loki Demos? Available via Red Carpet. StarOffice (with all the configs set up so that Evolution can launch.doc and.ppt files directly into SO)? Available. Opera? Available. The list goes on.
My point is just that you're not just paying for priority access for GNOME updates. You're paying for priority access to whole system updates.
In a way, Ximian is making a meta-distribution, and Red Carpet is what facilitates that... it allows them to add channels that contain most of the major downloads you might be interested in. If you're not interested in a particular app (let's say you don't want to use StarOffice), just unsub that channel.
You should try running it... it's a lot different (better, IMHO) than RHN. That's why I've already signed up.
Does Ford put it's car dealers out of business if they replace the Ford factory special with a Blaupunkt?
When you have a monopoly and threaten resellers with pulling their license, you effectively put them out of business. Replacing the "stereo" as you put it, shouldn't have such dramatic repercussions.
Microsoft did
actually do this to Compaq, all because Compaq removed the IE icon from the desktops on their Presarios. Gateway (see previous link) also had Microsoft withold a license renewal because of ongoing negotiations over whether Gateway could have their products boot directly into a Gateway-customized version of Navigator.
The police will be able to come to your door and demand your electronic wallet. Or in an auto accident, the opposing party can demand it in discovery. Think of the black boxe in your totalled vehicle, now in the possession the insurance company. What if it contained GPS data?
Those aren't privacy rights that you've mentioned above. There is not an obligation for someone to be able to lie to a court order or subpeona. And as a private citizen, you don't have that right. The important thing is that you have control over your data.... when you're faced with a subpeona, you don't really have control over your data, except that you can fight the subpeona.
Your concern seems to be that you should be able to turn off data collection. You should disable the data collection when you don't want a record kept (a.k.a. use cash, or disposable PayPal account, etc.). But having a user-side agent isn't a bad thing.
Really? I don't. People who buy web appliances are people who don't like complicated computers, not people who want access in their kitchen. Web appliances are a good idea, but they are hindered by the way websites all assume you use a computer: and once you've loaded your web appliance with a full keyboard and all the other bits and bobs you need to effectively utilise a PC-optimised site, you may as well be using a computer anyway.
I disagree with part of what you're saying. The issue isn't the current state of web design, it's the cost and infrastructure. The eVilla failed in part because it required an ISP account with some Sony-affiliated ISP... I looked into buying one to hook into my home network and was turned off by that single requirement.
Companies that want to play in this space need to start from the assumption that everyone has broadband, and realize that they're playing in the market of those with broadband. This is because folks with broadband are the ones who start really using the computer as an integrated part of their lives, simply because their connection is always on.
Look at the offerings by Linksys, 3Com, and Orinoco/Lucent. They all have a variety of hub/firewall/residential gateway products out and available. Which means that for an appliance to be successful, it needs to exist with that infrastructure. The eVilla did NOT coexist with that infrastructure at all, which meant it was aimed at a different market.
If you follow the tack I'm taking above, the larger problem is one of cost. eVilla seemed to me to be aimed at those folks without a PC. The points mentioned by others make the problem with this market choice pretty clear: who's going to pay retail for an "appliance" when they can have a "full-fledged computer" (the actual real similarities and differences matter less than perception...). However, I wanted one for my living room that I could flip on like my palm (instant on, check email, shut off) or dreamcast that integrated into my home network. eVilla, IIRC, doesn't have an ethernet jack, and (though I'm not certain about this) doesn't have any expansion that could take a 802.11b card/adapter, either.
Since the eVilla and Audrey all retail for close to the price of a low end computer, it just doesn't make much sense to buy them. If they can drop the retail price to that of a DVD player or VCR, they'll do really well. $100 for an appliance and I might be there.
To go back to your point, it's not about the web content... though it's important, you can check your Hotmail/Netscape Webmail/whatever with most any browser, and read almost all the major sites with any browser out there (with a good experience)... I should know... I use Opera, Mozilla, and Netscape 4.76 on my various Linux boxen, and there are very few sites that things don't work well (and those have been pretty easily corrected with a polite email to the webmaster).
I've always been in favor of something like what Microsoft is branding "Shared Source" for commercial software endeavours. I mean, it makes the most sense in the long run. Companies should be required to release their code for products in order to get any sort of government backed IP protection (copyright and patent but not license based). It makes the most sense from a consumer rights, security, and general innovation perspective. You can see an outline of a paper I started working on at Pseudothought.com regarding this very issue.
There are caveats, of course. The licensing restrictions that apply to shared source are wrong in most cases. As long as I don't turn around and redistribute the software, why should they care if I modify the source and use it in my business or personal use? As long as sufficient licenses are purchased (another controversial issue that I have some thoughts about), they shouldn't care.
The second big caveat is that there needs to be a proper and well known legislative infrastructure in place to support the readers of the source code. Possibly, the same standards that apply to books should apply to source code. In other words, a few sentences that are entirely the same might be ok, but taking entire thoughts (subroutines or algorithsm in source code?) is wrong. Right now, the ambiguity of when Microsoft can sue is a bit chilling. It would be beneficial, IMHO, to have some legislation to make fair use type protections explicit.
This month's wired has a cover story (titled something like "Dear Mr. President, Smart energy is possible" or something similar").
In it they claim that two different groups of auto manufacturers have pledged a billion dollars each for fuel cell research. There are a number of smaller companies and research programs, as well as some work being done by EPRI regarding the use of Fuel Cells and micropower generation to deal with electricity shortages, too.
it's not important if IBM sells more boxes. But if the perception becomes (again) that only a few fringe users are using linux, then it'll be that much tougher to get drivers released, get specs for that cool new piece of hardware, etc., etc., etc.
I was out at IBM recently and watched one of their techs talk about the research that went into the Madison project, from the watermarking to the delivery mechanism. The technological problems they are dealing with are pretty well covered by other posts, so I'll leave those along for now.
The really retarded part was that in their design for madison, they still have specific functionality for EVERY player in the current music distribution system, from the labels to the record stores. The record store functionality was the most bizarre extra step because it required an extra key exchange in their system. They had a new role for the Columbia House CD club types as well... it was insane.
We asked them why all that complexity (the labels should be able to go straight to the consumers in the perfect system), and they said that their (IBM) mandate was to preserve the existing system...
Well, at least we know what their primary goal is....
Actually, I think it's a great precedent. Now that it's illegal to show people where to find (links) or how to do (t-shirts) illegal "things", we should sue every film studio and major media outlet out there. We should sue because of every movie that shows how to murder people, that shows where to get drugs, prostitutes, and illegal alcohol. We should also sue them for every movie which contins information about making drugs, rolling a joint, what's it like to take acid or X, etc. And all those documentaries which teach people how corporations and drug dealers launder money or show where to hunt protected wildlife.
Regardless of how you feel about the legality of DeCSS itself, prohibiting linking to sites containing DeCSS is pretty much the same thing as prohibiting a movie about an elaborately planned murder. We allow movie makers to portray this every day, often in enough detail so that we now know how to do illegal things, or where to find illegal things.
I also find it funny that media outlets are scared... the majority of television and radio outlets, the source of the news for many people in the U.S. (where this case matters), are owned by the same people that own the motion picture studios... it's sort of funny. Check out Who Owns What at the Columbia Journalism Review site to see exactly how much media is controlled by a few large entities.
It might not that big a problem... bluetooth specs already discuss having GPS receivers installed on many devices, so this type of device might become ubiquitous in the near future.
As for using it for elections, I think that having universal GPS with the ability to report your location at any given time has it's own frightening consequences. You know that the FBI or other police forces will want access to be able to ask your cell phone where it is with a court order. Sort of scary if that kind of override is added into the device.
My personal feeling is that location verification is only part of the problem (and misses the main problem). Trusted third party identity verification that isn't centrally managed (yes, I know those are almost mutually exclusive) is going to be necessary. Something like your face, that you carry around, that other people know about, and people recognize.
I don't like doomsday articles, but this is something that is just the beginning of a path that leads to absolute control of everything we listen to and watch by companies which have no reason to answer to us. Most of the "workarounds" people have posted to this forum deal with re-digitizing the playback audio stream through a variety of means.
What worries me, though, is technology that companies like IBM is developing where a digital watermark actually becomes part of the playback audio, reproduced by every component, including your soundcard and speakers, but which cannot be heard by human ears. IBM has developed such a system which is part of the EMMS system (also known as madison), which they claim has passed what they call "golden ears" tests. These tests have people with exceptionally good hearing try to differentiate between recordings with the watermark and without. (I've been to IBM research and heard the files. I couldn't tell the difference, either, FWIW).
The next step, of course, is to have the watermarks generated on the fly for each electronic transaction that purchases the music (how far away do you think we are from hardware that can do that in a second or two?), encoding your personal information or a transaction ID into the stream. Then, if you upload the music, they will be able to track down the source of the new digital copy of the music to you.
That's pretty scary to me, at least, because we're back to that total control picture. I personally don't believe that artists should have total control of their works, let alone abitrary "copyright holders" like labels and publishing companies, because fair use is an important part of the knowledge chain.
Imagine tuition bills for higher education once professors can't photocopy small excerpts to pass out in class, or you can't actually pick up a book from the Library, copy a few pages, and go home to write you papers. Or that to actually read the book *in the library*, someone has to pay.
What happens to free libraries with perfect copyright control?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Different pieces of the technology puzzle to enable full copyright control exists already. I think that all the pieces will be there soon. And that scares me.
I've had this idea for a while... It does seem to me, though, that the service would have to have some value add aside from the music (otherwise small groups of people would subscribe to the legit service, then go to gnutella and share it right away...) Of course, I don't know how willing people would be to give away what they paid for...
Here are the pieces of "mobile" hardware I currently own:
A Sony Vaio PCG505VX Palm Vx PalmPilot Professional (retired to a dev platform) Sprint PCS Touchpoint phone
It's nice having a nice, small PDA to keep track of appointments, short notes, etc. on. I'm not sure I want to talk into them, but then again apparently a lot of people do (have you seen how many different voice recording thingies they sell at staples and CompUSA?).
Regardless, what I'd really like to see is my Vaio without the keyboard, with the screen melded onto where the keyboard is, keeping the extended battery, if necessary, and adding a lightweight folding cover (a la the palm vx's included shield carboard/pseudo-leather cover that slides into the left stylus slot). Add some handwriting recognition to that and a touch screen, and you've got me sold, up to about $1000. An actually paper notebook sized thing you can write on, transfer to your palm or desktop via the firewire or USB port that's already there, carrying a decent sized hard drive.
Sure, you can only use it for 4.5 hours (the vaio as it is today), but how often are you really keeping it on each day? Without keeping it plugged in?
See, PDA's are one thing, but if they want truly mobile solutions where I can really do "stuff" with this device, it needs to be bigger, not smaller. (ever try to take meeting notes with a Palm without a keyboard?).
Okay, I'm going to betray my ignorance on this one, I think, but I have a question brought about by this article: How do the crazy Sun and HP machines compare to a "mainframe" type of machine in terms of cost and reliability. I'm thinking of things like the E10K and V series boxes.
Specifically, in terms of hot-swaps and reliability comparisons is what I'm really thinking. I understand the whole IO issue (really, I do... I work with MF guys all day...).;-) My focus is on smaller companies than Chase or the IRS (or any of the other gargantuan examples already suggested). These middle sized companies don't need this kind of throughput, typically, so it doesn't make sense for them to spend the money usually... or does it?
When does the majority get the right to steer the course of their environment? There are a lot of voices here on/. that talk about the idiots in the media (a small but vocal minority) who steer the course of many tech-related issues...where are those voices in this case?
Those voices are still here. In this case, it's clearly an issue where a minority of organizations are presenting distorted information about an issue in order to push their own agenda. If one were to look at the facts of the case, you'd easily understand why the blocking software is not a good enough sole solution to the problem.
Let's look at the facts:
No one knows if anyone actually browses porn on the library computers. So far, only one incident has occurred where someone was viewing porn on a computer in the library.
The blocking software suggested blocks many other sites incorrectly.
The blocking software costs money and apparently support from librarians.
So, my questions are as follows:
What existing problem are we trying to solve?
Are librarians bound by patron/librarian confidentiality? Before you laugh, what if I'm concerned about a blemish on my penis, or if I want to find a site for breast cancer survivors/support? Is my privacy protected by the library? Are they willing to take that on? Often times the web is the only or best place to find testimonials or survival stories for breast cancer and STD's, and other personal struggles. Why should the library care?
Most importantly, If there is no identifiable problem, why are we spending my tax dollars on an obviously faulty product?
I'd like to volunteer an answer: Surfwatch and companies in the same segment look at towns like Holland as cash cows, generating thousands of dollars in revenue for them a year. The AFA and FRC look to issues like this to bolster their political cause (which translates into more money via donations which translates directly into power).
This is a case of the few controlling the many. This isn't majority rule, this is a minority telling the majority what they want to hear ("we stop porn browsing in the library") to make the majority to do what the minority wants.
Even if they only spend $1000 on the software and training for the librarians to admin this software, it's $1000 too much for what you get. You could've bought 20-50 books (more if you buy paperbacks) on a variety of subjects for that money. Instead, you chase after what objectively appears to be a phantom problem to help create a market for Surfwatch or Cyberpatrol or whatever.
Be has been and probably will continue to be realistic about their chances on the desktop world. That's why BeOS 5 is going to be free. With Microsoft owning the preloads on the Intel side and Apple not allowing any type of clone, and with Linux encroaching on both, Be really doesn't stand much chance of "making it big" on the desktop side.
Which is really sad because this OS kicks ass. I have a dual PII 400 system at home running Be and Linux at home. Now, I use linux as my primary OS, but when I really want to see my machine go fast, maybe rendering something in Blender or just surfing along the web, I switch over to Be. Because the whole OS/Application platform API is inherently multithreaded, it really takes advantage of the hardware.
As BeIA, though, more people will get to experience what a modern desktop operating system can feel like. It's stable, modular, configurable, and damn fast. They've got a very good chance to own a chunk of this market from the get go, and get on the road to profitability. Unlike certain other profitable OS products out there, these guys really deserve to make it.
Consumers will opt for devices that meet their requirements, not those of corporate lawyers. If the SDMI implementation is really as strong you say, these devices won't see wide-spread acceptance. But then, that's probably what the music industry wants.
There's one problem with that statement... if the only available content is for SDMI enabled devices, what then? I don't know as much about this as I should before posting, so I'll keep this brief. My fear is that those that control the content can drive the technology.
For eaxmple, who needs the ability to copy to removeable media if all stereos come with a jack or port to plug in your SDMI compatible player? You can still do everything you used to do with a CD or Tape (i.e. take it to a friends house, play it in your car, whatever). I'm not saying I like it, but if the content is marketed as better with more features, it will drive the hardware sales.
If all the distros are going to be providing a version of Java then it should be a CURRENT version. The Blackdown Java2 VM would be a much better choice IMO.
IBM has committed to supporting Java 1.2 on all of their strategic platforms. They consider Linux as one of those platforms. A number of other moves they've made (I wish I had the URL's handy) corroborate this statement. They haven't really released a 1.2 JVM for any platform, let alone Windows and their own OS's. This is because, as I said above, they do more than add bells and whistles. There are research teams in Texas, Japan, and Israel, I believe working on various aspects of the JVM technology.
Most of what they initially need to do is move their original improvements from the 1.1 series into the 1.2 reference they get from Sun. They've made some huge improvements to the JDK. For example their GC work alone is pretty impressive. Give them time... 1.2 will be out.
Sujal
PS. Most of this is coming straight from IBM dev rel folks at a Java Briefing Day. There were more than a few folks interested in Linux, and they mentioned all of the issues in that article that made a previous story and then some as items they'd like to work out in the future for linux.
Slashdot Mirror
The advertising model grew out of specific historic needs. Some of these needs are true today, others are not.
I understand what the industry giants are trying to do... I was thinking more about a pay-for-content (not necessarily pay-per-view) model without advertising. Obviously, many people, including the advertisers themselves, would fight this. Should consumers also fight something like that, too?
Anyway, I'll shut up. :-)
Sujal
My question is, essentially, what's wrong with pay per view? I mean, is advertising really a better model for you and I? As viewers, sure we get loads of content for free, but doesn't advertising have it's own effect on the content?
For example, advertisers tend to like shows that are non-controversial (unless it's sensationally controversial, like Temptation Island or The Bachelor) and inoffensive. Regardless of their precise preferences, their preferences tend to more directly impact on what shows make it on the air than our own preferences.
Aside from that, wouldn't it be more efficient for me as a consumer to directly pay the producer of the content?
Anyway, I'm just curious about what people think about this. Is it really better to have an advertising driven TV industry or not?
Sujal
If you're writing a word processor, here is my common-word-features-that-most-other-word-processo rs-mis s-list. :-):
1) TOC generation from heading styles
2) Outline mode (integrated with styles)
Someone once showed me how easy it was to use the outline mode in Word to write a basic outline of your document (just think section titles) and then fill it in. After you've generated the outline, the entries in the outline automatically become section headings, which then are automatically included in generated TOCs.
Awesome feature, which is one of the few reasons I stick with Word if I have windows around (right now, I have VMWare running on my work PC, which is the only place I have a licensed copy of word and windows). I'm seriously considering Word for my iBook, though. :-(
I think OpenOffice does most of this, BTW, so I'm anxiously awaiting the release.
Sujal
I share your concerns about interoperability and the upgrade cycle. However, this move is a good thing. All the major OSes out there need to think about file systems as more than just a filename and data. This is because humans are capable of doing more than that, and we shouldn't be limited by what computers used to be able to do.
For example, think of a boring filing cabinet. While you can just create dividers and add more filing cabinets, humans do much more than that. For example, at my doctor's office, they color code each folder. In addition, they apply stickers to the tab on the folders for certain indicators (last update of the file by year, insurance type, which doctor I usually see, since there are several there, etc). As a result, simply by scanning the shelves, they can tell a number of things about the files without having to pull them out and open them up.
Same thing about the FS. It would be nice to be able to tell something about the file without having to issue the open call. That's a good thing. Currently, most apps limit themselves to one hint (the extension). What's wrong with more?
Everything you pointed out in your message, while valid questions, are mostly elementary engineering problems. For example, the two file/different extension problem can be solved a number of ways (MacOS already has to deal with this condition, for example).
In the future, it might be better to have RFCs for an new, standard FTP or whatever that allows a metadata section as part of the DATA transfer. This wouldn't be too hard either (HTTP already could get away with this, since you can define whatever headers, more or less, that you want).
The real concern is interoperability. I can imagine a "compatibility mode" for network aware services, like file sharing or FTP/Web, that present file names to the remote user in the old filename.extension format. That's actually almost trivial.
Namesys is already working on reiserfs (which does something similar). BeOS had something similar, too. NTFS already ran into part of the problem (which stream do you want). We shouldn't hold back because it might require some compatibility for a short period...
Realize that I'm a big skeptic when it comes to Microsoft... I'm worried that they won't do anything to help non-Windows interop. But as an idea, I'm all for the updated FS. To borrow your own phrasing, a file is a file, but I want more hints to help user applications like searching through files (how do you know a file contains an ID3 tag?)
But I like this concept.
Sujal
Bono was a republican. CNN Obit. I agree that it's not necessarily significant on this issue. Sujal
It's not a great reason, but I can see how they may want to focus on one (moving) target instead of two.
You really should email them and ask, though, if you want to see KDE available.
Sujal
Or, have you asked them what their reasons are?
You can find most of the Ximian guys on IRC, or here, for that matter. And I've found them to be very responsive to emails.
Look, you're acting as if I said they were perfect. I never made that claim. The poster I was responding to said that s/he would spend money on a single stop to update everything. I was just pointing out that RedCarpet was closer to that than how he portrayed RC.
I would ask them about KDE and see what they say. The KDE packages are available, BTW, in the RedHat channel, for example, and are kept up to date as RedHat updates them, I think. As a result, I believe you're no worse off than if you used RHN, but you get the other channels, too. :-)
I'm not certain about the last part, because I don't run KDE. But, they do keep the base packages available (updated to the latest versions from RH for your distro version)... easier than rummaging for the CDs if I need a base package.
The only problem I'm seeing right now is that the new RC isn't working once I activated the premium features... have to send an email in. :-( That's disappointing.
Sujal
RedHat updates? Available. Loki Demos? Available via Red Carpet. StarOffice (with all the configs set up so that Evolution can launch .doc and .ppt files directly into SO)? Available. Opera? Available. The list goes on.
My point is just that you're not just paying for priority access for GNOME updates. You're paying for priority access to whole system updates.
In a way, Ximian is making a meta-distribution, and Red Carpet is what facilitates that... it allows them to add channels that contain most of the major downloads you might be interested in. If you're not interested in a particular app (let's say you don't want to use StarOffice), just unsub that channel.
You should try running it... it's a lot different (better, IMHO) than RHN. That's why I've already signed up.
Sujal
Does Ford put it's car dealers out of business if they replace the Ford factory special with a Blaupunkt?
When you have a monopoly and threaten resellers with pulling their license, you effectively put them out of business. Replacing the "stereo" as you put it, shouldn't have such dramatic repercussions.
Microsoft did actually do this to Compaq, all because Compaq removed the IE icon from the desktops on their Presarios. Gateway (see previous link) also had Microsoft withold a license renewal because of ongoing negotiations over whether Gateway could have their products boot directly into a Gateway-customized version of Navigator.
Please don't try to revise history.
Sujal
Those aren't privacy rights that you've mentioned above. There is not an obligation for someone to be able to lie to a court order or subpeona. And as a private citizen, you don't have that right. The important thing is that you have control over your data.... when you're faced with a subpeona, you don't really have control over your data, except that you can fight the subpeona.
Your concern seems to be that you should be able to turn off data collection. You should disable the data collection when you don't want a record kept (a.k.a. use cash, or disposable PayPal account, etc.). But having a user-side agent isn't a bad thing.
Sujal
I disagree with part of what you're saying. The issue isn't the current state of web design, it's the cost and infrastructure. The eVilla failed in part because it required an ISP account with some Sony-affiliated ISP... I looked into buying one to hook into my home network and was turned off by that single requirement.
Companies that want to play in this space need to start from the assumption that everyone has broadband, and realize that they're playing in the market of those with broadband. This is because folks with broadband are the ones who start really using the computer as an integrated part of their lives, simply because their connection is always on.
Look at the offerings by Linksys, 3Com, and Orinoco/Lucent. They all have a variety of hub/firewall/residential gateway products out and available. Which means that for an appliance to be successful, it needs to exist with that infrastructure. The eVilla did NOT coexist with that infrastructure at all, which meant it was aimed at a different market.
If you follow the tack I'm taking above, the larger problem is one of cost. eVilla seemed to me to be aimed at those folks without a PC. The points mentioned by others make the problem with this market choice pretty clear: who's going to pay retail for an "appliance" when they can have a "full-fledged computer" (the actual real similarities and differences matter less than perception...). However, I wanted one for my living room that I could flip on like my palm (instant on, check email, shut off) or dreamcast that integrated into my home network. eVilla, IIRC, doesn't have an ethernet jack, and (though I'm not certain about this) doesn't have any expansion that could take a 802.11b card/adapter, either.
Since the eVilla and Audrey all retail for close to the price of a low end computer, it just doesn't make much sense to buy them. If they can drop the retail price to that of a DVD player or VCR, they'll do really well. $100 for an appliance and I might be there.
To go back to your point, it's not about the web content... though it's important, you can check your Hotmail/Netscape Webmail/whatever with most any browser, and read almost all the major sites with any browser out there (with a good experience)... I should know... I use Opera, Mozilla, and Netscape 4.76 on my various Linux boxen, and there are very few sites that things don't work well (and those have been pretty easily corrected with a polite email to the webmaster).
Sujal
There are caveats, of course. The licensing restrictions that apply to shared source are wrong in most cases. As long as I don't turn around and redistribute the software, why should they care if I modify the source and use it in my business or personal use? As long as sufficient licenses are purchased (another controversial issue that I have some thoughts about), they shouldn't care.
The second big caveat is that there needs to be a proper and well known legislative infrastructure in place to support the readers of the source code. Possibly, the same standards that apply to books should apply to source code. In other words, a few sentences that are entirely the same might be ok, but taking entire thoughts (subroutines or algorithsm in source code?) is wrong. Right now, the ambiguity of when Microsoft can sue is a bit chilling. It would be beneficial, IMHO, to have some legislation to make fair use type protections explicit.
Sujal
In it they claim that two different groups of auto manufacturers have pledged a billion dollars each for fuel cell research. There are a number of smaller companies and research programs, as well as some work being done by EPRI regarding the use of Fuel Cells and micropower generation to deal with electricity shortages, too.
Pretty cool.
Sujal
it's not important if IBM sells more boxes. But if the perception becomes (again) that only a few fringe users are using linux, then it'll be that much tougher to get drivers released, get specs for that cool new piece of hardware, etc., etc., etc.
I was out at IBM recently and watched one of their techs talk about the research that went into the Madison project, from the watermarking to the delivery mechanism. The technological problems they are dealing with are pretty well covered by other posts, so I'll leave those along for now.
The really retarded part was that in their design for madison, they still have specific functionality for EVERY player in the current music distribution system, from the labels to the record stores. The record store functionality was the most bizarre extra step because it required an extra key exchange in their system. They had a new role for the Columbia House CD club types as well... it was insane.
We asked them why all that complexity (the labels should be able to go straight to the consumers in the perfect system), and they said that their (IBM) mandate was to preserve the existing system...
Well, at least we know what their primary goal is....
Sujal
Regardless of how you feel about the legality of DeCSS itself, prohibiting linking to sites containing DeCSS is pretty much the same thing as prohibiting a movie about an elaborately planned murder. We allow movie makers to portray this every day, often in enough detail so that we now know how to do illegal things, or where to find illegal things.
I also find it funny that media outlets are scared... the majority of television and radio outlets, the source of the news for many people in the U.S. (where this case matters), are owned by the same people that own the motion picture studios... it's sort of funny. Check out Who Owns What at the Columbia Journalism Review site to see exactly how much media is controlled by a few large entities.
Sujal
As for using it for elections, I think that having universal GPS with the ability to report your location at any given time has it's own frightening consequences. You know that the FBI or other police forces will want access to be able to ask your cell phone where it is with a court order. Sort of scary if that kind of override is added into the device.
My personal feeling is that location verification is only part of the problem (and misses the main problem). Trusted third party identity verification that isn't centrally managed (yes, I know those are almost mutually exclusive) is going to be necessary. Something like your face, that you carry around, that other people know about, and people recognize.
Sujal
What worries me, though, is technology that companies like IBM is developing where a digital watermark actually becomes part of the playback audio, reproduced by every component, including your soundcard and speakers, but which cannot be heard by human ears. IBM has developed such a system which is part of the EMMS system (also known as madison), which they claim has passed what they call "golden ears" tests. These tests have people with exceptionally good hearing try to differentiate between recordings with the watermark and without. (I've been to IBM research and heard the files. I couldn't tell the difference, either, FWIW).
The next step, of course, is to have the watermarks generated on the fly for each electronic transaction that purchases the music (how far away do you think we are from hardware that can do that in a second or two?), encoding your personal information or a transaction ID into the stream. Then, if you upload the music, they will be able to track down the source of the new digital copy of the music to you.
That's pretty scary to me, at least, because we're back to that total control picture. I personally don't believe that artists should have total control of their works, let alone abitrary "copyright holders" like labels and publishing companies, because fair use is an important part of the knowledge chain.
Imagine tuition bills for higher education once professors can't photocopy small excerpts to pass out in class, or you can't actually pick up a book from the Library, copy a few pages, and go home to write you papers. Or that to actually read the book *in the library*, someone has to pay.
What happens to free libraries with perfect copyright control?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Different pieces of the technology puzzle to enable full copyright control exists already. I think that all the pieces will be there soon. And that scares me.
I've had this idea for a while... It does seem to me, though, that the service would have to have some value add aside from the music (otherwise small groups of people would subscribe to the legit service, then go to gnutella and share it right away...) Of course, I don't know how willing people would be to give away what they paid for...
A Sony Vaio PCG505VX
Palm Vx
PalmPilot Professional (retired to a dev platform)
Sprint PCS Touchpoint phone
It's nice having a nice, small PDA to keep track of appointments, short notes, etc. on. I'm not sure I want to talk into them, but then again apparently a lot of people do (have you seen how many different voice recording thingies they sell at staples and CompUSA?).
Regardless, what I'd really like to see is my Vaio without the keyboard, with the screen melded onto where the keyboard is, keeping the extended battery, if necessary, and adding a lightweight folding cover (a la the palm vx's included shield carboard/pseudo-leather cover that slides into the left stylus slot). Add some handwriting recognition to that and a touch screen, and you've got me sold, up to about $1000. An actually paper notebook sized thing you can write on, transfer to your palm or desktop via the firewire or USB port that's already there, carrying a decent sized hard drive.
Sure, you can only use it for 4.5 hours (the vaio as it is today), but how often are you really keeping it on each day? Without keeping it plugged in?
See, PDA's are one thing, but if they want truly mobile solutions where I can really do "stuff" with this device, it needs to be bigger, not smaller. (ever try to take meeting notes with a Palm without a keyboard?).
Sujal
Specifically, in terms of hot-swaps and reliability comparisons is what I'm really thinking. I understand the whole IO issue (really, I do... I work with MF guys all day...). ;-) My focus is on smaller companies than Chase or the IRS (or any of the other gargantuan examples already suggested). These middle sized companies don't need this kind of throughput, typically, so it doesn't make sense for them to spend the money usually... or does it?
Sujal
Those voices are still here. In this case, it's clearly an issue where a minority of organizations are presenting distorted information about an issue in order to push their own agenda. If one were to look at the facts of the case, you'd easily understand why the blocking software is not a good enough sole solution to the problem.
Let's look at the facts:
- No one knows if anyone actually browses porn on the library computers. So far, only one incident has occurred where someone was viewing porn on a computer in the library.
- The blocking software suggested blocks many other sites incorrectly.
- The blocking software costs money and apparently support from librarians.
So, my questions are as follows:I'd like to volunteer an answer: Surfwatch and companies in the same segment look at towns like Holland as cash cows, generating thousands of dollars in revenue for them a year. The AFA and FRC look to issues like this to bolster their political cause (which translates into more money via donations which translates directly into power).
This is a case of the few controlling the many. This isn't majority rule, this is a minority telling the majority what they want to hear ("we stop porn browsing in the library") to make the majority to do what the minority wants.
Even if they only spend $1000 on the software and training for the librarians to admin this software, it's $1000 too much for what you get. You could've bought 20-50 books (more if you buy paperbacks) on a variety of subjects for that money. Instead, you chase after what objectively appears to be a phantom problem to help create a market for Surfwatch or Cyberpatrol or whatever.
It makes no sense.
Sujal
Be has been and probably will continue to be realistic about their chances on the desktop world. That's why BeOS 5 is going to be free. With Microsoft owning the preloads on the Intel side and Apple not allowing any type of clone, and with Linux encroaching on both, Be really doesn't stand much chance of "making it big" on the desktop side.
Which is really sad because this OS kicks ass. I have a dual PII 400 system at home running Be and Linux at home. Now, I use linux as my primary OS, but when I really want to see my machine go fast, maybe rendering something in Blender or just surfing along the web, I switch over to Be. Because the whole OS/Application platform API is inherently multithreaded, it really takes advantage of the hardware.
As BeIA, though, more people will get to experience what a modern desktop operating system can feel like. It's stable, modular, configurable, and damn fast. They've got a very good chance to own a chunk of this market from the get go, and get on the road to profitability. Unlike certain other profitable OS products out there, these guys really deserve to make it.
Sujal
There's one problem with that statement... if the only available content is for SDMI enabled devices, what then? I don't know as much about this as I should before posting, so I'll keep this brief. My fear is that those that control the content can drive the technology.
For eaxmple, who needs the ability to copy to removeable media if all stereos come with a jack or port to plug in your SDMI compatible player? You can still do everything you used to do with a CD or Tape (i.e. take it to a friends house, play it in your car, whatever). I'm not saying I like it, but if the content is marketed as better with more features, it will drive the hardware sales.
Sujal
IBM has committed to supporting Java 1.2 on all of their strategic platforms. They consider Linux as one of those platforms. A number of other moves they've made (I wish I had the URL's handy) corroborate this statement. They haven't really released a 1.2 JVM for any platform, let alone Windows and their own OS's. This is because, as I said above, they do more than add bells and whistles. There are research teams in Texas, Japan, and Israel, I believe working on various aspects of the JVM technology.
Most of what they initially need to do is move their original improvements from the 1.1 series into the 1.2 reference they get from Sun. They've made some huge improvements to the JDK. For example their GC work alone is pretty impressive. Give them time... 1.2 will be out.
Sujal
PS. Most of this is coming straight from IBM dev rel folks at a Java Briefing Day. There were more than a few folks interested in Linux, and they mentioned all of the issues in that article that made a previous story and then some as items they'd like to work out in the future for linux.