You are right. I must have had some wires crossed.
Evolution 0.9 "shipping" now
on
Evolution Bug-Hunt!
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Don't forget that Evolution 0.9 is shipping as part of the shrinkwrapped Ximian Desktop product. Though that part of the suite, at least, is labeled quite plainly as a "preview release," it's definitely integrated into their overall office productivity offering right now -- no longer a separate download. (This, as of the LinuxWorld Expo in San Francisco.)
So let me get this straight, Apple...
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
...QuickTime is actually going to run under Linux on Intel hardware before it works on PowerPC hardware? Forget the "Megahertz Myth," let's talk about the "Platform Superiority Myth"...
Yeah... I love the part where he says "put the other end on the Internet backbone at your business." Okay, everyone... get out your hard hats, we're stringin' circuits!
Oh, but wait -- if it's "my" business, aren't I paying for the magic "Internet backbone" there, too? He must mean someone else's business. But isn't that a little ethically dubious? Nah, I guess not... we're getting over on Da Man, after all. Damn telcos! I'll show 'em...
Here's something I'd like to hear some thoughts about.
I've been following the DVD writing market for a while now, and I'm interested in seeing how this competition between the DVD-R/DVD-RW standard and the DVD+RW standard. I've read here several times already the opinion that the competing formats will slow the adoption of DVD writing.
My question is: Why?
There seems to be some kind of industry FUD being thrown around that these drives are "incompatible." How so? Both write to media that can be read in either an industry-standard home DVD player or an industry-standard DVD-ROM drive. There is some worry going around that DVD-R media can not be read by 100% of the home DVD players out there, but I think this is being largely overblown by the industry (particularly the DVD+RW) people. Hell, my old CD player gags on CD-R media... does that mean I should sign up with a new standard created by a consortium of big corporations, like DVD+RW?
But leave the home players aside for a moment. Let's say that I buy a DVD-R burner (and I have), and you buy a DVD+RW burner. Both of our burners also function as DVD-ROM drives, right? So if I burn a DVD-R and give it to you, you will be able to read it on your DVD+RW burner. If you burn a DVD+RW and give it to me, I will be able to read it in my DVD-R burner. Or, if for some reason it doesn't work -- say the drives are "touchier" than most -- then we can still slap the things into some other DVD-ROM drive, and read them there.
The drives are not "incompatible." This is just a gross overstatement, coupled with with marketing spin from the DVD+RW people who want to edge out DVD-R. Sure, their blank media formats are incompatible. You and I won't be able to trade blanks. But, ultimately... so what?
Seems to me we should be investigating things like the licensing terms for each format, roadmap for future development (if they come up with a dual-layer blank, who will get it first?), industry tactics, who's making deals with the RIAA and MPAA, who's going to be able to offer lower cost sooner, etc. When we get informed about that, then we can put our money where our opinions are, and encourage the industry to support the format that's best for US.
No, don't worry. You don't need to encrypt a movie to play it on an ordinary DVD player. They'll play movies without encryption -- or region coding, or Macrovision for that matter -- just fine.
In fact, as I understand it, the DVD-R media you use in the Pioneer drive is not capable of recording either region coding or CSS encryption. That's on purpose; it's one of the safeguards they've come up with to keep you from pirating DVDs. You can copy all the data from your encrypted, region-coded DVD, sure... but there's no way to do a bit-for-bit copy onto a blank.
Hint: That's what DeCSS is for.
BTW, I sincerely doubt you can fit 40 minutes of "DVD quality" video onto a CD-R. VCD quality, maybe. Current writable DVD blanks only hold about 2.5 hours of video.
Also, note that I only really know about the DVD-R/DVD-RW standard, which is the Pioneer drive that ships in the Apple G4s. I've not used anything DVD+RW, which is the drive HP is talking about. These are two competing standards.
It's also important to note that the $15.99 price tag is for REWRITABLE media. The Pioneer mechanism that's found in Apple G4s is so far mostly used with write-once DVD-R media. Apple sells the DVD-R media for $49.95 per box of 5. I've seen other places selling blanks as low as $7 each.
Hey, I offer it up with no editorial comment whatsoever. I'm not saying Sun did or didn't make them get rid of Java. I'm just saying that's their story, and they seem to be sticking to it. (Loudly.)
Much of Cringeley's argument seems to be that Microsoft will soon issue a "real" rationale why they are removing support for the JVM and Netscape plugins. This seems unlikely to me, given the following release from Wagged PR, Microsoft's agency, recently distributed to some industry media outlets. I'm blanking out the names because I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a general-public release or not. But it states pretty plainly their reasons for dropping Java -- and in direct opposition to Cringely's theory, it pretty much amounts to "Sun made us do it":
-------[cut here]-------
To: xxxxxx
From: xxxxxx@Wagged.com
Date: 08/16/2001 01:50 PM
Dear xxxxxx,
There is a considerable amount of confusion surrounding Microsoft position
regarding the virtual machine in Windows XP. Wanted to make sure you have
the most accurate information from Microsoft as to the events leading to and
the consequences resulting from this decision. From Microsoft's perspective,
Sun Microsystems has turned its marketing machine into high gear about
Windows XP, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, Java and customers by not
including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
It's time to set the facts straight.
First, this is unparalleled hypocrisy on Sun's part. Sun has taken every
step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping its award winning Java
virtual machine. They spent several years suing to stop Microsoft from
shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took advantage of
Windows. Rather than pursue a new licensing arrangement, Sun settled its
lawsuit with Microsoft by offering a phase out of Microsoft's Java
implementation. Since the settlement a Federal Appeals Courts has upheld
Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual
machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
Moreover, when Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year,
Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said,
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The
community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great
platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the
authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said
they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license and an agreement
that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine. Now they are
either unhappy with what they got or simply being disingenuous. Analysts
such as Bob Sutherland with Technology Business Research say: "Sun can't
have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control,
but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what
Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Sun is also being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has
taken multiple steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP
customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows
users from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual
machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the
product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of
Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing
virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean
installation of Windows XP can automatically do a one-time download of the
virtual machine the first time they browse a web page containing a Java
applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a user
may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to
any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems so as to save
customers even the one-time download.
The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming other
virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual
machine. It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated
applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. But if desired, Windows
XP also runs other third party virtual machines.
Sun wraps itself in a mantle of openness and choice. The idea that Java is
open is laughable, particularly after Sun submitted Java to a standards body
and then broke its promise not just once but twice. Contrast this to
Microsoft.NET, where we have submitted the underlying specifications to
ECMA and are following through on our commitment. Moreover, Sun's idea of
choice is you can have any language you want, as long as it is Java.
Microsoft.NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties
and Java too will be supported as a full-fledged language for the.NET
platform.
Microsoft's stated reason for no longer supporting Netscape format plugins is that they prefer using ActiveX components for that purpose. That's really nothing new. Some third-party companies are going that route already. For example, as I understand it, Macromedia's Flash plugin is available as both a Netscape plugin for Netscape, and as an ActiveX control for IE. Other plugin makers need only follow suit.
Web Techniques is running an interview this month with Google's director of technology. It's short, but it does give a little bit of insight into how their engine works. Among other things, he says Google's long-term goal is to use native language as its default input method.
It's quite pathetic to see it as free speech and in the real world, not many does.
Well yeah, if you don't cout the courts as part of the "real world," I guess. Cuz the "free speech" issue is a lot of what the whole MySQL AB/NuSphere lawsuit is about. --
Mac OS X 10.1 will include Apple's DVD Player. Steve did a demo in the keynote (tho it crashed once). When it ships in September, G4 systems running OS X will be able to play DVDs. The new iMacs, however, won't.
The reason they have "no way to playback DVDs" has nothing to do with Mac OS X, gdb, Apple's software engineering failures, or anything along these lines. There's one reason, and one reason alone, why they can't do it:
Please keep this to yourselves. MacOS does not need any programs with inconsistent interfaces that don't obey the user interface guidelines.
Yeah, no kidding. Whoever is out there making software like QuickTime 4/5, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Sherlock, iMovie, iTunes, and iDVD -- they're the type that's screwing up the Mac platform for everybody. --
I expect if the POWER4 has altivec Apple would be insane to not use it in at least their high end "server" level Mac. Even without altivec, it would seem to be a good idea to use it anyway... even if the price is so high few are sold it would still let Apple have one machine that beats many or all Intel CPUs out there. Right now, they could use that.
But their mantra recently has been that "once more software is optimized for the G4" everything will be much better for everybody. Their definition of optimizing for the G4, in the consumer press at least, has been including AltiVec support. To start selling PowerPC processors without AltiVec now would be pretty confusing (not that they've never confused anybody before -- witness their recent hardware naming conventions). It might also cause big problems for all those software vendors (possibly Apple included) porting software with the "if it's a G4 it's got AltiVec" rule in mind. --
>Actually, I'd think the author/rights holder CAN copyright titles.
Fine; but what you think and what is actually true are two different things. The poster you responded to is correct. Titles, like instructions and recipes, cannot themselves be copyrighted.
Next time, please at least bother to look it up before you post erroneous information.
At this point I feel compelled to mention something about the Beowulf cluster I just installed at Natalie Portman's house, but I can't think of anything. --
All Microsoft is doing is offering "valuable" incentives for people to provide some basic information: who out there is buying non-Windows PCs?
This information, not-too-scientifically-obtained, will then go into some kind of statistical survey: "We offered valuable incentives to anyone who would could find somebody who doesn't have Windows on their PCs. And guess what? The statistics that came back show less than 1% of PC owners not using Windows. See? You WANT us to rule the world. Shut up and buy."
And IT analysts will say, "Oh." And Slashdot will cry, "Outrage!" and try to disprove their statistics. And we'll all see this same story come back yet again, just with a different spin.
Slashdot Mirror
Cisco gave $6 million.
General Electric gave $10 million.
All three deserve our respect and thanks for their actions.
You are right. I must have had some wires crossed.
Don't forget that Evolution 0.9 is shipping as part of the shrinkwrapped Ximian Desktop product. Though that part of the suite, at least, is labeled quite plainly as a "preview release," it's definitely integrated into their overall office productivity offering right now -- no longer a separate download. (This, as of the LinuxWorld Expo in San Francisco.)
...QuickTime is actually going to run under Linux on Intel hardware before it works on PowerPC hardware? Forget the "Megahertz Myth," let's talk about the "Platform Superiority Myth"...
Oh, but wait -- if it's "my" business, aren't I paying for the magic "Internet backbone" there, too? He must mean someone else's business. But isn't that a little ethically dubious? Nah, I guess not... we're getting over on Da Man, after all. Damn telcos! I'll show 'em...
I've been following the DVD writing market for a while now, and I'm interested in seeing how this competition between the DVD-R/DVD-RW standard and the DVD+RW standard. I've read here several times already the opinion that the competing formats will slow the adoption of DVD writing.
My question is: Why?
There seems to be some kind of industry FUD being thrown around that these drives are "incompatible." How so? Both write to media that can be read in either an industry-standard home DVD player or an industry-standard DVD-ROM drive. There is some worry going around that DVD-R media can not be read by 100% of the home DVD players out there, but I think this is being largely overblown by the industry (particularly the DVD+RW) people. Hell, my old CD player gags on CD-R media ... does that mean I should sign up with a new standard created by a consortium of big corporations, like DVD+RW?
But leave the home players aside for a moment. Let's say that I buy a DVD-R burner (and I have), and you buy a DVD+RW burner. Both of our burners also function as DVD-ROM drives, right? So if I burn a DVD-R and give it to you, you will be able to read it on your DVD+RW burner. If you burn a DVD+RW and give it to me, I will be able to read it in my DVD-R burner. Or, if for some reason it doesn't work -- say the drives are "touchier" than most -- then we can still slap the things into some other DVD-ROM drive, and read them there.
The drives are not "incompatible." This is just a gross overstatement, coupled with with marketing spin from the DVD+RW people who want to edge out DVD-R. Sure, their blank media formats are incompatible. You and I won't be able to trade blanks. But, ultimately ... so what?
Seems to me we should be investigating things like the licensing terms for each format, roadmap for future development (if they come up with a dual-layer blank, who will get it first?), industry tactics, who's making deals with the RIAA and MPAA, who's going to be able to offer lower cost sooner, etc. When we get informed about that, then we can put our money where our opinions are, and encourage the industry to support the format that's best for US.
No, don't worry. You don't need to encrypt a movie to play it on an ordinary DVD player. They'll play movies without encryption -- or region coding, or Macrovision for that matter -- just fine.
... but there's no way to do a bit-for-bit copy onto a blank.
In fact, as I understand it, the DVD-R media you use in the Pioneer drive is not capable of recording either region coding or CSS encryption. That's on purpose; it's one of the safeguards they've come up with to keep you from pirating DVDs. You can copy all the data from your encrypted, region-coded DVD, sure
Hint: That's what DeCSS is for.
BTW, I sincerely doubt you can fit 40 minutes of "DVD quality" video onto a CD-R. VCD quality, maybe. Current writable DVD blanks only hold about 2.5 hours of video.
Also, note that I only really know about the DVD-R/DVD-RW standard, which is the Pioneer drive that ships in the Apple G4s. I've not used anything DVD+RW, which is the drive HP is talking about. These are two competing standards.
It's also important to note that the $15.99 price tag is for REWRITABLE media. The Pioneer mechanism that's found in Apple G4s is so far mostly used with write-once DVD-R media. Apple sells the DVD-R media for $49.95 per box of 5. I've seen other places selling blanks as low as $7 each.
Hey, I offer it up with no editorial comment whatsoever. I'm not saying Sun did or didn't make them get rid of Java. I'm just saying that's their story, and they seem to be sticking to it. (Loudly.)
Much of Cringeley's argument seems to be that Microsoft will soon issue a "real" rationale why they are removing support for the JVM and Netscape plugins. This seems unlikely to me, given the following release from Wagged PR, Microsoft's agency, recently distributed to some industry media outlets. I'm blanking out the names because I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a general-public release or not. But it states pretty plainly their reasons for dropping Java -- and in direct opposition to Cringely's theory, it pretty much amounts to "Sun made us do it":
.NET, where we have submitted the underlying specifications to
.NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties
.NET
-------[cut here]-------
To: xxxxxx
From: xxxxxx@Wagged.com
Date: 08/16/2001 01:50 PM
Dear xxxxxx,
There is a considerable amount of confusion surrounding Microsoft position
regarding the virtual machine in Windows XP. Wanted to make sure you have
the most accurate information from Microsoft as to the events leading to and
the consequences resulting from this decision. From Microsoft's perspective,
Sun Microsystems has turned its marketing machine into high gear about
Windows XP, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, Java and customers by not
including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
It's time to set the facts straight.
First, this is unparalleled hypocrisy on Sun's part. Sun has taken every
step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping its award winning Java
virtual machine. They spent several years suing to stop Microsoft from
shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took advantage of
Windows. Rather than pursue a new licensing arrangement, Sun settled its
lawsuit with Microsoft by offering a phase out of Microsoft's Java
implementation. Since the settlement a Federal Appeals Courts has upheld
Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual
machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
Moreover, when Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year,
Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said,
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The
community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great
platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the
authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said
they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license and an agreement
that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine. Now they are
either unhappy with what they got or simply being disingenuous. Analysts
such as Bob Sutherland with Technology Business Research say: "Sun can't
have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control,
but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what
Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Sun is also being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has
taken multiple steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP
customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows
users from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual
machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the
product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of
Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing
virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean
installation of Windows XP can automatically do a one-time download of the
virtual machine the first time they browse a web page containing a Java
applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a user
may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to
any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems so as to save
customers even the one-time download.
The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming other
virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual
machine. It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated
applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. But if desired, Windows
XP also runs other third party virtual machines.
Sun wraps itself in a mantle of openness and choice. The idea that Java is
open is laughable, particularly after Sun submitted Java to a standards body
and then broke its promise not just once but twice. Contrast this to
Microsoft
ECMA and are following through on our commitment. Moreover, Sun's idea of
choice is you can have any language you want, as long as it is Java.
Microsoft
and Java too will be supported as a full-fledged language for the
platform.
Microsoft's stated reason for no longer supporting Netscape format plugins is that they prefer using ActiveX components for that purpose. That's really nothing new. Some third-party companies are going that route already. For example, as I understand it, Macromedia's Flash plugin is available as both a Netscape plugin for Netscape, and as an ActiveX control for IE. Other plugin makers need only follow suit.
In other words: Big whoop.
I thought all Linux hacks drink a lot of Coke, no matter where they live...?
Web Techniques is running an interview this month with Google's director of technology. It's short, but it does give a little bit of insight into how their engine works. Among other things, he says Google's long-term goal is to use native language as its default input method.
...what were the other three?
Jesus. This may just be the winner for "most operatic comment posted to Slashdot."
You're not secretly Jon Katz, are you?
Well yeah, if you don't cout the courts as part of the "real world," I guess. Cuz the "free speech" issue is a lot of what the whole MySQL AB/NuSphere lawsuit is about.
--
Damn Americans. Won't teach their people other languages, but they'll go ahead and co-opt foreign words for themselves!
--
You're talking about two separate issues here.
Mac OS X 10.1 will include Apple's DVD Player. Steve did a demo in the keynote (tho it crashed once). When it ships in September, G4 systems running OS X will be able to play DVDs. The new iMacs, however, won't.
The reason they have "no way to playback DVDs" has nothing to do with Mac OS X, gdb, Apple's software engineering failures, or anything along these lines. There's one reason, and one reason alone, why they can't do it:
They don't ship with a DVD drive. Simple, huh?
--
--
--
Fine; but what you think and what is actually true are two different things. The poster you responded to is correct. Titles, like instructions and recipes, cannot themselves be copyrighted.
Next time, please at least bother to look it up before you post erroneous information.
--
Actually, Greatbridge DOES sell PostgreSQL:
http://www.greatbridge.com/product/software.php
--
Was that a writer reviewing a game, or a writer reviewing his own review of a game?
P.S. Slashdot needs more posts like the one above.
--
At this point I feel compelled to mention something about the Beowulf cluster I just installed at Natalie Portman's house, but I can't think of anything.
--
Don't wig out.
All Microsoft is doing is offering "valuable" incentives for people to provide some basic information: who out there is buying non-Windows PCs?
This information, not-too-scientifically-obtained, will then go into some kind of statistical survey: "We offered valuable incentives to anyone who would could find somebody who doesn't have Windows on their PCs. And guess what? The statistics that came back show less than 1% of PC owners not using Windows. See? You WANT us to rule the world. Shut up and buy."
And IT analysts will say, "Oh." And Slashdot will cry, "Outrage!" and try to disprove their statistics. And we'll all see this same story come back yet again, just with a different spin.
Don't worry about it too much.
--