Re:Their price model is BAD too.. $15 a CD?! NUTSO
on
Napster Not To Blame
·
· Score: 2
Their business model has DIED, they need to start selling Audio CDs for $5 to sell them.
I agree. However, one thing I just realized is that I would be willing to pay more if they listed that an explicit percentage of the CD's price went straight to the artist/group/orchestra.
If the CD were $15, and they listed clearly that 1/3 of that ($5) went to an obscure orchestra that needs CD sales to stay afloat, I wouldn't mind this "best of both worlds" sort of pricing (I get a CD, label gets some money, retailer gets some money, and artists don't get swindled).
Actually, some of it is so bad that it sucks and blows.
Listening to popular music on the radio and television has become painful. It is about as creative and suprising as a stolen computer program that does nothing more than control a toaster (and some of it is even worse!).
The Apple user that does not want widely inconsistent guarantees should stick to the systems made by Apple...
This might work, but Apple would need to find ways to ensure enough systems are sold for them to remain profitable.
So we agree that Apple isn't as good as Microsoft.
Absolutely not. I don't see where this conclusion came from. My argument was that Microsoft did not do a good job managing Windows drivers, which led to so much misery of Microsoft's customers.
It doesn't even have the guts to face Microsoft.
Just by staying in business, Apple has proven that they have the guts.
Sun has come around and is trying to survive using Linux. I don't think they will survive for long until they are consciously willing to toss out Solaris.
Solaris and Linux are very different operating systems and meet the needs of different markets. As long as Sun does a good job with marketing, Solaris and Linux will meet their target audiences and this is a good thing.
Actually it was normal market forces due to which Microsoft won. How they are maintaining the monopoly is a different matter. Microsoft won because Apple wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. Macintosh). Because Sun wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. think about the desktop).
Microsoft manipulated and abused the market. The free market definitely did not put them where they are now. Also, it isn't about Apple and Sun not "thinking out of the box", since both Apple and Sun have made immense contributions to computing (Apple with totally unique and gorgeous workstations, and Sun with UNIX advancements and tremendously robust servers). In reality, Microsoft has contributed to a large stagnation of the computing industry. A lot of important advancements would have been made with more competition.
These two companies could win and conceded the market to Windows.
What is so sad about this statement is that you seem to want a "one Windows, one way" world. This would be a terribly oppressive world, where no one has any choice about doing unique and creative things outside of the Windows GUI. This is a world of Palladium, a world of government intervention, a world of no privacy, and a world of no individualism. The idea of this world is so disturbing that if Microsoft dominates to the point where I have to use Windows (my Solaris, Linux, and OpenBSD workstations get taken away or are rendered useless), I will find a career where I no longer use computers or, if that isn't possible, I will find a country to live in that has properly kept Microsoft at bay.
You mean the Desktop/My Computer/C: thing, right? How is that a kludge?
No, I was referring to the need for A:, B:, C:, D:, E:, F:, ad nauseum, for each filesystem on the computer. This arrangement allows for niceties such as:
C:>cd D:/blah/foo/bar C:>dir...list of C:'s contents, not D:/blah/foo/bar's...
This multitude of drive possiblities also throws a rock into configuration management, since trying to move an application from one drive letter to another can be nearly impossible. The drive letters tend to find themselves hardcoded into the Registry and other configuration files, so simply moving things around can hopelessly break a system. This can still happen in UNIX, but it is much less likely due to a more logical separation between filesystems and their system-visible names.
Also, the letters of the alphabet aren't a particularly useful and versatile set of names. UNIX isn't constrained in such an arbitrary way. In UNIX, you can access a filesystem by any directory path you choose.
The Registry is provided as a service to developers writing Windows apps...
And those developers, with the blessing of the Registry architecture, abused and neglected the Registry so that it is essentially unmaintainable over time. The Registry is an battleground of single-user vs. multi-user design choices and of applications trying to dominate one another. It contains redundancies, abandoned information, and cryptic names that cause pain to those people forced to work with it.
Compared to what?
UNIX is chock full of regular-expression-based tools to search, edit, and report the configuration of the system. Also, all of the tools that directly manipulate the device configurations (networks, filesystems, framebuffers, etc.) are all command-line based. All of these tools can be incorporated into scripts for immensely powerful automation of tasks. Some of these tools even allow network traversals within scripts, so managing large sites of computers is within reach.
...a Windows user can most likely do his/her job just fine without ever buying a non-Microsoft product...
Ahhh, the cozy world of Microsoft, where Microsoft has kindly eliminated competing companies to make all our lives easier.
If Apple could open source their kernel driver API (maybe they have already? I don't know, I don't really follow Mac OS X), and found that enough hackers out there were enthusiastic about Mac OS X and wanted to get their hardware working with it, then it is highly likely that Apple would find itself in the same position as Linux - solid support for 90% of the hardware out there.
Apple could do this, but what Apple user wants the widely inconsistent guarantees about whether any particular driver actually works. Some Linux drivers work with ease and robustness, some work after an hour of tweaking and/or fighting, some work only after a few days of fighting, some don't work at all. A free-for-all development model probably won't satisfy Apple's target audience.
Apple could even do some kind of "certifying" of hardware and independent drivers...
What about combinations of disparate hardware and drivers. One huge problem with Windows on PCs is that conflicts are common and sometimes adding one thing requires removing another. Sometimes Windows just breaks needing reinstallation.
...they will achieve the same level of reliability that Apple has historically been known for...
Unlikely, since third-party components will almost never undergo the thorough testing that current Apple systems undergo. It's just too expensive to do on a large scale.
Some people have suggested that Apple makes their money from hardware, not software, and so porting their OS would be shooting themselves in the foot.
This is largely true for Apple and other companies like Sun. Their business model is based on building top-notch hardware, where the OS is just icing on the cake.
And yet, Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS sales; they sell very little hardware.
Normal free-market forces did not get Microsoft where they are now. Microsoft would be a small fraction of what they are now, if they didn't cheat, steal, crush, and lie to get to the top.
I think that porting Mac OS X to the x86 platform would be a major boon to Apple...
Apple's business would probably benefit more from partnerships with other hardware companies, like Sun, SGI, or IBM, for support on UltraSPARC, MIPS, or Power architectures. This is a reasonable diversification to architectures more like the PowerPC used now. x86 just suffers from too much history, and the crappy BIOS doesn't help, either. Just because it isn't x86 doesn't mean it can't be reasonably priced, if the right decisions were made.
But I could be enjoying Mac OS X already if Apple would just see the light on this issue.
How much would you be willing to pay for Mac OS X to keep Apple in business? Bundling their OS with the hardware doesn't mean the OS is free.
I want the OS to be out of the way, clean and solid.
I agree that Win2K is more solid, but it is in no way "clean". It still suffers from architectural kludges like a multi-rooted directory hierarchy and the Registry, and it suffers from a lack of useful bundled system tools. It seems most answers to my complaints about Windows rely on installing some third-party tool, which is a PITA.
...at the end of the day, it's really about the apps. A perfect example is Photoshop.
Photoshop runs on Macs, too. Perhaps other applications, such as Microsoft Super-Proprietary Product XYZ, would serve as better examples.
Where would you record a symphony then? In a parking lot?
No. I was just trying to point out that recording is very complex, and even a concert hall introduces a lot of variables into how things sound. I doubt that any two points in space within a concert hall actually get the same sound, and background noise can be significant (a few classical recordings have the conductors movements audible or have slight echos due to the room, for example). This is probably true of any live performance, so my argument is that the act of recording can introduce more error than the CD format itself.
Re:Any Text Editor That Needs A Book...
on
Vi IMproved -- Vim
·
· Score: 1
set textmode
Is this an option in vim or vi? I use Solaris vi and didn't see textmode or textwidth among the options.
It's an old trick for a candidate's staff to canvas for votes for the OTHER guy -- at 3AM.
This is exactly what Governor Hodges is doing in South Carolina against his opponent Mark Sanford. He runs a tasteless campaign of TV commercials with Sanford's website URL in big bold letters on the screen. I have yet to see Hodges actually run a pro-Hodges ad. He must be really confident to be able to do this, but it has actually made me suspicious of his character.
Unfortunately, that happens all too often because I wasnt using FrontPage the way MS assumed I would.
This is exactly why I hate Microsoft software and many other GUI-based systems. But let's not debate GUI vs. CLI, right now.
This complaint about the limitations of Frontpage is related to why systems inspired by UNIX have gained so much popularity lately. Look at the spectrum of available systems from OpenBSD and Slackware through Solaris and AIX and all the way to Mac OS X. This really seems very odd at first (Mac and Solaris in the same boat?!?), but it isn't odd at all after thinking about what UNIX really is.
All these systems share a high-level architecture of a kernel, CLI system utilities, and a GUI layer. Any of these components is modular and can be swapped out if different characteristics are desired (hence the BSD, Linux, and commercial kernels and toolsets and the many many graphical environments available). It turns out that this architecture is so flexible that OpenBSD and Mac OS X can correctly be called UNIX but still appeal to an immensely broad audience.
I know that many people have arguments against particular aspects of UNIX, but I don't know of a computing system in all of history that has achieved this breadth of implementation while maintaining significant interoperability. This is really quite an accomplishment.
This is why open non-patent-incumbered file formats are so essential to the future of general computing.
Companies that insist their proprietary formats are necessary to protect their business should be boycotted, because this excuse is simply unfounded. A file format is pure data. If it is architected well, it can store what it needs to store without giving up any secrets about the algorithms and other tricks implemented in the software. Any software product can and should compete on the quality of the implementation, where robustness, completeness, and user-friendliness would all be rewarded by the consumers. File formats are simply an excuse put forth by companies like Microsoft to protect their unfairly gained stake in the software industry.
Until I see a few double blind ABX tests comparing a SACD with a CD mastered from the same source, I'm going to have to consider it all marketing. "Ooh! This format can store *four times* more sound than the human ear can discern, where a CD can just produce a little more than anyone can possibly hear!"
This is a pretty accurate interpretation. Of all the CDs I own, I hear the limitations of the recording studio, mastering process, and my stereo equipment long before I hear the limitations of the CD media. Quite honestly, I think even the CD format is underutilized, because the recording process itself is flawed (just how accurate can a recording of a symphony in a concert hall be?).
The only real motivations behind a "better" format would be to market to ego-blinded audiophiles and to finally have a copy-proof means of distribution. Which one seems the more likely motive?
If music was reasonably priced, even I wouldn't mind purchasing a new (SA)CD to replace a broken or stolen one. $5 here or there isn't enough money to cry over. $20, on the other hand, is still enough for a nice dinner for two or a heap of used books.
The problem with any popularity of a copy-protected format is that the music cartels can artificially create scarcity in the market (recent articles about DeBeers come to mind). Thus, it is highly unlikely that music would ever be reasonably priced, and even normal market forces might not be able to fix this. Possible RIAA quote: "You want music? It $30 or you ain't getting any."
I really don't understand the legal system very well. Could anti-trust action be taken against such a system?
They have academic licensing programs that, provided your school has subscribed, allow students to by M$ products for next to nothing.
I remember buying Office 97 under one of these programs. The price is good, but the licence expires after one year. Yup, that's right, the school dished out tons of money, so students can purchase software that becomes "illegal" after one year.
Windows XP for $15 is a damn big student discount.
Not really, considering the EULAs and phone-home features of Windows XP. I'll stick with Linux, Solaris, and OpenBSD, all of which don't have licensing fees for small computers nor have the rediculous EULAs that Microsoft pulls.
Did I just plug Microsoft?
I suppose I would, too, if I was brainwashed by Microsoft's marketing department.
Re:Any Text Editor That Needs A Book...
on
Vi IMproved -- Vim
·
· Score: 2
Any Text Editor That Needs A Book is hopelessly broken.
This book is optional. `man vi` is sufficient for most people.
The editor that comes with MSVC is usable without a book.
This is debatable. I used MSVC once and remember not being able to type but a few characters at a time before some lame popup or menu prompted me for mouseclicks or selections. These things are probably customizable (sounds like the MSVC on-line help would get used quite a bit before these wrinkles are ironed out).
vi is faster than MSVC, once you have learned a few command keys and understand regular expressions. vi can be extremely productive. MSVC really caters to the newbies of the programming world, and it can grow old pretty quickly once you want to do things faster.
What can VI/VIM do that it can't?
:53,60 s,^,//, (fast commenting, for example)
:1,100 s/,//g (fast conversion of delimited data files, for example)
10yy kkkkkkk p (fast copy and paste, for example)
:43,98 d (fast block deletion of text, for example)
(The numbers after the colons above define ranges of line numbers to operate upon)
The only real weakness of vi is formatting written paragraphs (Emacs has Meta-Q for automating this).
You may see the obtuseness of VI as part of the initiation; I see it as damage and route around it.
Actually, fans of vi see it as a very efficient tool to get the job done. I have saved much more time using vi than I have spent learning it. This is the reason vi just doesn't go away to be replaced by something "superior".
...I have to say you are living in a dream world. The only thing that matters is how well you can spew the latest buzz words (not so different from CS, after all).
I think the buzzword-spouting "artists" are living in a dream world. Confusing buzzwords for substance is living a lie. Good art defys buzzwords; it need not be constrained by fashionable descriptions.
Show me an artist who swears by the latest buzzwords, and I'll show you someone who is likely a bad artist.
The strength of Microsoft's operating systems are the huge amounts of software available and the ease of developing applications that are compatible across all versions of Windows.
This is a made-up fact. It is not possible to create truly portable applications without testing on each target platform. There will always be nuances that break something. Windows is most definitely not special in this regard. It is certainly not easy to track these nuances across at least 7 different incarnations of Windows. The ease you speak of is fictional.
The only systems that truly offer the level of cross-version compatibility you speak of are hardware systems: x86 and SPARC are good examples.
Microsoft will not restrict what software can run, they will only restrict how much damage software that you do not trust can do.
DR-DOS, BeOS, and OS/2 don't come to mind? What about Wordperfect? Microsoft does have a history of restricting what software will run on its platforms.
Also, many discussions conclude that Palladium will not truly stop viruses and trojans in software. Palladium serves better as a system for limiting legitimate uses of computers and as a marketing data delivery system.
And I think it is absurd to imply that hardware manufacturers would ever restrict their hardware to only work with Microsoft. That is just bad business.
Why are Winmodems so common? Why are Windows-only drivers for printers, scanners, and other devices so common?
...Palladium will be a hardware feature that must be enabled by software
As it should be. However, how long will it be before Palladium-only Microsoft Word documents become common, forcing further user imprisonment?
I will be comfortable with Palladium only if: it is optional, Microsoft opens up all its document formats and APIs, and Palladium doesn't "phone home" in any manner. Will Microsoft really be willing to make these sacrificies for the sake of computer users?
Indeed, the only proprietary software code anywhere in my computer is that which lives in the BIOS.
This is true of most x86-based computers, but perhaps less so of other architectures. Could a push to commoditize the SPARC architecture go further, where open implementations of the firmware could be used? According to Sun's OpenBoot documentation, the firmware is an IEEE standard interface.
Perhaps an implementation of this firmware could be adopted to x86, as well, to help break the ugly history of the x86 BIOS?
...we may soon see a split market, in which the inexpensive hardware can only run proprietary software, and if you want to run Free Software, you have to buy much more expensive hardware.
Freedom only for the rich? I will certainly spend more money to get a Free computer, but most people probably won't be willing to do this.
The European Space Agency has made available [gaisler.com] VHDL for a CPU that implements the SPARC V8 instruction set.
For those unfamiliar with the SPARC timeline, SPARC v8 is the full-blown 32-bit architecture that immediately preceded the SPARC v9 64-bit architecture (v9 is used in the current UltraSPARC CPUs). A CPU manufactured using the ESA's implementation would be binary compatible with Sun's line of SPARCstation workstations, which still enjoy a healthy secondary market. It should also be able to run Solaris, Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD when coupled to the right supporting components, which are also generally standardized (PCI, SBus, IDE, SCSI, etc.).
An open-source SPARC-based computer could certainly be built adhering completely to non-DRM standards. The only roadblock would be if future higher-performance standards have DRM hardwired into them.
I don't think ARM has much to lose from "just saying no" to microsoft.
Neither would Sun. Their Intel-based servers are really a small part of their business, so even saying "no" to Intel wouldn't be irrecoverable. Additionally, I'm sure Sun wouldn't mind even saying a polite "F*ck you" to Microsoft in this whole matter.
I will be very interested how the SPARC, Power, MIPS, and even Itanium architectures will react to any DRM mandate. The people that run software on these CPUs will balk at any type of DRM control. For example, who will be making sure the BLOB objects in an Oracle on SPARC database aren't holding anything illegal? Will the database architect have to register the schema with Microsoft Central Command in order to get the in-house database on-line? Where will the Palladium keys be stored in the next generation of SGI media-manipulating workhorses? Will people be able to use the S-video output of high-end graphics cards to record demos of their own software? Will the next version of Sun's C compiler have --register-with-big-brother as an option?
Traditionally, computers based on these architectures have been simple, elegant, and harbor no suprises all the way from the instruction set to the peripheral busses. This simplicity is what attracts many people to these architectures in the first place. My take on the UNIX comptuter vendors is that it is actually in their best interest to get the hell out of the user's way. DRM will certainly be getting in the way.
Another interesting question: will DRM work without an Internet connection? If any mandates require Internet-connected computers, I'm outta here.
Try OpenOffice.org as a replacement for MS Office. You'll find you need the 2+ GHz processor to get anything done.
This is bullshit. I run OpenOffice.org on a five-year-old Sun workstation (440MHz CPU), and OpenOffice is just fine. It doesn't have the quick-load feature enabled, so the only one thing I can complain about is the start-up time.
I think your statement is more accurate if you are talking about Microsoft Office 2000, which is the real fat-boy of office software.
Slashdot Mirror
Their business model has DIED, they need to start selling Audio CDs for $5 to sell them.
I agree. However, one thing I just realized is that I would be willing to pay more if they listed that an explicit percentage of the CD's price went straight to the artist/group/orchestra.
If the CD were $15, and they listed clearly that 1/3 of that ($5) went to an obscure orchestra that needs CD sales to stay afloat, I wouldn't mind this "best of both worlds" sort of pricing (I get a CD, label gets some money, retailer gets some money, and artists don't get swindled).
So. Music today basically blows.
Actually, some of it is so bad that it sucks and blows.
Listening to popular music on the radio and television has become painful. It is about as creative and suprising as a stolen computer program that does nothing more than control a toaster (and some of it is even worse!).
The Apple user that does not want widely inconsistent guarantees should stick to the systems made by Apple...
This might work, but Apple would need to find ways to ensure enough systems are sold for them to remain profitable.
So we agree that Apple isn't as good as Microsoft.
Absolutely not. I don't see where this conclusion came from. My argument was that Microsoft did not do a good job managing Windows drivers, which led to so much misery of Microsoft's customers.
It doesn't even have the guts to face Microsoft.
Just by staying in business, Apple has proven that they have the guts.
Sun has come around and is trying to survive using Linux. I don't think they will survive for long until they are consciously willing to toss out Solaris.
Solaris and Linux are very different operating systems and meet the needs of different markets. As long as Sun does a good job with marketing, Solaris and Linux will meet their target audiences and this is a good thing.
Actually it was normal market forces due to which Microsoft won. How they are maintaining the monopoly is a different matter. Microsoft won because Apple wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. Macintosh). Because Sun wouldn't think out of the box (i.e. think about the desktop).
Microsoft manipulated and abused the market. The free market definitely did not put them where they are now. Also, it isn't about Apple and Sun not "thinking out of the box", since both Apple and Sun have made immense contributions to computing (Apple with totally unique and gorgeous workstations, and Sun with UNIX advancements and tremendously robust servers). In reality, Microsoft has contributed to a large stagnation of the computing industry. A lot of important advancements would have been made with more competition.
These two companies could win and conceded the market to Windows.
What is so sad about this statement is that you seem to want a "one Windows, one way" world. This would be a terribly oppressive world, where no one has any choice about doing unique and creative things outside of the Windows GUI. This is a world of Palladium, a world of government intervention, a world of no privacy, and a world of no individualism. The idea of this world is so disturbing that if Microsoft dominates to the point where I have to use Windows (my Solaris, Linux, and OpenBSD workstations get taken away or are rendered useless), I will find a career where I no longer use computers or, if that isn't possible, I will find a country to live in that has properly kept Microsoft at bay.
You mean the Desktop/My Computer/C: thing, right? How is that a kludge?
...list of C:'s contents, not D:/blah/foo/bar's...
...a Windows user can most likely do his/her job just fine without ever buying a non-Microsoft product...
No, I was referring to the need for A:, B:, C:, D:, E:, F:, ad nauseum, for each filesystem on the computer. This arrangement allows for niceties such as:
C:>cd D:/blah/foo/bar
C:>dir
This multitude of drive possiblities also throws a rock into configuration management, since trying to move an application from one drive letter to another can be nearly impossible. The drive letters tend to find themselves hardcoded into the Registry and other configuration files, so simply moving things around can hopelessly break a system. This can still happen in UNIX, but it is much less likely due to a more logical separation between filesystems and their system-visible names.
Also, the letters of the alphabet aren't a particularly useful and versatile set of names. UNIX isn't constrained in such an arbitrary way. In UNIX, you can access a filesystem by any directory path you choose.
The Registry is provided as a service to developers writing Windows apps...
And those developers, with the blessing of the Registry architecture, abused and neglected the Registry so that it is essentially unmaintainable over time. The Registry is an battleground of single-user vs. multi-user design choices and of applications trying to dominate one another. It contains redundancies, abandoned information, and cryptic names that cause pain to those people forced to work with it.
Compared to what?
UNIX is chock full of regular-expression-based tools to search, edit, and report the configuration of the system. Also, all of the tools that directly manipulate the device configurations (networks, filesystems, framebuffers, etc.) are all command-line based. All of these tools can be incorporated into scripts for immensely powerful automation of tasks. Some of these tools even allow network traversals within scripts, so managing large sites of computers is within reach.
Ahhh, the cozy world of Microsoft, where Microsoft has kindly eliminated competing companies to make all our lives easier.
This is a dillemma, but not difficult to solve...
...they will achieve the same level of reliability that Apple has historically been known for...
If Apple could open source their kernel driver API (maybe they have already? I don't know, I don't really follow Mac OS X), and found that enough hackers out there were enthusiastic about Mac OS X and wanted to get their hardware working with it, then it is highly likely that Apple would find itself in the same position as Linux - solid support for 90% of the hardware out there.
Apple could do this, but what Apple user wants the widely inconsistent guarantees about whether any particular driver actually works. Some Linux drivers work with ease and robustness, some work after an hour of tweaking and/or fighting, some work only after a few days of fighting, some don't work at all. A free-for-all development model probably won't satisfy Apple's target audience.
Apple could even do some kind of "certifying" of hardware and independent drivers...
What about combinations of disparate hardware and drivers. One huge problem with Windows on PCs is that conflicts are common and sometimes adding one thing requires removing another. Sometimes Windows just breaks needing reinstallation.
Unlikely, since third-party components will almost never undergo the thorough testing that current Apple systems undergo. It's just too expensive to do on a large scale.
Some people have suggested that Apple makes their money from hardware, not software, and so porting their OS would be shooting themselves in the foot.
This is largely true for Apple and other companies like Sun. Their business model is based on building top-notch hardware, where the OS is just icing on the cake.
And yet, Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS sales; they sell very little hardware.
Normal free-market forces did not get Microsoft where they are now. Microsoft would be a small fraction of what they are now, if they didn't cheat, steal, crush, and lie to get to the top.
I think that porting Mac OS X to the x86 platform would be a major boon to Apple...
Apple's business would probably benefit more from partnerships with other hardware companies, like Sun, SGI, or IBM, for support on UltraSPARC, MIPS, or Power architectures. This is a reasonable diversification to architectures more like the PowerPC used now. x86 just suffers from too much history, and the crappy BIOS doesn't help, either. Just because it isn't x86 doesn't mean it can't be reasonably priced, if the right decisions were made.
But I could be enjoying Mac OS X already if Apple would just see the light on this issue.
How much would you be willing to pay for Mac OS X to keep Apple in business? Bundling their OS with the hardware doesn't mean the OS is free.
I want the OS to be out of the way, clean and solid.
...at the end of the day, it's really about the apps. A perfect example is Photoshop.
I agree that Win2K is more solid, but it is in no way "clean". It still suffers from architectural kludges like a multi-rooted directory hierarchy and the Registry, and it suffers from a lack of useful bundled system tools. It seems most answers to my complaints about Windows rely on installing some third-party tool, which is a PITA.
Photoshop runs on Macs, too. Perhaps other applications, such as Microsoft Super-Proprietary Product XYZ, would serve as better examples.
Where would you record a symphony then? In a parking lot?
No. I was just trying to point out that recording is very complex, and even a concert hall introduces a lot of variables into how things sound. I doubt that any two points in space within a concert hall actually get the same sound, and background noise can be significant (a few classical recordings have the conductors movements audible or have slight echos due to the room, for example). This is probably true of any live performance, so my argument is that the act of recording can introduce more error than the CD format itself.
set textmode
Is this an option in vim or vi? I use Solaris vi and didn't see textmode or textwidth among the options.
You mean OpenFirmware [openfirmware.org]?
Yes, thank you. I wasn't aware that this firmware was as widely implemented as it is.
You're a poop head.
I was born this way. Please don't make fun of me!
It's an old trick for a candidate's staff to canvas for votes for the OTHER guy -- at 3AM.
This is exactly what Governor Hodges is doing in South Carolina against his opponent Mark Sanford. He runs a tasteless campaign of TV commercials with Sanford's website URL in big bold letters on the screen. I have yet to see Hodges actually run a pro-Hodges ad. He must be really confident to be able to do this, but it has actually made me suspicious of his character.
Unfortunately, that happens all too often because I wasnt using FrontPage the way MS assumed I would.
This is exactly why I hate Microsoft software and many other GUI-based systems. But let's not debate GUI vs. CLI, right now.
This complaint about the limitations of Frontpage is related to why systems inspired by UNIX have gained so much popularity lately. Look at the spectrum of available systems from OpenBSD and Slackware through Solaris and AIX and all the way to Mac OS X. This really seems very odd at first (Mac and Solaris in the same boat?!?), but it isn't odd at all after thinking about what UNIX really is.
All these systems share a high-level architecture of a kernel, CLI system utilities, and a GUI layer. Any of these components is modular and can be swapped out if different characteristics are desired (hence the BSD, Linux, and commercial kernels and toolsets and the many many graphical environments available). It turns out that this architecture is so flexible that OpenBSD and Mac OS X can correctly be called UNIX but still appeal to an immensely broad audience.
I know that many people have arguments against particular aspects of UNIX, but I don't know of a computing system in all of history that has achieved this breadth of implementation while maintaining significant interoperability. This is really quite an accomplishment.
It's not a pretty picture.
This is why open non-patent-incumbered file formats are so essential to the future of general computing.
Companies that insist their proprietary formats are necessary to protect their business should be boycotted, because this excuse is simply unfounded. A file format is pure data. If it is architected well, it can store what it needs to store without giving up any secrets about the algorithms and other tricks implemented in the software. Any software product can and should compete on the quality of the implementation, where robustness, completeness, and user-friendliness would all be rewarded by the consumers. File formats are simply an excuse put forth by companies like Microsoft to protect their unfairly gained stake in the software industry.
Until I see a few double blind ABX tests comparing a SACD with a CD mastered from the same source, I'm going to have to consider it all marketing. "Ooh! This format can store *four times* more sound than the human ear can discern, where a CD can just produce a little more than anyone can possibly hear!"
This is a pretty accurate interpretation. Of all the CDs I own, I hear the limitations of the recording studio, mastering process, and my stereo equipment long before I hear the limitations of the CD media. Quite honestly, I think even the CD format is underutilized, because the recording process itself is flawed (just how accurate can a recording of a symphony in a concert hall be?).
The only real motivations behind a "better" format would be to market to ego-blinded audiophiles and to finally have a copy-proof means of distribution. Which one seems the more likely motive?
If music was reasonably priced, even I wouldn't mind purchasing a new (SA)CD to replace a broken or stolen one. $5 here or there isn't enough money to cry over. $20, on the other hand, is still enough for a nice dinner for two or a heap of used books.
The problem with any popularity of a copy-protected format is that the music cartels can artificially create scarcity in the market (recent articles about DeBeers come to mind). Thus, it is highly unlikely that music would ever be reasonably priced, and even normal market forces might not be able to fix this. Possible RIAA quote: "You want music? It $30 or you ain't getting any."
I really don't understand the legal system very well. Could anti-trust action be taken against such a system?
Who *doesn't* use Word to code and edit configuration files?
I read this and spontaneously vomited all over my keyboard and desk. Thanks a lot!
They have academic licensing programs that, provided your school has subscribed, allow students to by M$ products for next to nothing.
I remember buying Office 97 under one of these programs. The price is good, but the licence expires after one year. Yup, that's right, the school dished out tons of money, so students can purchase software that becomes "illegal" after one year.
Windows XP for $15 is a damn big student discount.
Not really, considering the EULAs and phone-home features of Windows XP. I'll stick with Linux, Solaris, and OpenBSD, all of which don't have licensing fees for small computers nor have the rediculous EULAs that Microsoft pulls.
Did I just plug Microsoft?
I suppose I would, too, if I was brainwashed by Microsoft's marketing department.
This book is optional. `man vi` is sufficient for most people.
The editor that comes with MSVC is usable without a book.
This is debatable. I used MSVC once and remember not being able to type but a few characters at a time before some lame popup or menu prompted me for mouseclicks or selections. These things are probably customizable (sounds like the MSVC on-line help would get used quite a bit before these wrinkles are ironed out).
vi is faster than MSVC, once you have learned a few command keys and understand regular expressions. vi can be extremely productive. MSVC really caters to the newbies of the programming world, and it can grow old pretty quickly once you want to do things faster.
What can VI/VIM do that it can't?
10yy kkkkkkk p (fast copy and paste, for example)
(The numbers after the colons above define ranges of line numbers to operate upon)
The only real weakness of vi is formatting written paragraphs (Emacs has Meta-Q for automating this).
You may see the obtuseness of VI as part of the initiation; I see it as damage and route around it.
Actually, fans of vi see it as a very efficient tool to get the job done. I have saved much more time using vi than I have spent learning it. This is the reason vi just doesn't go away to be replaced by something "superior".
...I have to say you are living in a dream world. The only thing that matters is how well you can spew the latest buzz words (not so different from CS, after all).
I think the buzzword-spouting "artists" are living in a dream world. Confusing buzzwords for substance is living a lie. Good art defys buzzwords; it need not be constrained by fashionable descriptions.
Show me an artist who swears by the latest buzzwords, and I'll show you someone who is likely a bad artist.
The strength of Microsoft's operating systems are the huge amounts of software available and the ease of developing applications that are compatible across all versions of Windows.
...Palladium will be a hardware feature that must be enabled by software
This is a made-up fact. It is not possible to create truly portable applications without testing on each target platform. There will always be nuances that break something. Windows is most definitely not special in this regard. It is certainly not easy to track these nuances across at least 7 different incarnations of Windows. The ease you speak of is fictional.
The only systems that truly offer the level of cross-version compatibility you speak of are hardware systems: x86 and SPARC are good examples.
Microsoft will not restrict what software can run, they will only restrict how much damage software that you do not trust can do.
DR-DOS, BeOS, and OS/2 don't come to mind? What about Wordperfect? Microsoft does have a history of restricting what software will run on its platforms.
Also, many discussions conclude that Palladium will not truly stop viruses and trojans in software. Palladium serves better as a system for limiting legitimate uses of computers and as a marketing data delivery system.
And I think it is absurd to imply that hardware manufacturers would ever restrict their hardware to only work with Microsoft. That is just bad business.
Why are Winmodems so common? Why are Windows-only drivers for printers, scanners, and other devices so common?
As it should be. However, how long will it be before Palladium-only Microsoft Word documents become common, forcing further user imprisonment?
I will be comfortable with Palladium only if: it is optional, Microsoft opens up all its document formats and APIs, and Palladium doesn't "phone home" in any manner. Will Microsoft really be willing to make these sacrificies for the sake of computer users?
I hope I'm not just feeding a troll here...
No, your questions are part of a "reasoned political debate". Let's see how the debate progresses...
Indeed, the only proprietary software code anywhere in my computer is that which lives in the BIOS.
This is true of most x86-based computers, but perhaps less so of other architectures. Could a push to commoditize the SPARC architecture go further, where open implementations of the firmware could be used? According to Sun's OpenBoot documentation, the firmware is an IEEE standard interface.
Perhaps an implementation of this firmware could be adopted to x86, as well, to help break the ugly history of the x86 BIOS?
...we may soon see a split market, in which the inexpensive hardware can only run proprietary software, and if you want to run Free Software, you have to buy much more expensive hardware.
Freedom only for the rich? I will certainly spend more money to get a Free computer, but most people probably won't be willing to do this.
The European Space Agency has made available [gaisler.com] VHDL for a CPU that implements the SPARC V8 instruction set.
For those unfamiliar with the SPARC timeline, SPARC v8 is the full-blown 32-bit architecture that immediately preceded the SPARC v9 64-bit architecture (v9 is used in the current UltraSPARC CPUs). A CPU manufactured using the ESA's implementation would be binary compatible with Sun's line of SPARCstation workstations, which still enjoy a healthy secondary market. It should also be able to run Solaris, Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD when coupled to the right supporting components, which are also generally standardized (PCI, SBus, IDE, SCSI, etc.).
An open-source SPARC-based computer could certainly be built adhering completely to non-DRM standards. The only roadblock would be if future higher-performance standards have DRM hardwired into them.
I don't think ARM has much to lose from "just saying no" to microsoft.
Neither would Sun. Their Intel-based servers are really a small part of their business, so even saying "no" to Intel wouldn't be irrecoverable. Additionally, I'm sure Sun wouldn't mind even saying a polite "F*ck you" to Microsoft in this whole matter.
I will be very interested how the SPARC, Power, MIPS, and even Itanium architectures will react to any DRM mandate. The people that run software on these CPUs will balk at any type of DRM control. For example, who will be making sure the BLOB objects in an Oracle on SPARC database aren't holding anything illegal? Will the database architect have to register the schema with Microsoft Central Command in order to get the in-house database on-line? Where will the Palladium keys be stored in the next generation of SGI media-manipulating workhorses? Will people be able to use the S-video output of high-end graphics cards to record demos of their own software? Will the next version of Sun's C compiler have --register-with-big-brother as an option?
Traditionally, computers based on these architectures have been simple, elegant, and harbor no suprises all the way from the instruction set to the peripheral busses. This simplicity is what attracts many people to these architectures in the first place. My take on the UNIX comptuter vendors is that it is actually in their best interest to get the hell out of the user's way. DRM will certainly be getting in the way.
Another interesting question: will DRM work without an Internet connection? If any mandates require Internet-connected computers, I'm outta here.
Try OpenOffice.org as a replacement for MS Office. You'll find you need the 2+ GHz processor to get anything done.
This is bullshit. I run OpenOffice.org on a five-year-old Sun workstation (440MHz CPU), and OpenOffice is just fine. It doesn't have the quick-load feature enabled, so the only one thing I can complain about is the start-up time.
I think your statement is more accurate if you are talking about Microsoft Office 2000, which is the real fat-boy of office software.