And yet the labels have the right to force us all to move to DRM enabled machines? No, I'm afraid you have your priorities mixed up.
If no one is willing to make music because they can't get paid for a portion of the sale of each disk with their name on, then there just won't be any music.
Ah man, they got you bad if you actually believe that. Go out back and smack yourself a few times. You really need it. I think you've been listening to too many idiot senators or something. As you tell there won't be any music if we don't pay for it, I hum a little tune. Then I think of all the music I've written for my game, Quest for a King, au gratis. Then I think of my step-brother, brother, and father, all of whom were in bands for the music, and not for the money.
Music made with only profit in mind has never had any soul, and only people like you listen to it. It's drivel -- meant to placate the masses so they will ignore their world. Just like TV.
Man. That's really funny, and it's really sad if you actually believe such garbage.
It's much deeper than that, and much more painful for Gateway. Read parts of the proposed legislation and you'll realize just what kind of overhead companies like Gateway face if the legislation passes. Basically, a lot of PC manufacturers will be shut down if it passes, because of the sheer cost of getting in line with specs will be prohibitive.
How much do you think it will cost to train several hundred techs and get them certified as "Qualified DRM technicians", re-engineer your entire product line(and disposing of the newly illegal machines alredy produced, possibly being forced to shut down production as well), and pay for all the extra DRM stuff? I'll give you a hint: lots more than what most CEOs of computer manufacturers make.
Actually, I think Gateway is trying to raise awareness about an incredibly stupid piece of legislation. If it passes, the "Digital hardware" industry will be hurt really badly. Imagine this; you have razor thin margine across the board, and the government(paid for by Disney) tells you that all your systems need to be redesigned, and every piece of hardware must have expensive new digital rights management built in. All your support staff will need to be retrained at a government certified facility(and replacements found for the employees who don't pass the test and become certified DRM hardware techs), and guess who gets to pay for all this? Even worse, production is halted while this is implemented, because all the hardware manufactered is suddenly illegal because it has no DRM inside.
I'd sure as hell spend the money(a pittiance compared to the huge costs getting in line with federal spec would require) to make the public aware of this farce.
I think motives are being scrutinized more than ever because too many times, companies would do something which seemed good, only to have something truly evil come out of it. After letting their guard down and having some joker deliver a jab to the ribs, people are wary of motive because it demonstrates what could happen in the future.
For example: If MS decided to embrace Linux. Sure, by itself, a company embracing Linux would be a good thing. The problem is that we all know Microsoft has motives which include crushing all competitors, even if it means allying with such an enemy first. Many people would be very wary of such a move.
Such paranoia just extends naturally to anything a large, immortal, rich entity who is virtually immune to the law.
I suppose that would be because my karma is greater than 25.
Delving deeper, I have karma greater than 25 because some of my posts have been moderated up due to being regarded as insightful, funny, interesting, or otherwise.
Taking away choice because a wrong choice can cause an inconvenience is foolish.
DirectX today works the same way you describe -- I didn't even have dx6 on my 98 partition, but every game I install has the option of updating me to the latest version of DX they have. It wasn't even that long ago that many applications did come with IE4 or 5 because Windows 95 was still the dominant OS(which came with either no IE, IE2, or IE3).
Also, as a developer, I know one thing; a program is written for a user, not a developer. If users are going to have problems deploying your program because it can't install the correct components, it's probably best to look into other alternatives. It's a really bad idea to develop using VB4 today because of just how hard it would be to get the runtime DLLs to the end user.
I'm not really talking about higher applications' dependancies, I'm talking about the base OS. It should be initially my choice whether or not to install IE. Just like how some applications want me to install the VB runtimes, I can choose at that point whether or not I want to install those. It's not my, or anyone elses place to say that winamp shouldn't be allowed to have IE as a prerequisite for the mini-browser to run, or for neoplanet to need it to run at all. It should be my choice though, as to whether or not my machine, which will likely only have DUN and K-Meleon installed, should have software packages like IE installed.
I've gone without applications in the past because I didn't want to install a nasty dependancy(one video editor I once had got thrown out because I didn't want to install Apple Quicktime 3.0), I'd like to have the same option to go without istalling IE.
wow, for some reason, reading your post gives me a hankering for FUDge!
huh?
Where is FUD? I see no FUD.
Facts I state: -Linux can be told to run without it's applications, such as X, or lynx, or sdoom, without resorting to any sort of trickery. It is a Kernel, nothing else.
-Windows cannot be told to run without Internet Explorer, or MSN Messager unless you are willing to to hack the registry. It is a package which includes a Kernel, and many other applications.
-While I like the microkernel design, and several OSes which have used this design, either one can work well for end users.
Hell, if you don't agree with me, disagree. Point out where I am full of shit if I am in fact full of shit. Don't make snide comments because I state the facts.
Actually, the two things are completely different, though the actions are the same.
Apple:Damn! We need to include applications so people might buy an iMac!
Microsoft:Damn! We need to include applications so people don't try software from other companies!
Intent is very much a part of the law. When one is merely trying to add enough value to their product to get people to buy it, and the other is trying to aggresively remove other software vendors from the equasion, one is in the right, and one is in the wrong.
Lady Justice: You may include Calculator and the crappy movie creator in XP for the same reason Apple can include imovies and itunes in OSX. Try to use that position to remove ulead from the market though, and justice will crush you as it has other villans.
HTML rendering through Internet Explorer X.X isn't.
I have no problem with functionallity being included in windows. It's the tying it to unrelated products which I can't handle. Just like the Windows 98 GUI. there is nothing in Windows 98 which couldn't be done without IE. Proof? Windows 95. Initial versions of 95 came without IE, because IE didn't come out until the 95 Plus! pack came out. 95 is far smaller, and when given the 98 OS to use(through 98lite), it's far faster and less memory intensive.
To put it in real world terms, would you make a boat which couldn't float without the radar? A car whose engine relied on the radio to run? A plane which couldn't fly without the in-flight movie ready to play? No. You could make a boat which had radar installed without making it a critical component of the ships floater design, you could make a car with a radio (which could be swapped for something better), whose operation doesn't rely on that device, and you could make a plane with all the LCD screens and the VCR and such for in-flight movies which doesn't require those screens or the VCR for the operation of the engines or wings. Windows can have all the functionality it wants without relying on what should be an optional and completely seperate component.
Imagine MS trying to lie their way out of a prejury charge. That would be funny.
"You lied back there!"
"No I didn't!"
"There! You just lied again!"
"No I didn't!"
"Again!"
At this point Steve Balmer jumps up, calls the interrogator a communist, and does a little monkey dance. Then Mundie talks about how he can't understand why anybody would want to use non-MS products. It's really all quite nonsensical.
Linux is a monolitihic kernel. Windows is a monolithic OS. There is a difference, and that difference lies on how high the monolith is. With Linux, everything in the kernel, all the drivers, everything, is in one package -- but only in the kernel. XFree86 is seperate, SDoom is seperate. ls is seperate. With Windows, everything in the OS, the web browser, the IM client(which cannot be removed by conventional means, and is therefore part of the monolith), scandisk, dir, the Windows GUI, the shell, it's all part of the package -- take one, get everything.
Personally, I find microkernels are very nice for desktop systems, like BeOS or QNX. It's really just acedemic though, so either one should work for anyone.
While I agree that MS is scum, and they will try to squirm out of any agreement or resolution, I'd like to make one point;
they never actually *made* that version of windows which doesn't work. It was a doctored video which was presented as a real-time demonstration(someone with a keyboard and mouse was sitting there, pretending to use the computer, but it was just a video running -- a rigged demo).
I have a great idea for the future of Microsoft. Draconian antitrust remedy, they must release the sources for all libraries, release all file formats, and they lose the patents to any technologies they aquire. If they violate the spirit or the word of the remedy, a squadron of bombers levels the Microsoft campus in Redmond.
Draconian remedies, paired with swift decisive actions against the company in the case of further transgressions, is the best way to make sure a company which has spit on the American legal system stays on the right side of the law.
They'd be closing holes which would be relatively small. I'm not talking about rewriting the HTML renderer natively, I'm talking about taking such a renderer out completely, and closing holes where MS natively uses HTML (I've heard the Explorer interface now uses MSHTML.DLL to render folders -- all I'm talking about would be writing an interface more akin to 95, where there was no dependancy on the web browser or the HTML renderer. I'd have no problem if they decided to re-implement all the fluff natively if I would be able to save a few megabytes(and preventing a few crashes) by removing IE altogether.
Even in the most stringent definition(Internet Explorer including MSHTML.DLL and the like), it's just a matter of deleting the files and removing the references in the registry, and closing the holes left in other DLL files(if there even are any) with native code. Even windows is modular enough to exist with a large portion of it's guts ripped out.
Sounds like MS to me; "I really don't need dancing paperclips, or web browsers, or even much of a UI on my production servers, and frankly, I'd prefer I didn't have them at all on there."
Commercialization -- this is the hell of the modern world, but it needn't overtake the entirety of the internet. My own site has a single ad on it, but it's not mine(free hosting has it's price).
The best way to avoid commercialism is to avoid places which attract lots of "customers". Find a website out of the way, find a good niche, and you can even get out of the way of commercialism altogether.
In 2004, I hope to have my game finished, but I doubt it.:)
finally, remember that commercialism is enevitable when the common man enters any arena. These are the sheep which make the spice girls and britany spears moneymakers.It's probably best to find another haven; once the masses enter, the leeches follow.
...Whereas Microsoft has always just hung loose and let the world make decisions for it.
Dude, the GPL is far less an excersize in "control-freakery" than "We've locked the source code 30 miles below redmond in a nuke bunker using an encrypted 1500 disk RAID mirroring array. Do not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this product. Do not give copies to your freinds. Do not sell this product, even if you paid for it. You don't own this product, only MS does. If you don't honor our requests, we reserve the right to take the privelege of using this product."
I think the GPL is a result of RMSs goals. He wanted to liberate code. If some company took the code and sold it without returning the improvements to the code to the original, the ball is very much in the companies court, rather than the original creators'. Whether or not his views are good or bad is irrelevant -- the license was created for one purpose, and it has served that purpose well. Linux would have quickly become a closed source OS if not for the GPL (do you really think RedHat et. al. would continue releasing the code if it wasn't a contractual requirement?)
I'm waiting for it to come out for the PC(late April?). That's okay, I was finally able to find GTA2 for sale only a few weeks ago, so I should have my killin' and robbin' fix until then.:P
No way, the worst for me was walking down the street after a few days of GTA, and looking for a cossie to steal. When you see the world in an overhead perspective in your mind, you know it's time to stop playing GTA.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I realized you posted the first message as well, so I'm guessing that you were being sarcastic.
Ignore the previous message, it was only implied if you were serious.
And yet the labels have the right to force us all to move to DRM enabled machines? No, I'm afraid you have your priorities mixed up.
A HA HAHAA HAHAHA HAHAA HAHAHA HAHAA HAHAHA HAHAA HAHAHA HAHA
If no one is willing to make music because they can't get paid for a portion of the sale of each disk with their name on, then there just won't be any music.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Ah man, they got you bad if you actually believe that. Go out back and smack yourself a few times. You really need it. I think you've been listening to too many idiot senators or something. As you tell there won't be any music if we don't pay for it, I hum a little tune. Then I think of all the music I've written for my game, Quest for a King, au gratis. Then I think of my step-brother, brother, and father, all of whom were in bands for the music, and not for the money.
Music made with only profit in mind has never had any soul, and only people like you listen to it. It's drivel -- meant to placate the masses so they will ignore their world. Just like TV.
Man. That's really funny, and it's really sad if you actually believe such garbage.
It's much deeper than that, and much more painful for Gateway. Read parts of the proposed legislation and you'll realize just what kind of overhead companies like Gateway face if the legislation passes. Basically, a lot of PC manufacturers will be shut down if it passes, because of the sheer cost of getting in line with specs will be prohibitive.
How much do you think it will cost to train several hundred techs and get them certified as "Qualified DRM technicians", re-engineer your entire product line(and disposing of the newly illegal machines alredy produced, possibly being forced to shut down production as well), and pay for all the extra DRM stuff? I'll give you a hint: lots more than what most CEOs of computer manufacturers make.
Actually, I think Gateway is trying to raise awareness about an incredibly stupid piece of legislation. If it passes, the "Digital hardware" industry will be hurt really badly. Imagine this; you have razor thin margine across the board, and the government(paid for by Disney) tells you that all your systems need to be redesigned, and every piece of hardware must have expensive new digital rights management built in. All your support staff will need to be retrained at a government certified facility(and replacements found for the employees who don't pass the test and become certified DRM hardware techs), and guess who gets to pay for all this? Even worse, production is halted while this is implemented, because all the hardware manufactered is suddenly illegal because it has no DRM inside.
I'd sure as hell spend the money(a pittiance compared to the huge costs getting in line with federal spec would require) to make the public aware of this farce.
I think motives are being scrutinized more than ever because too many times, companies would do something which seemed good, only to have something truly evil come out of it. After letting their guard down and having some joker deliver a jab to the ribs, people are wary of motive because it demonstrates what could happen in the future.
For example: If MS decided to embrace Linux. Sure, by itself, a company embracing Linux would be a good thing. The problem is that we all know Microsoft has motives which include crushing all competitors, even if it means allying with such an enemy first. Many people would be very wary of such a move.
Such paranoia just extends naturally to anything a large, immortal, rich entity who is virtually immune to the law.
How come this dumb asswipe is posting +1 eh Taco?
I suppose that would be because my karma is greater than 25.
Delving deeper, I have karma greater than 25 because some of my posts have been moderated up due to being regarded as insightful, funny, interesting, or otherwise.
I hope that clears it up. Asshole.
Taking away choice because a wrong choice can cause an inconvenience is foolish.
DirectX today works the same way you describe -- I didn't even have dx6 on my 98 partition, but every game I install has the option of updating me to the latest version of DX they have. It wasn't even that long ago that many applications did come with IE4 or 5 because Windows 95 was still the dominant OS(which came with either no IE, IE2, or IE3).
Also, as a developer, I know one thing; a program is written for a user, not a developer. If users are going to have problems deploying your program because it can't install the correct components, it's probably best to look into other alternatives. It's a really bad idea to develop using VB4 today because of just how hard it would be to get the runtime DLLs to the end user.
Actually, to extend my car analogy, it would be like the speakers in a car requiring the radio to function, but the engine would still run without it.
I'm not really talking about higher applications' dependancies, I'm talking about the base OS. It should be initially my choice whether or not to install IE. Just like how some applications want me to install the VB runtimes, I can choose at that point whether or not I want to install those. It's not my, or anyone elses place to say that winamp shouldn't be allowed to have IE as a prerequisite for the mini-browser to run, or for neoplanet to need it to run at all. It should be my choice though, as to whether or not my machine, which will likely only have DUN and K-Meleon installed, should have software packages like IE installed.
:)
I've gone without applications in the past because I didn't want to install a nasty dependancy(one video editor I once had got thrown out because I didn't want to install Apple Quicktime 3.0), I'd like to have the same option to go without istalling IE.
My existential hard drive.
wow, for some reason, reading your post gives me a hankering for FUDge!
huh?
Where is FUD? I see no FUD.
Facts I state:
-Linux can be told to run without it's applications, such as X, or lynx, or sdoom, without resorting to any sort of trickery. It is a Kernel, nothing else.
-Windows cannot be told to run without Internet Explorer, or MSN Messager unless you are willing to to hack the registry. It is a package which includes a Kernel, and many other applications.
-While I like the microkernel design, and several OSes which have used this design, either one can work well for end users.
Hell, if you don't agree with me, disagree. Point out where I am full of shit if I am in fact full of shit. Don't make snide comments because I state the facts.
Actually, the two things are completely different, though the actions are the same.
Apple:Damn! We need to include applications so people might buy an iMac!
Microsoft:Damn! We need to include applications so people don't try software from other companies!
Intent is very much a part of the law. When one is merely trying to add enough value to their product to get people to buy it, and the other is trying to aggresively remove other software vendors from the equasion, one is in the right, and one is in the wrong.
Lady Justice: You may include Calculator and the crappy movie creator in XP for the same reason Apple can include imovies and itunes in OSX. Try to use that position to remove ulead from the market though, and justice will crush you as it has other villans.
HTML rendering in windows would be fine.
HTML rendering through Internet Explorer X.X isn't.
I have no problem with functionallity being included in windows. It's the tying it to unrelated products which I can't handle. Just like the Windows 98 GUI. there is nothing in Windows 98 which couldn't be done without IE. Proof? Windows 95. Initial versions of 95 came without IE, because IE didn't come out until the 95 Plus! pack came out. 95 is far smaller, and when given the 98 OS to use(through 98lite), it's far faster and less memory intensive.
To put it in real world terms, would you make a boat which couldn't float without the radar? A car whose engine relied on the radio to run? A plane which couldn't fly without the in-flight movie ready to play? No. You could make a boat which had radar installed without making it a critical component of the ships floater design, you could make a car with a radio (which could be swapped for something better), whose operation doesn't rely on that device, and you could make a plane with all the LCD screens and the VCR and such for in-flight movies which doesn't require those screens or the VCR for the operation of the engines or wings. Windows can have all the functionality it wants without relying on what should be an optional and completely seperate component.
At the time MS was talking about that, they were just starting to launch Windows 98.
Just because you kept digging after someone reminded you that you wouldn't be able to climb out doesn't mean you deserve a ladder.
Imagine MS trying to lie their way out of a prejury charge. That would be funny.
"You lied back there!"
"No I didn't!"
"There! You just lied again!"
"No I didn't!"
"Again!"
At this point Steve Balmer jumps up, calls the interrogator a communist, and does a little monkey dance. Then Mundie talks about how he can't understand why anybody would want to use non-MS products. It's really all quite nonsensical.
Linux is a monolitihic kernel. Windows is a monolithic OS. There is a difference, and that difference lies on how high the monolith is. With Linux, everything in the kernel, all the drivers, everything, is in one package -- but only in the kernel. XFree86 is seperate, SDoom is seperate. ls is seperate. With Windows, everything in the OS, the web browser, the IM client(which cannot be removed by conventional means, and is therefore part of the monolith), scandisk, dir, the Windows GUI, the shell, it's all part of the package -- take one, get everything.
Personally, I find microkernels are very nice for desktop systems, like BeOS or QNX. It's really just acedemic though, so either one should work for anyone.
While I agree that MS is scum, and they will try to squirm out of any agreement or resolution, I'd like to make one point;
they never actually *made* that version of windows which doesn't work. It was a doctored video which was presented as a real-time demonstration(someone with a keyboard and mouse was sitting there, pretending to use the computer, but it was just a video running -- a rigged demo).
I have a great idea for the future of Microsoft. Draconian antitrust remedy, they must release the sources for all libraries, release all file formats, and they lose the patents to any technologies they aquire. If they violate the spirit or the word of the remedy, a squadron of bombers levels the Microsoft campus in Redmond.
Draconian remedies, paired with swift decisive actions against the company in the case of further transgressions, is the best way to make sure a company which has spit on the American legal system stays on the right side of the law.
They'd be closing holes which would be relatively small. I'm not talking about rewriting the HTML renderer natively, I'm talking about taking such a renderer out completely, and closing holes where MS natively uses HTML (I've heard the Explorer interface now uses MSHTML.DLL to render folders -- all I'm talking about would be writing an interface more akin to 95, where there was no dependancy on the web browser or the HTML renderer. I'd have no problem if they decided to re-implement all the fluff natively if I would be able to save a few megabytes(and preventing a few crashes) by removing IE altogether.
Even in the most stringent definition(Internet Explorer including MSHTML.DLL and the like), it's just a matter of deleting the files and removing the references in the registry, and closing the holes left in other DLL files(if there even are any) with native code. Even windows is modular enough to exist with a large portion of it's guts ripped out.
Before you feel all high and mighty I think I should point out that something likely 75% of all redhat boxes are rooted in the first 24 hours.
And all statistics are made up. 62% of people know that!
Sounds like MS to me;
"I really don't need dancing paperclips, or web browsers, or even much of a UI on my production servers, and frankly, I'd prefer I didn't have them at all on there."
"No! You need it!"
hehehe.
Head to 98lite.net and you'll find out that they were lying all along.
:)
Personally, I find that 98 with the 95OSR2 UI, with K-Meleon(kmeleon.sourceforge.net) makes for an incredibly stable Windows 98 system.
The best way to make Microsoft products stable is to remove as much Microsoft code as possible.
Commercialization -- this is the hell of the modern world, but it needn't overtake the entirety of the internet. My own site has a single ad on it, but it's not mine(free hosting has it's price).
:)
The best way to avoid commercialism is to avoid places which attract lots of "customers". Find a website out of the way, find a good niche, and you can even get out of the way of commercialism altogether.
In 2004, I hope to have my game finished, but I doubt it.
finally, remember that commercialism is enevitable when the common man enters any arena. These are the sheep which make the spice girls and britany spears moneymakers.It's probably best to find another haven; once the masses enter, the leeches follow.
GPL is an exercise in control-freakery
...Whereas Microsoft has always just hung loose and let the world make decisions for it.
Dude, the GPL is far less an excersize in "control-freakery" than "We've locked the source code 30 miles below redmond in a nuke bunker using an encrypted 1500 disk RAID mirroring array. Do not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this product. Do not give copies to your freinds. Do not sell this product, even if you paid for it. You don't own this product, only MS does. If you don't honor our requests, we reserve the right to take the privelege of using this product."
I think the GPL is a result of RMSs goals. He wanted to liberate code. If some company took the code and sold it without returning the improvements to the code to the original, the ball is very much in the companies court, rather than the original creators'. Whether or not his views are good or bad is irrelevant -- the license was created for one purpose, and it has served that purpose well. Linux would have quickly become a closed source OS if not for the GPL (do you really think RedHat et. al. would continue releasing the code if it wasn't a contractual requirement?)
I'm waiting for it to come out for the PC(late April?). That's okay, I was finally able to find GTA2 for sale only a few weeks ago, so I should have my killin' and robbin' fix until then. :P
No way, the worst for me was walking down the street after a few days of GTA, and looking for a cossie to steal. When you see the world in an overhead perspective in your mind, you know it's time to stop playing GTA.