Yes; where QuickTime is important is in giving that person the opportunity to actually distribute content encoded in relatively obscure codecs like this, since QuickTime makes retreiving the appropriate codec for anything wrapped in it automatic and the actual codec chosen transparent to the user. For example, the DRM panel video posted here last week was in H.263 format, but I'll bet very few people who watched it were even aware of that (note the many obligatory anti-Sorenson posts in that article;). How many people would have watched that H.263 video if not for the QuickTime format?
The H.263 codec has been included with QuickTime for quite some time, perhaps this new version will be as well. That would put it in the hands of millions of "Joe Computer Geeks."
Unfortunately, the colossal amount of programming it takes to implement every standard you need nowadays just to have a browser that supports layout and JavaScript is one of the reasons it's so hard for anything less than a colossal corporation or project to put out a browser that will work on any website (else we wouldn't need Chimera because we could use OmniWeb); even Mozilla still doesn't support every W3 recommendation perfectly.
If you want a more in-depth discussion of why there need to be two seperate projects for three platforms to create a lean web browser based on the Gecko engine, read David Hyatt's blog from April 20th:
I absolutely agree with this; in a large business all internal documents being done to a consistant style sheet not only saves massive amounts of work, but also creates a more consistant and professional appearance to the comany's works. Anything to be published outside of the company, however, does need to have the little touches like kerning applied to it (but in a huge corporation, over 95% of what is written is internal, and external documents should all be going throught eh design team anyway).
What the employees need to accomplish this is not a programming class in XML and a text editor, but a WYSIWYG document editor that doesn't allow them to deviate from the set style, and emphsasizes speed. For example, you create a new document, there is a box at the top where you type the title, which would be set in the appropriate font and size (the app wouldn't have font or size menus). They then click in the body section and type whatever they want to. The program has commands to make the body text italic, bold or indented, a command to make numbered or bulleted lists, a command to make subheads (which would again be set in the appropriate font and size) and little else. The program could store these documents in a simple XML format, and have the ability to print them or export them as PDF (so that people outside the corporation could read them, or so that they could be sent to a print shop).
To start off by putting this all in context, remember that the FSF themselves say that there is only one remaining major problem with the ASPL:
In January 2001, Apple released another version, ASPL 1.2. This version fixes two of the fatal flaws, but one still remains: any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published. The APSL 1.2 has taken two large steps towards a free software license, but still has one more large step to take before it qualifies.
* * *
I disagree with the word "protections" because I don't think any harm comes to software by sharing and modifying it.
Protections as in protections from Apple being sued as a result of releasing this software. The long history of open source has shown us that many of the protections they have in the license are unneccessary, but it is understandable that someone would want to go to every length possible to make sure that they can't end up losing money for contributing something. I'm simply observing that Apple had drastically more of this kind of rediculously restrictive language in the previous two versions, and there has been dramatic improvement in the terms of the licence, to the point where even the FSF even has one major beef with it (the publishing requirement).
The reason few have "fall[en] prey" to the APSL thus far is because of the widely disseminated freedom-minded concerns of the Free Software movement which point out serious flaws in the APSL.
The FSF would do a lot more good if they would actually write an article about ASPL 1.2 instead of leaving the old version on the 'net for people to cite and tagging on a three-sentence note about how most of it is no longer relevant. Much of the argument over the ASPL results from the ambiguity of their article as it applies to the current version of the licence. Apple responded to the concerns they raised when they wrote the article, why not try it again?
Finally, I feel that ASPL'ed code has been as sucessful as anyone could have expected given that until the Rendezvous code was released, none of it really had any application outside the PPC platform, except Darwin Streaming Server, which has done quite well as an application, even though there is little to be gotten out of it code-wise. Most of the code that Apple engineers work on that is applicable to other platforms is everyday, incremental work on existing BSD programs as members of the BSD effort, and this work obviously never comes under the terms of the ASPL.
I don't think BBEdit really needs to be anything more than a text editor; I can't imagine trying to do all the stuff I do in InDesign with hand coding.
How on earth do you kern your display type with code? Type in a new value (i.e. Title, and so on), hit preview output, enter a whole new set of values, and then repeat this process 12 times until it's right because you can't just use a slider and see the results immediately?
I agree that a plaintext version of the document with some kind minimal style markup is what you want for copy, and keeping a copy of it around gives you an easily searchable and updatable document, but it would take at least 10 times as long to set type with code as it would in a GUI; It's no coincidence at all that the desktop publishing revolutio coincided with the GUI revolution.
Basically all you're saying is that the employees should just write copy, and some program should automatically set the type using some preset template (it isn't really relevant what format the copy is in; copy/type is a different distinction than structure/presentation as one deals with the English language and the other deals with programming language). This is exactly the way things have been done for a long time, it's just that many people have lost the distinction between copywriting and typesetting now that you can do it all at once in word processing apps.
Sometimes this is a good thing (when you want to get out a unique document very quickly) and sometimes it isn't (when people with no training in typesetting are sending out memos with four different fonts and underlined text). This semester I've forced myself to write all my papers in BBEdit and then set them in InDesign, and I must say that while it adds a few minutes to the process, by preventing yourself from getting lazy you get much better looking and consistent documents.
Any book that is technical in nature and is simply teching you how to use a suite is obviously going to be applicable to only one program, but if you give them a book about what to do with it, they will gain knowledge that can be used in any environment, and which will probably help them out more in the long term than learning what every menu command in suite x does. I highly recommend Robin Williams's classic The Mac Is Not a Typewriter: A Style Manual for Creating Professional-Level Type on Your Personal Computer. The revised editon will be available this spring, and The PC Is Not a Typewriter is available now.
Yes, the FSF points are fine (even though they are nearly impossible to dig out of the article since it hasn't been completely rewritten since ASPL 1.0); I was just saying that many here are saying the license is not a free software license with shock and outrage as if Apple had said that it is. New licenses like the ASPL are very important for the Open Source movement as they can provide an example for how profitable companies can also co-exist with and contribute to open software, yeilding great benefit to both (i.e. Apple gets a great core for their new OS, and the open source community gets Apple engineers putting hundreds of man-hours of effort into the new version of gcc). Obviously Apple's licence is not a good example yet, but Apple is new to this and they are themselves still trying to copy other companies' efforts at this. What is most important is that a company that five years ago wasn't contributing anything to the community now pays the salary of a team of open-source engineers.
And yes, it is entirely possible for a company to release GPL software and deal with the legal reprecussions; I'm just saying that this language was obviously added by the legal team to cover their ass, and this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet. Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code. And I have a good deal of confidence that this will happen; look at the massive amount of progress between ASPL 1.0 and 1.2. Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned. Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft; the only time such groups have been targeted by Apple is when they infringed on copyright, and Apple didn't go after anyone for using similar ideas, but for copying pixel-for-pixel or word-for-word their own work.
Apple never said it was Free Software, they said it was Open Source. Further, Apple only deviates from what the FSF wants in areas where it is prudent business practice. It would be nice for Russian programmers if they could sue Apple under Russian law, but it's hardly worth Apple's money to have to hire lawyers with knowledge of relevant law in every nation and district on earth. You'll see that all the areas where Free Software fans have problems with this license are areas where Apple is trying to prevent itself from gaining any legal liabilities for releasing this code.
All I'm asking is that if you make posts about how the ASPL deviates in a few ways from the GPL, that you remember in balance that it is still a perfectly equitable Open Source license and that those developers who would rather develop Open software than Free software will still get great utility out of it. The title of this article didn't say anything about Apple going to a Free Software model, it said they were opening the codebase for Rendezvous, which they have indeed done under a licence that fully qualifies as being open source (see http://www.opensource.org). This is why it is sad that this thread became a giant GPL v. other licences debate when it could have talked about some interesting potential applications of this technology for Open Source developers.
You complain about the ASPL, but the only facts you point out about it are in the FSF link, and Apple has already made every change the FSF requested, except requiring you to publish deployed changes. Comparing the Apple Open Source program to MS's Shared Source program is pure BS: MS never said they were doing anything like open source; they never even used the term, and there are almost no similarities in the terms of the licences. And as for:
Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license.
Just read the fine licence:
7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple.
You always have the right to use the version of the licence the code was published under, and Apple has no clause allowing them to revoke the licence at their discretion; the licence may only be cancelled if you violate it or you sue Apple for patent infringement. See:
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Section 13.5(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
.........
13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.
Apple didn't want to use the BSD licence for their open source because of concern that MS would steal work exactly like the Rendezvous code, and they didn't want to use the (L)GPL licence because they didn't want to unneccissarily prevent anyone from using the code. Dozens, if not hundreds, of other companies have made similar open source licences to fit their needs. Apple made a few big mistakes in version 1.0 of their licence, but I see little room for anyone to complain about the current one.
Re:There is a reason Nintendo sold off its stake
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 2
Bungie was at least as notorious for delays as Rare and Blizzard (after people got mad with Marathon games missing dates Bungie stopped even having release dates). The MS solution to this is obvious: they have them ship games before they're completely done.
As for the quality of the games, PD had great features but nowhere near the fun factor of Goldeneye. The Banjo games were excellent; PD and Banjo are the big licences Rare is bringing with. JFG was awesome, but didn't sell as well as it deserved. DK64 was crap and sold better than it deserved just because it had a Rare logo on it. Conker was pretty goo, Diddy Kong Racing was also mediocre, and Star Fox looks to be quite good. So I think it was very fair for the N to say that Rare's games as a whole have gone downhill, and it makes even more sense when you consider Rare had not announced sequels to Banjo or JFG. I think the major thing to look at after the merger, besides just how unpolished the games become, is if MS will get them to focus on adult games (i.e. Perfect Dark sequels for the rest of eternety) or if we will se Banjo and JFG sequels.
What I said is there is no guidelines how and when to handle such actions.
There are indeed guidelines for long tasks. The system automatically displays the busy cursor if the application the user has the cursor over hasn't been responding to events for at least two seconds, and the HIG covers when you need to use the chasing bars or a progress bar for longer tasks.
* The single menu bar is a pain on large screens. Worse, it is confusing to many users: when they start an application, they expect an application to appear, not just some subtle change in the appearance of the menubar.
Mac OS X apps always create a new document (or viewer, main window, etc., as appropriate to the app) when you activate them, so it is no longer possible that the only change you see when switching apps is a new menubar as was possible in Mac OS 9, and of course every app must always create such a window when it launces. You can still switch to an application with no open windows without creting a new window by using command-tab, but in this case it is already extremely apparent which app you have switched to because of the highlight and magnification of that application's dock icon, and this is not the method new users will use at first.
is that most people who are interested in making an MP3 library of all their music already own a computer, and it's hard to compete with the $4.99 price tag on this alternate solution for playing your MP3 collection on your stereo.
Netscape is basically a branded version of Moz with some slight tweaks (like some UI, or the lack of popup blocking), so don't expect to get anything extra.
But if Netscape does abandon their browser, and only makes it availible for embedding, that would also mean that there would be no Netscape engineers working on any part of the browser outside Gecko, and I fear how Mozilla's UI mess would escalate without even the little guidance it has now, so be careful what you wish for;).
You're assuming that making new windows is a valid thing that pages should be able to do for advertizing. Personally, I don't beleive www.somenewssite.com has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files. If they want to display a small pop-up to show, for example, a little help note, when I click on it, I see that there is a good use for the technology. But why should they be allowed to hijack my browser? If you're using a browser without popup blocking, I could just send you to a page that opens 1,001 popup windows, forcing you to kill your browser program (or restart your entire machine if it didn't have preemptive multitasking).
I don't block any regular ads; I fully agree that sites need to be allowed to pay their writers, and I don't have a problem with them inserting even gigantic ads. Have any of you read a magazine or newspaper lately? Most other mediums devote more than a 1x8" square to advertizing, and as long as web pages keep the same kind of ratio of advertizing to content as other mediums I have no quarrel. But I would not tolerate a newspaper that used a CO2 cannister to propel advertizing and confetti all over my living room.
I was fooling around with a fresh download of MSIE 5.2.1 on Mac OS X earlier today. The download was 7.2 MB compressed
But the Mozilla for Mac OS X download is 17.4 MB (that's well over twice the size), and we don't get the option to only download or install the browser; totally uncacceptable!
You can select any or all tracks you have ripped using iTunes and use the Get CD Track Names on them at any time. In iTunes 3 with the Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized option it will even update the file names and folder names and structure with the new information instantly.
iTunes 3 lets you merge tracks when you import, and you have been able to get near seamless playthrough by turning on crossfade and setting the time to 0 since iTunes 2.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes; where QuickTime is important is in giving that person the opportunity to actually distribute content encoded in relatively obscure codecs like this, since QuickTime makes retreiving the appropriate codec for anything wrapped in it automatic and the actual codec chosen transparent to the user. For example, the DRM panel video posted here last week was in H.263 format, but I'll bet very few people who watched it were even aware of that (note the many obligatory anti-Sorenson posts in that article ;). How many people would have watched that H.263 video if not for the QuickTime format?
The H.263 codec has been included with QuickTime for quite some time, perhaps this new version will be as well. That would put it in the hands of millions of "Joe Computer Geeks."
The video is encoded with the H.263 codec, and the audio is encoded with the QDesign Music 2 codec.
Unfortunately, the colossal amount of programming it takes to implement every standard you need nowadays just to have a browser that supports layout and JavaScript is one of the reasons it's so hard for anything less than a colossal corporation or project to put out a browser that will work on any website (else we wouldn't need Chimera because we could use OmniWeb); even Mozilla still doesn't support every W3 recommendation perfectly.
http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_1 4_mozillian_archive.html
Here's the link: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2002/09/fore nsics/
What the employees need to accomplish this is not a programming class in XML and a text editor, but a WYSIWYG document editor that doesn't allow them to deviate from the set style, and emphsasizes speed. For example, you create a new document, there is a box at the top where you type the title, which would be set in the appropriate font and size (the app wouldn't have font or size menus). They then click in the body section and type whatever they want to. The program has commands to make the body text italic, bold or indented, a command to make numbered or bulleted lists, a command to make subheads (which would again be set in the appropriate font and size) and little else. The program could store these documents in a simple XML format, and have the ability to print them or export them as PDF (so that people outside the corporation could read them, or so that they could be sent to a print shop).
Finally, I feel that ASPL'ed code has been as sucessful as anyone could have expected given that until the Rendezvous code was released, none of it really had any application outside the PPC platform, except Darwin Streaming Server, which has done quite well as an application, even though there is little to be gotten out of it code-wise. Most of the code that Apple engineers work on that is applicable to other platforms is everyday, incremental work on existing BSD programs as members of the BSD effort, and this work obviously never comes under the terms of the ASPL.
How on earth do you kern your display type with code? Type in a new value (i.e. Title, and so on), hit preview output, enter a whole new set of values, and then repeat this process 12 times until it's right because you can't just use a slider and see the results immediately?
I agree that a plaintext version of the document with some kind minimal style markup is what you want for copy, and keeping a copy of it around gives you an easily searchable and updatable document, but it would take at least 10 times as long to set type with code as it would in a GUI; It's no coincidence at all that the desktop publishing revolutio coincided with the GUI revolution.
Sometimes this is a good thing (when you want to get out a unique document very quickly) and sometimes it isn't (when people with no training in typesetting are sending out memos with four different fonts and underlined text). This semester I've forced myself to write all my papers in BBEdit and then set them in InDesign, and I must say that while it adds a few minutes to the process, by preventing yourself from getting lazy you get much better looking and consistent documents.
Any book that is technical in nature and is simply teching you how to use a suite is obviously going to be applicable to only one program, but if you give them a book about what to do with it, they will gain knowledge that can be used in any environment, and which will probably help them out more in the long term than learning what every menu command in suite x does. I highly recommend Robin Williams's classic The Mac Is Not a Typewriter: A Style Manual for Creating Professional-Level Type on Your Personal Computer . The revised editon will be available this spring, and The PC Is Not a Typewriter is available now.
And yes, it is entirely possible for a company to release GPL software and deal with the legal reprecussions; I'm just saying that this language was obviously added by the legal team to cover their ass, and this seems to me to be a side-effect of the fact that Apple is new to open source and their legal team isn't fully comfortable with it yet. Hopefully as Apple's open source activity becomes more mature, they will remove some of the protections that aren't really necessary and that might scare people away from the code. And I have a good deal of confidence that this will happen; look at the massive amount of progress between ASPL 1.0 and 1.2. Apple is new to open source and is obviously still experimenting with their license. If Apple looked like it was going to stick to all these terms, I would be much more concerned. Even now I feel that no non-profit group nor any individual would ever fall prey to these clauses; as another poster said, these restrictions are all aimed directly at Microsoft; the only time such groups have been targeted by Apple is when they infringed on copyright, and Apple didn't go after anyone for using similar ideas, but for copying pixel-for-pixel or word-for-word their own work.
All I'm asking is that if you make posts about how the ASPL deviates in a few ways from the GPL, that you remember in balance that it is still a perfectly equitable Open Source license and that those developers who would rather develop Open software than Free software will still get great utility out of it. The title of this article didn't say anything about Apple going to a Free Software model, it said they were opening the codebase for Rendezvous, which they have indeed done under a licence that fully qualifies as being open source (see http://www.opensource.org). This is why it is sad that this thread became a giant GPL v. other licences debate when it could have talked about some interesting potential applications of this technology for Open Source developers.
Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license.
Just read the fine licence:
7. Versions of the License. Apple may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number. Once Original Code has been published under a particular version of this License, You may continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Original Code under the terms of any subsequent version of this License published by Apple.
You always have the right to use the version of the licence the code was published under, and Apple has no clause allowing them to revoke the licence at their discretion; the licence may only be cancelled if you violate it or you sue Apple for patent infringement. See:
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: (a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach; ... ...
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Section 13.5(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
...
13.5 Severability. (a) If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this License, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, that provision of the License will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to effect the economic benefits and intent of the parties, and the remainder of this License will continue in full force and effect. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if applicable law prohibits or restricts You from fully and/or specifically complying with Sections 2 and/or 3 or prevents the enforceability of either of those Sections, this License will immediately terminate and You must immediately discontinue any use of the Covered Code and destroy all copies of it that are in your possession or control.
Apple didn't want to use the BSD licence for their open source because of concern that MS would steal work exactly like the Rendezvous code, and they didn't want to use the (L)GPL licence because they didn't want to unneccissarily prevent anyone from using the code. Dozens, if not hundreds, of other companies have made similar open source licences to fit their needs. Apple made a few big mistakes in version 1.0 of their licence, but I see little room for anyone to complain about the current one.
Bungie was at least as notorious for delays as Rare and Blizzard (after people got mad with Marathon games missing dates Bungie stopped even having release dates). The MS solution to this is obvious: they have them ship games before they're completely done. As for the quality of the games, PD had great features but nowhere near the fun factor of Goldeneye. The Banjo games were excellent; PD and Banjo are the big licences Rare is bringing with. JFG was awesome, but didn't sell as well as it deserved. DK64 was crap and sold better than it deserved just because it had a Rare logo on it. Conker was pretty goo, Diddy Kong Racing was also mediocre, and Star Fox looks to be quite good. So I think it was very fair for the N to say that Rare's games as a whole have gone downhill, and it makes even more sense when you consider Rare had not announced sequels to Banjo or JFG. I think the major thing to look at after the merger, besides just how unpolished the games become, is if MS will get them to focus on adult games (i.e. Perfect Dark sequels for the rest of eternety) or if we will se Banjo and JFG sequels.
Hmm.... I have a nice fiberglass hammer and a Power Mac... ;)
There are indeed guidelines for long tasks. The system automatically displays the busy cursor if the application the user has the cursor over hasn't been responding to events for at least two seconds, and the HIG covers when you need to use the chasing bars or a progress bar for longer tasks.
Mac OS X apps always create a new document (or viewer, main window, etc., as appropriate to the app) when you activate them, so it is no longer possible that the only change you see when switching apps is a new menubar as was possible in Mac OS 9, and of course every app must always create such a window when it launces. You can still switch to an application with no open windows without creting a new window by using command-tab, but in this case it is already extremely apparent which app you have switched to because of the highlight and magnification of that application's dock icon, and this is not the method new users will use at first.
is that most people who are interested in making an MP3 library of all their music already own a computer, and it's hard to compete with the $4.99 price tag on this alternate solution for playing your MP3 collection on your stereo.
Netscape is basically a branded version of Moz with some slight tweaks (like some UI, or the lack of popup blocking), so don't expect to get anything extra. But if Netscape does abandon their browser, and only makes it availible for embedding, that would also mean that there would be no Netscape engineers working on any part of the browser outside Gecko, and I fear how Mozilla's UI mess would escalate without even the little guidance it has now, so be careful what you wish for ;).
You're assuming that making new windows is a valid thing that pages should be able to do for advertizing. Personally, I don't beleive www.somenewssite.com has permission to open windows on my computer any more than they have permission to launch my applications or download my files. If they want to display a small pop-up to show, for example, a little help note, when I click on it, I see that there is a good use for the technology. But why should they be allowed to hijack my browser? If you're using a browser without popup blocking, I could just send you to a page that opens 1,001 popup windows, forcing you to kill your browser program (or restart your entire machine if it didn't have preemptive multitasking). I don't block any regular ads; I fully agree that sites need to be allowed to pay their writers, and I don't have a problem with them inserting even gigantic ads. Have any of you read a magazine or newspaper lately? Most other mediums devote more than a 1x8" square to advertizing, and as long as web pages keep the same kind of ratio of advertizing to content as other mediums I have no quarrel. But I would not tolerate a newspaper that used a CO2 cannister to propel advertizing and confetti all over my living room.
"They" have figured it out, assuming they is Tex9. http://www.tex9.com/software/xtunes.php
But the Mozilla for Mac OS X download is 17.4 MB (that's well over twice the size), and we don't get the option to only download or install the browser; totally uncacceptable!
Fortunately, Chimera is only 7.3 MB.
You can select any or all tracks you have ripped using iTunes and use the Get CD Track Names on them at any time. In iTunes 3 with the Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized option it will even update the file names and folder names and structure with the new information instantly.
iTunes 3 lets you merge tracks when you import, and you have been able to get near seamless playthrough by turning on crossfade and setting the time to 0 since iTunes 2.