If apple in turn gets a bunch of pissed customers due to this breakage, and it lessens the apple name, real should be held responsible for this and deserve the lawsuit.
Huh? Exactly what could Apple sure Real for? If you bought an ATI card that had poor quality drivers and made MS Windows unstable, could MS turn around and sue ATI for lessening the Microsoft name? Of course not and it would be no different between Real and Apple. If an end user chooses to use a product that makes their iPod unreliable, then it is the end users fault as well as the maker of the faulty product.
There also is not much of a chance of Apple releasing an update that will make Reals product no longer function. Reals product just wraps music from the Real Music Store with a wrapper that is compatible with "fair" play along with Windows media DRM and Real DRM. There is no software required for the iPod. So the only way Apple could "break" what Real is dong is to change the "fair" play DRM which would break the millions of songs purchased from iTMS, not a very good idea for Apple.
Not quite. The Real player method just creates a compatible wrapper for music purchased from the Real Music store so that it is compatible with the iPods "fair" play stuff. It also does the same for Windows media DRM and Real DRM. The only way Apple could "break" the Real compatibility wrapper would be to change the "fair" play DRM and thus break the millions of songs that users have already purchased. Which I am sure Apple would not do or they would have a very angry mob of end users that now have millions of songs purchased from iTMS that no longer work on their iPods. It looks like Apples only option here is to... gasp... compete!
Informative? What exactly were we Informed of from this post?
So what if an employee at Real violated their iPod license? That is not a criminal offense and will just mean that that employee using that iPod is not allowed to use it any more, if the EULA if valid. Also, you don't need a license for a copyrighted work to _USE_ it. You need a license to _redistribute_ it. Do you need to get a license to read a book in the book store or library? Do you need to get a license to look at a painting in a museum? Do you need to get an EULA for a copy machine at Kinkos? No. So an end user does not need to agree to a licesne to _USE_ an iPod. If a frined let me borrow their iPod, I do not need to agree to an Apple EULA.
Real is fucking screwed here
Please tell us Mr. Lawyer, Exactly what did Real _as a company_ do that is illegal?
Real did not create software that changes the iPod or even needs to be installed on an iPod. There software wraps music from the Real Music store with a compatible wrapper so that the iPod will play it along with 70 other devices using Windows Media DRM or Real DRM. So Real as an _end user_ of the iPods they bought did notthing more then try to play their wrapped audio files on the iPod. Exactly what is illegal in that? Would it be illegal for me to try to play my VHS tape in my DVD player? No. Just as there is nothing illegal in the USA for Real to try and play music on Apple's portable music player, after all, isn't that the purpose of a portable music player?
Insightful? This is not even close. Real created a compatibility wrapper for their music from Real Music store. The compatibility wrapper allows music from Real Music store to work on more then 70 portable music players vs. iTMS music only working on one. The compatibility wrapper will work with iPod DRM, Windows DRM and Real DRM. It doesn't "hack" or "crack" anything. It just makes the music playable by the other formats in a legal, reverse engineered way. This is a great thing for consumers. They can use the Real Music Store and not have to worry about what portable music player they have. With the iPod, you are stuck with only iTMS.
All Real (or anyone else) has to do is remove any DMA restrictions on their AAC files and the job is done.
Huh? How would this work? Real and other music stores are required by the RIAA to use DRM on their music. So exactly how would Real or any other music store create a way for end users to remove the DRM without the RIAA going crazy and proably violating their contracts with the RIAA?
Basically what Apple is trying to do is control the hardware and software an lock out any other competition. When MS does this, people have a hissy fit. When Apple does it, Apple fanboys charge to cause and blindly stand up for Apple.
If Real was saying that you could take FairPlay protected tracks purchased from iTMS and play them on some other device then they would likely have a very serious problem.
Did you even read any of the stories on this topic? Real is selling music from the Real Music Store that can be played on more then 70 devices, including the iPod by being compatible with "fair" play DRM, Windows Media DRM and Real DRM. Nothing illegal in that.
Apple having every legal right to prevent this (since FairPlay which is their IP was hacked)
Apple didn't write "Fair" play. They got it from another company. So, I wouldn't even be sure that Apple has any legal right since it is not their "IP".
There is no "hack" on the iPOD. Real has a "Fair" play wrapper and wraps their songs in it. The iPOD will play those songs just like any other "Fair" play song. So there is no software or "hack" needed for the iPOD. I think this is a good move on the part of Real. Apple as usual wants to sell hardware and try to lock users into their software as well. And in this case it is even worse since Apple is trying to lock users into only their music store.
And that compatibility does not include Real's store.
Now it does : )
People know it's not supposed to work with other stores.
Umm, no. People know it does not _currently_ work with other stores. Why in the world is it "not supposed to work with other stores"? That almost sounds like you are saying it is bad or wrong for it to work with other stores. Since when is giving end users more choice a bad thing?
That is total crap. It would be like Ford saying I could not use a non-Ford part because they are protecting the "safety" of the vehicle. People wouldn't stand for an auto company telling them they can only use parts, gas, etc from the auto company. Why should people put up with it from Apple? All Apple has to do is not support customers that put this on their iPOD, tell them they are on their own. Instead Apple will lie and say they don't want this software from Real to "protect" their end users. When in fact it is because Apple just wants to try and control the whole market like they try to do with their computers and OS.
Umm, rm is like a "low level" delete. If you open a command prompt under MS Windows (or what MS considers a command prompt) and 'delete' a file, guess what? That file is not in the recycle bin! Holy cow Bat Man! This is the same as with the Linux/Unix rm command. If you want recylcle bin, then use a GUI to delete the file like Gnome/KDE which will place the "deleted" file into your recycle bin for you to "undelete" or "restore". rm also does not destroy the file. You can still recover it with certain tools, just as you could delete a file under MS Windows with the delete command and use a recovery tool.
First, this is nothing new, other filesystems have done it and it is very safe. Second, ReiserFS allows you to disable it. Just mount your partition with the notail option and ReiserFS will not pack files together, end of story : )
ReiserFS 3 had bugs in the early versions just as all software will. That is why reiserFS was not used for productions systems for a while. It will probably be the same with ReiserFS 4. I will use it at home when it first comes out, but not where I don't want to chance data corruption.
And exactly how would any search/indexer know that it is picture of a bird? If you add 10,000 randomly named imaages and 1,000 of them were of birds to a filesystem, how would any metadata be added that described those 1,000 images as images of birds? Sure you could find all 10,000 images easily, though there would be no way to find all images of birds unless you or someone else added metadata saying that it was an image of a bird. So for many file formats, there is no less work involved in creating metadata then using a good file name. However, the metadata approach is much more flexible and more fined grained then a file name. It will still require work for many file types that cannot be parsed to guess at the type of content. HTML, text, office documetns will all be easy to build metadata from with no user intervention. Though how would you do it for an image or audio file? Some audio files have "tags", though you cannot be guaranteed that they are valid.
Side Note: Cool posibilites like this show how proprietary formats can really suck and lock users out from searching/indexing their own content. Even offerings from MS in this category will suffer from the inability to search/index proprietary formats. I doubt MS will get specs for all possible file formats out-in-the-wild, thus leaving much of an end-users content hidden from searching/indexing.
* Reiser4 is an atomic filesystem, which means that your filesystem operations either entirely occur, or they entirely don't, and they don't corrupt due to half occuring. We do this without significant performance losses, because we invented algorithms to do it without copying the data twice.
* Reiser4 uses dancing trees, which obsolete the balanced tree algorithms used in databases (see farther down). This makes Reiser4 more space efficient than other filesystems because we squish small files together rather than wasting space due to block alignment like they do. It also means that Reiser4 scales better than any other filesystem. Do you want a million files in a directory, and want to create them fast? No problem.
* Reiser4 is based on plugins, which means that it will attract many outside contributors, and you'll be able to upgrade to their innovations without reformatting your disk. If you like to code, you'll really like plugins....
* Reiser4 is architected for military grade security (sponsored by DARPA). You'll find it is easy to audit the code, and that assertions guard the entrance to every function.
Notice the plugin feature. This will create endless possibilities for what you can do with the file system. Want to tie a DB/SQL search function in to it? Write a plugin, want special security? Write a plugin. Tons of possibilites with ReiserFS4 and it is _very_ fast. This is hands down better then the MS "a filesystem as a DB" approach. ReiserFS4 will be like Firebird, lean-n-mean-n-fast. Want more features, grab _your_ favorite plugins!
I work with mostly small to medium sized companies that use Linux (as servers and desktops), because it's free
That is a valid reason, and I am sure has some weight in a decision for some companies/users.
Their opinion is if they have to pay for it, they might as well buy MS.
Why is that? What if they have to pay $150 - $200 per users for WinXP Pro vs $30 for SuSE? Also, with Linux you can buy _one_ copy and install it on as many boxes as you want, you cannot do that with MS Software.
But c'mon, Microsoft is not going to slant their entire page
Why not? MS use to mess with MSN searches for Linux, etc. For a while, any Linux search would return content from MS's site about switching, or studies about how MS Windows has a better TCO. It was actaully on/., and after a while, MSN finally changed whatever they were doing and the Linux searches seem better, though not near the level of Google.
A corporation is considered a single entity. So if a company modifies a GPL application and uses it internally _ONLY_, then there would be no obligation to give their modified code to anyone. Think about it. Who would be the recipient if a company modified a GPL app and used that modified version internally only? The recipient would be the company itself, and thus no need to distribute those changes to anyone.
The majority of your post was insightful, until you stated:
The bigger difference is that Mac users still don't mind paying for a product, Linux users have never cared for paying for a product...
Where do you come up with that crap? The majority of Linux users are not using Linux for a desktop, but a server. The majority of those companies using Linux as a server are paying for 24/7 support such as from Red Hat/SuSE and paying for server applications. At least this is how it has been at the three fortune 500 companies I have worked at. Running Oracle, DB2, SAP, PeopleSoft and other applications that are far from cheap.
The real issue with commercial software on Linux is, does it add value or features that I do not have from current F/OSS software. For the majority of the $5 - $50 "shareware" crap on MS windows, the answer would be _no_. However, there are plenty of professional, top-notch closed/proprietary applications only available under MS Windows that would do just as well on Linux if Linux has a large desktop market share.
I know a bunch of non-technical Linux users would love quality applications that made some hard task eaiser. For example, imagine if there were an easy to use firewall app for Linux such as Kerio Personal Firewal, or Sygate pro for the average, non-techy Linux user (the best and easiest I have found is FireStarter. How about a nice, easy to use DVD/Media player that doesn't require you to download Win32 DLL's and place them in/usr/lib/win32 (MPlayer, Xine) to be able to play current media? There is a market for commercial Linux applications. Those applications won't have the same easy ride under MS windows, they will have to add value/features not available in current F/OSS offerings to compete.
Oh, just what I want. MS trying to "guess" what news I want to see. Just as they do with their OS, always trying to make a choice for us dumb end-users. I will take Google, just give me _all_ the news and let me pick and choose, or like Yahoo! where I can pick different news feeds. The last thing I want is some corporation like MS making a chioce for me.
I can see this state-of-the-art algorithm used by MSN News.
You do not need devfs to access devices, it is ugly and clunky. However, being as the Linux kernel is Open Source and you as an end-user have certain Freedoms that go along with that, no one will force you to apply the patch to remove devfs, I promise : )
There is also no guarantee that devfs will be removed in 2.6, it may just hang around for a while until 2.7. I was just using it as an example. Also, if a new 2.6 kernel comes out without devfs, you can be certain there will be a patch to add it back in, this is what is so great about Open Source.
Umm, Linux is used for far more then the web market. Linux has been growing from 50% - 80% or so per quarter for the past few years. It has been the fastest growing server OS for a good 3 years now. MS Windows does currently have a larger market share, though it is nothing close to the desktop market share MS has. Linux server usage is not that far behind MS Windows server usage and could catch up in 2 or 3 years. Linux Use Show Continued Growth Linux Servers Lead Market in Worldwide Growth
Novell's product has been on a very steep downard spiral, it is not keeping anyone on MS Windows now. That is why Novell bought SuSE Linux and Ximain and are coming out with a bunch of Enterprise Linux based products.
Novel/SuSE is a big Linux company and does kernel stuff just like RH. Right now each company is doing a lot of patching to their kernels. Those patches are tested well, but are not part of the vanilla mainline kernel. So by having the mainline kernel incorporate those well tested patches/features, there should be less differences in kernels between distributions. The old method would require a long wait for the next stable kernel to see those new and tested features. This could be a good thing to commercial efforts and OSS code working across distros better. It can also help desktop Linux by getting feature wanted/needed out sooner. I seriously doubt the kernel developers and maintainers are going to throw any ole patch into the mainline kernel.
Use your brain. Do you really think Linux kernel developers will throw away what they have spent YEARS building? Do you really think the Linux kernel developers will turn the kernel into unstable crap? You did not interpret the article correctly. Read my post here and this users post to get an understanding of what is really going on.
The kernel geeks ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OS STABILITY. They are talking about the source code. Basically, they will be more willing now to add a new (and fully tested) feature into the kernel instead of having to wait a year or two or three for the next stable kernel series. For example, removing devfs. In the "old" kernel dev model, this would have waited until 2.7/2.8. However, it may be done in 2.6 now instead.
Do you really think all the Linux kernel developers who have put years into Linux will all of a sudden start releasing crappy, untested kernels? Come on now, think a little before you shout the sky is falling.
Slashdot Mirror
There also is not much of a chance of Apple releasing an update that will make Reals product no longer function. Reals product just wraps music from the Real Music Store with a wrapper that is compatible with "fair" play along with Windows media DRM and Real DRM. There is no software required for the iPod. So the only way Apple could "break" what Real is dong is to change the "fair" play DRM which would break the millions of songs purchased from iTMS, not a very good idea for Apple.
Not quite. The Real player method just creates a compatible wrapper for music purchased from the Real Music store so that it is compatible with the iPods "fair" play stuff. It also does the same for Windows media DRM and Real DRM. The only way Apple could "break" the Real compatibility wrapper would be to change the "fair" play DRM and thus break the millions of songs that users have already purchased. Which I am sure Apple would not do or they would have a very angry mob of end users that now have millions of songs purchased from iTMS that no longer work on their iPods. It looks like Apples only option here is to... gasp... compete!
So what if an employee at Real violated their iPod license? That is not a criminal offense and will just mean that that employee using that iPod is not allowed to use it any more, if the EULA if valid. Also, you don't need a license for a copyrighted work to _USE_ it. You need a license to _redistribute_ it. Do you need to get a license to read a book in the book store or library? Do you need to get a license to look at a painting in a museum? Do you need to get an EULA for a copy machine at Kinkos? No. So an end user does not need to agree to a licesne to _USE_ an iPod. If a frined let me borrow their iPod, I do not need to agree to an Apple EULA.
Please tell us Mr. Lawyer, Exactly what did Real _as a company_ do that is illegal?Real did not create software that changes the iPod or even needs to be installed on an iPod. There software wraps music from the Real Music store with a compatible wrapper so that the iPod will play it along with 70 other devices using Windows Media DRM or Real DRM. So Real as an _end user_ of the iPods they bought did notthing more then try to play their wrapped audio files on the iPod. Exactly what is illegal in that? Would it be illegal for me to try to play my VHS tape in my DVD player? No. Just as there is nothing illegal in the USA for Real to try and play music on Apple's portable music player, after all, isn't that the purpose of a portable music player?
Basically what Apple is trying to do is control the hardware and software an lock out any other competition. When MS does this, people have a hissy fit. When Apple does it, Apple fanboys charge to cause and blindly stand up for Apple.
Did you even read any of the stories on this topic? Real is selling music from the Real Music Store that can be played on more then 70 devices, including the iPod by being compatible with "fair" play DRM, Windows Media DRM and Real DRM. Nothing illegal in that.There is no "hack" on the iPOD. Real has a "Fair" play wrapper and wraps their songs in it. The iPOD will play those songs just like any other "Fair" play song. So there is no software or "hack" needed for the iPOD. I think this is a good move on the part of Real. Apple as usual wants to sell hardware and try to lock users into their software as well. And in this case it is even worse since Apple is trying to lock users into only their music store.
That is total crap. It would be like Ford saying I could not use a non-Ford part because they are protecting the "safety" of the vehicle. People wouldn't stand for an auto company telling them they can only use parts, gas, etc from the auto company. Why should people put up with it from Apple? All Apple has to do is not support customers that put this on their iPOD, tell them they are on their own. Instead Apple will lie and say they don't want this software from Real to "protect" their end users. When in fact it is because Apple just wants to try and control the whole market like they try to do with their computers and OS.
Oh, by the way, if you really want a recylce bin for Linux rm, then your whish is granted here, and here, and and other places
First, this is nothing new, other filesystems have done it and it is very safe. Second, ReiserFS allows you to disable it. Just mount your partition with the notail option and ReiserFS will not pack files together, end of story : )
ReiserFS 3 had bugs in the early versions just as all software will. That is why reiserFS was not used for productions systems for a while. It will probably be the same with ReiserFS 4. I will use it at home when it first comes out, but not where I don't want to chance data corruption.
Have you had a look at SQUASHFS? It is great for archive purposes, which may be what you need for video you don't new frequently.
Side Note: Cool posibilites like this show how proprietary formats can really suck and lock users out from searching/indexing their own content. Even offerings from MS in this category will suffer from the inability to search/index proprietary formats. I doubt MS will get specs for all possible file formats out-in-the-wild, thus leaving much of an end-users content hidden from searching/indexing.
Notice the plugin feature. This will create endless possibilities for what you can do with the file system. Want to tie a DB/SQL search function in to it? Write a plugin, want special security? Write a plugin. Tons of possibilites with ReiserFS4 and it is _very_ fast. This is hands down better then the MS "a filesystem as a DB" approach. ReiserFS4 will be like Firebird, lean-n-mean-n-fast. Want more features, grab _your_ favorite plugins!
A corporation is considered a single entity. So if a company modifies a GPL application and uses it internally _ONLY_, then there would be no obligation to give their modified code to anyone. Think about it. Who would be the recipient if a company modified a GPL app and used that modified version internally only? The recipient would be the company itself, and thus no need to distribute those changes to anyone.
The real issue with commercial software on Linux is, does it add value or features that I do not have from current F/OSS software. For the majority of the $5 - $50 "shareware" crap on MS windows, the answer would be _no_. However, there are plenty of professional, top-notch closed/proprietary applications only available under MS Windows that would do just as well on Linux if Linux has a large desktop market share.
I know a bunch of non-technical Linux users would love quality applications that made some hard task eaiser. For example, imagine if there were an easy to use firewall app for Linux such as Kerio Personal Firewal, or Sygate pro for the average, non-techy Linux user (the best and easiest I have found is FireStarter. How about a nice, easy to use DVD/Media player that doesn't require you to download Win32 DLL's and place them in /usr/lib/win32 (MPlayer, Xine) to be able to play current media? There is a market for commercial Linux applications. Those applications won't have the same easy ride under MS windows, they will have to add value/features not available in current F/OSS offerings to compete.
I can see this state-of-the-art algorithm used by MSN News.
There is also no guarantee that devfs will be removed in 2.6, it may just hang around for a while until 2.7. I was just using it as an example. Also, if a new 2.6 kernel comes out without devfs, you can be certain there will be a patch to add it back in, this is what is so great about Open Source.
Umm, Linux is used for far more then the web market. Linux has been growing from 50% - 80% or so per quarter for the past few years. It has been the fastest growing server OS for a good 3 years now. MS Windows does currently have a larger market share, though it is nothing close to the desktop market share MS has. Linux server usage is not that far behind MS Windows server usage and could catch up in 2 or 3 years.
Linux Use Show Continued Growth
Linux Servers Lead Market in Worldwide Growth
Novell's product has been on a very steep downard spiral, it is not keeping anyone on MS Windows now. That is why Novell bought SuSE Linux and Ximain and are coming out with a bunch of Enterprise Linux based products.
Novel/SuSE is a big Linux company and does kernel stuff just like RH. Right now each company is doing a lot of patching to their kernels. Those patches are tested well, but are not part of the vanilla mainline kernel. So by having the mainline kernel incorporate those well tested patches/features, there should be less differences in kernels between distributions. The old method would require a long wait for the next stable kernel to see those new and tested features. This could be a good thing to commercial efforts and OSS code working across distros better. It can also help desktop Linux by getting feature wanted/needed out sooner. I seriously doubt the kernel developers and maintainers are going to throw any ole patch into the mainline kernel.
Use your brain. Do you really think Linux kernel developers will throw away what they have spent YEARS building? Do you really think the Linux kernel developers will turn the kernel into unstable crap? You did not interpret the article correctly. Read my post here and this users post to get an understanding of what is really going on.
Do you really think all the Linux kernel developers who have put years into Linux will all of a sudden start releasing crappy, untested kernels? Come on now, think a little before you shout the sky is falling.