AAC is not a closed format and DRM is not required
on
A Review of the iPod nano
·
· Score: 4, Informative
AAC is not a closed format and DRM is not required. You can use iTunes to rip your CDs to MP3 or AAC and they will work wherever you want. DRM is only an issue when you are buying an AAC online from the iTunes music store.
What theoretical ponderings? I have explained to you *twice* that the publisher of the report you cite later clarified things. It is the publisher who says the numbers you cite refers to CD's shipped:
"IDC's Al Gillen, research director for systems software, explained to The Mac Observer that the number quoted is not for PC market share, but actually Linux's market share of new, licensed operating systems shipments worldwide. ...
For competitive reasons, IDC does not release specific numbers of the installed base, but Mr. Gillen confirmed Apple's market share was "nearly double that of Linux," putting it in second place behind the dominate OS leader, Windows by Microsoft Corp." http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/02/20.6.sh tml
"My basis was that around 1990, give or take a couple of years, I was downloading compiler source code from BBS' I found indirectly though Dr Dobb's journal, the C User's Journal, or Byte Magazine."
It is, of course, hard to assess this without a copy. It could be anything. Most likely, it was a 16-bit version for DOS, if it existed. In any case, it clearly never went anywhere.
Never going anywhere is irrelevant. My point stands that gcc was convenient but not irreplacable with respect to x86 Linux. Other compilers existed. The BSD dev's mentioned a host of other compilers. I was able to download compiler source in those days. A friend working with a National Semi 32032 CPU at home had compiler source, he was under no obligation to redistribute so it was not gpl. It is a bit naive to dismiss everthing you are unaware of as 16-bit DOS.
"Actually around 1990 I was writing a 32-bit x86 multithreaded kernel for hosting telecommunications applications on custom designed hardware."
That's nice. Get a few comlete *nix ports done to a new CPU and we'll talk. Porting a full-fledged *nix distribution and getting it ready is a completely different matter.
Sorry, but you digress. You mentioned the difficulties with the C compiler, I mention experience in getting C Std Libs hosted in an embedded environment so that normal apps and utils can run. Getting such apps/utils running is the topic, not delivering a complete desktop. The fact remains that using one compiler or another is one small piece of a large project. Even *if* some other compiler had needed some additional work it would have affected the ultimate delivery of Linux very little. Gcc was merely a convenience.
I think you are getting a little confused as to my original point, a refresh: If gcc was not used something else would have been used for x86 Linux and the world would be little different. Gcc was convenient for x86 not essential, gcc only becomes more important in the context of non-x86 platforms, and frankly non-x86 was also merely convenient, not essential to Linux's growth.
I apologize for being too brief originally but there is something quite fundamental that you are missing. We are not talking about a book, we are talking about a network based game that as part of it's normal execution *transfers* copyrighted code and data between computers. In other words normal use involves what the GPL would consider distribution.
Sorry, you don't need a license to "access" copyright work.
"Access" was a poor choice of words, but you are missing something quite fundamental here. Were are not talking about a book, we are talking about a network based game that as part of it's normal execution *transfers* code and data that is copyrighted between computers. In other words to "access" the game's functionality copyrighted material must be "distributed".
I can tell you allready now that there is NOTHING in that law though that prevent someone to use a work withough a license so stop telling people such lies
Were are not talking about a book, we are talking about a network based game that *transfers* code and data that is copyrighted. That changes everything, no one is lieing, you are misunderstanding.
it also has no SAY whatsoever over how you USE the software. it only says that if you make changes and then distribute that code, that you have to provide the source. it doesn't say in any way how and why and where and when you can USE the software..
Irrelevant, you are merely stating the GPL's terms not it's legal foundation, which is what I am referring to. The legal foundation of the GPL is that it is copyrighted material and only it's license give you access to that material. That one particular license chooses to address only distribution and not use is moot.
I want to know where my part in negotiating a eula is "active". I don't get to change the terms, I don't get to talk with anyone in the company regarding it...
Odd, one can make the same arguments regarding the GPL. One can also use the GPL to explain EULA. Like GPL'd software the game is copyrighted. The owner of the copyright only grants you permission to use the software, Linux, gcc, or game when you agree to their terms. If you do not agree to their terms you have no legal right to their copyrighted material.
Think about it this way - you bought something (a copy of a Blizzard game) and you want to use it in a different way than they want you to.
Consider: I bought a Linux CD but I want to use it in a different way than the GPL wants me to. What prevents this? The fact that the CD I purchased does not give me ownership of the copyrighted material on that disc, all I really have is a license to use that copyrighted material. Whether we are talking Linux, gcc, or a game our license to use that software is conditional to agreeing to its terms. If you do not agree you lose your right to that copyright material.
where's the part where the customer can sign to show that they will legally abide by the terms of the "contract"?
hmmm?
It's right next to the line where you sign to abide by the GPL. You are free to not agree but then you don't have the right to use the software, the EULA and the GPL a similar in that regard.
Re: IDC/IDT. From my recollection of the article, it was about dead even at 4%, with Linux predicted to move to 6% next year.
I believe that due to misinterpretations such as yours IDC clarified their original report. Linux and Mac had parity when they were counting the number of CDs shipped, however when actual installed base was counted Mac was double Linux. This is the second time I am pointing that out. You are aware of the difference between CDs sitting on a shelf unsold and an OS actually installed on a computer?
"Actually your premise that Linux was "ahead" is mistaken."
Please reread my statement. I said that BSD was ahead. It was much farther ahead. Furthermore, John Gilmore and Bill Jolitz were recruiting for kernel hackers in 1989 for BSD on the x86. John Gilmore and RMS were recruiting for kernel hackers for a GNU O.S. in 1990.
You are, deliberately ?, refering to a time frame over a decade earlier than what I was referring to. As I wrote, only *rrecently* has Linux caught up to BSD with respect to professionals running larger sites. In no small amout due to IBM, Red Hat, and other corporate sponsorts.
"... We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems."
Thank you for finally posting the source. I can see now why you are confused. Notice carefully the words here. It does NOT say "Free C compilers on extant..." That's because there were none.
That is not my basis for free compilers. My basis was that around 1990, give or take a couple of years, I was downloading compiler source code from BBS' I found indirectly though Dr Dobb's journal, the C User's Journal, or Byte Magazine.
"As do I, as a student, a hobbyist, and a professional."
You have clearly never, ever put UNIX, Linux or BSD on a new CPU from scratch. If you had, you'd know that it takes a LOT of work; especially with the C compiler.
Actually around 1990 I was writing a 32-bit x86 multithreaded kernel for hosting telecommunications applications on custom designed hardware. I used MetaWare High-C and PharLap LinkLoc at work but at home I fiddled with compilers and their source code. You grossly exaggerate the effort required to have used one of those in the early days of Linux when it was leaving Minix.
I watched CNN this morning and one of the Governors was mentioning that the President and White House have been helping to orgranize federal efforts. The Governor(s) told the President it was too early to personally inspect the devastation.
I realize it may be difficult for some to realize but a President is never truly away from the office. Vacations are being offsite and only working single digit hours as opposed to being in DC and working far into the double digit hours. And that is when there is no crisis.
Ah, but why did Congress have to cut funding? To pay for the tax cuts to get reelected and for the war that Bush wanted...
Congress passed the tax cuts, the budget is their Constitutional responsibility. They cut funding to spend money on their local pork projects, to resurrect local military contracts for weapons the Pentagon says they don't need or want, etc.
... Remember, this is a war that Bush decided he could start without the need for Congress to declare it.
Congress authorized the President to use military force, they authorized the war although they did not want to use the word "war". Declaring war is Congress' Constitutional responsibility.
I realize you don't like Bush, that's fine, but at least be intellectually honest and blame the correct folks.
The standard "rule" is that there are 5 times the number of accounts as there are people online at any one time.
In June they had over 500,000 concurrent users outside of China.
"... in China, with peak concurrency during the open beta test topping 500,000 players, nearly equal to World of Warcraft's peak concurrency in all three current markets combined..." http://www.blizzard.com/press/050614-2million.shtm l
From level 15-55 I could do any of the dungeons in less than 2 hours but when I hit 60 some of the dungeons like molten core could take 4-5 hours and multiple corpse runs to complete. I just can't justify wasting 4-5 hours on something that does not benifit me educationally or financially.
So 2 hour quests are good, 4-5 hour quests are bad, why not just play half the number of quests per month that you used to? Wouldn't that be roughly the same number of hours on a monthly basis?
"Sorry, you are still making the same naive mistake of assuming that all Linux contributors gave a rat's ass about the GPL and its politics."
Not at all. My point was the people who did care about the GPL were able to accomplish far more than those in the BSD camp,...
Actually you prove my point again. You assume that those in the GPL camp are those who were performing development on Linux, they were merely a fraction of those performing development. You are ignoring the majority who were indifferent and could take or leave the GPL.
... even when the latter had a significant head start. This is due to the nature of the GPL, and is why GPL'd software can play a more powerful part than any other license.
Actually your premise that Linux was "ahead" is mistaken. Linux may have been ahead in terms of hobbyists setting up websites in their dorm room but major commercial and FOSS sites were using *BSD quite heavily. It is only in relatively recent history that Linux has achieved serious consideration in that realm, and that was not due to the GPL or GPL advocates, it was due to corporate sponsorship and evangelism by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, etc.
"You are mistaken, and I had already provided you with an example. Apple's Mac OS X and it's FreeBSD internals, it outnumbers Linux by far."
Mmmm. The studies I've seen put it about even, with Linux overtaking the Mac by about 2% next year. This was from an IDT study last year, IIRC.
IDT or IDC? I recall IDC later clarifying a "marketshare" report that they had published. The original report referred to OS units shipped, which included retail CDs that may never end up on a system. They said that if you look at the actual installed base marketshare Mac was double Linux.
"My argument is simply if not Linux, then something else would have filled the void, BSD most likely."
Yes, but the point is it would have taken many years in order to do come close; and wouldn't have filled the void by today. Especially since there was no free x86 C compiler like you claimed.
What are you talking about? *BSD was preferred by many experienced Unix professionals for larger scale sites until very recent history. Sure you could argue that Linux had the lead in the dorm room but that does not seem to be what the *BSD folks were focusing on. If there were no Linux the dorm room crowd would have most likely put their efforts into a *BSD as they did with Linux, it was far closer to what they wanted than anything else.
As for no other free x86 compilers, sorry, I don't have URLs for compiler source code that I downloaded from BBS' found via indirect references in Dr. Dobb's Journal, C User's Journal, etc. in the very late 80's and early 90's. However the 386BSD developers seem to have had many compiler options: "At the beginning of this port, we had little familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of GCC. We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems." DDJ, April 1991, Porting Unix to the 386, Jolitz and Jolitz.
I, on the otherhand, DO know what I'm talking about. I remember the time period quite well.
As do I, as a student, a hobbyist, and a professional. As someone who is not religious about OSs and who used/uses Linux, BSD, Mac, and even Windows. They all have their roles. My PC's have been dual booting and I have been following Linux and FreeBSD since the 93/94, I'd have to dig up the Yggdasil Plug-and-Play Linux CD to get a more accurate date.
AHumbleOpinion shoots self in foot. Gcc was - if not necessary - certainly a very useful tool in the development of Linux...
How is that shooting myself in the foot? That is the core of my point, useful but not unique (wrt free 386 compilers) nor irreplacable.
... (in the circumstances in which it happened)...
Which gets back to your ongoing error, how it happened is not the one and only way it could have happened. Gcc was merely convenient, one of several options as the 386BSD devs said in 1991. The only thing that gcc really did was help to make Linux cross-platform, hardly necessary for Linux's success given its overwhelming use on x86. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, but not essential.
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft's going to come down on the dudes for giving them a free blast on Slashdot.
Where there is one violation there is probably more. When the XBox 360 is hacked it will not be due to some hacker working in a "clean room" environment. It will be hacked in cooperation with developers who have a legitimate copy. It would be prudent for Microsoft to be very concerned when any inappropriate access is granted to hardware or documentation. Microsoft merely needs to "make an example" of one company and/or employee to get the rest to take their NDA's more seriously. It worked for Apple, not perfectly, but it helped.
"Replace "many developers" with "some developers" and the latter half of your statement becomes realistic."
Well then, these "some developers" sure seem to have done even far more than anyone could possibly have imagined! The amount of their contributions are truly greater than people tend to believe! The amount of what they can accomplish is indeed impressive!
Sorry, you are still making the same naive mistake of assuming that all Linux contributors gave a rat's ass about the GPL and its politics. Most Linux users and developers just want something useful, they could take or leave the GPL.
It's completely relevant. It's a superb example of the problems with your claims. There are also lots of other examples of GPL'd code winning out in the marketplace, over completely free, or even closed commercial software. Just look at the software world around you.
You are mistaken, and I had already provided you with an example. Apple's Mac OS X and it's FreeBSD internals, it outnumbers Linux by far.
Ahem. Your entire defense of the camp which has basically lost out on the marketplace is not based on anything else. One of the few definitive claims you've made is that a free x86 compiler existed. Most everything else has been pure speculation.
I am not defending any camp, failing to tote the party line that GNU is, as another poster put, the alpha and the omega, does not put me in the BSD camp. I use both Linux and OpenBSD, and FreeBSD indirectly via Mac OS X. I am merely not religious about OS' and that is easily misunderstood by those who are, as you appear to be. My argument is simply if not Linux, then something else would have filled the void, BSD most likely.
"no viral license fears"
Ahhh. So you're one of those people, eh? Thanks for clarifying that.
What a pathetic misrepresentation you attempt, you know very well that I was referring to a fear often raised by suits when the GPL is brought up. My actual statement: "One could just as plausibly propose that if FreeBSD had been first to become "good enough" and first to be embraced by users that corporations would have been less fearful of the move to Unix. No politics, no viral license fears. Perhaps, like Apple, IBM would have embraced FreeBSD and put the OS/2 presentation manager GUI on top of it and marketted it as an alternative to Windows. I'm not saying that this would have happened, just that it is as viable an alternative history as your computing dark age."
My original point still stands. We should be appreciative of the work which RMS and the FSF have done. Even if the BSD fans find it galling.
Appreciate sure, worship it and consider it irreplacable, no. Sorry, the BSD folks are not the emotional irrational camp here, they are far more reasonable and practical. The BSD folks tell newcomers to write their app for Linux so it has a larger audience, it will still run under BSD via Linux emulation, that you only need to port your app to BSD if you truly need to maximize performance. The same BSD people use gcc and other GNU tools. Sorry, the BSD camp is not the camp that feels galled by the existence of the other. You might want to reflect a little on your own reaction when someone dared say the gcc and other GNU tools were convenient not irreplacable. You reacted as if hereacy was spoken.
Sorry, I don't have URLs for compiler source code that I downloaded from BBS' found via indirect references in Dr. Dobb's Journal, C User's Journal, etc. in the very late 80's and early 90's.
I was able to find the following but it refers to a BSD Unix environment, I was using MS-DOS at home at the time: "At the beginning of this port, we had little familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of GCC. We were also uncertain
about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared
primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems." DDJ, April 1991, Porting Unix to the 386, Jolitz and Jolitz.
No, the compilers do not have to run under Minix. That was a temporary bootstrap environment. Was it even 32-bit at the time?
There might well have been other "free" (as in beer) compilers around. I wouldn't discount the existance of some student class projects' compiler.
Odd that a Linux fan would seem to dismiss a student's project as something not worthy of consideration.;-)
But your entire argument seems to center around the fact that the GPL is "irrelevant", when it is the sole reason why many developers perfer to work on GPL'd code.
Replace "many developers" with "some developers" and the latter half of your statement becomes realistic. As for the first half, yes, Linux's success was not a matter of innovations or technology, it was yet another implementation of Unix, it was not a matter or license, only a few zealots care about GPL vs BSD, it was a matter of being at the right place, 32-bit x86 architecture, at the right time, basically where there was a void, it was essentially the "first to market". Linux beat FreeBSD to the "stable enough" point, that's all. A free Unix would have happened one way or the other, only the politics would be different.
Or, to put it bluntly, which of these "free" compilers back then are still around and doing anything useful? I'm not aware of any.
Irrelevant. Gcc was used not because it was the one and only choice, but because it targetted multiple architectures. That was convenient. The point still stands that if there never was a gcc there still would have been a free x86 PC unix. To continue the Roman analogy another responder introduced, you can't pretend Carthage was not a major empire in the past just because Rome is around today and Carthage is not.
And, quite frankly, your example of BSD is a poor choice. BSD might have filled a small subset of Linux's current share; but I think it's quite clear that Microsoft would be even more firmly entrenched today without Linux.
Linux's success was due to being first to "stable enough". Only a few zealots care about GPL vs BSD. FreeBSD was ahead of Linux is some respects, larger sites seemed to prefer it at one point. Corporate support from the likes of IBM is what has really made Linux entrenched in the professional world.
*nix users were indeed suffering in the mid 90s, as Windows worked its way throughout the Academic and Corporate world, before Linux really took off - contrary to your claim. I can remember several *nix people complaining about it, until I showed them Linux.
Again, Linux was merely "good enough" first. 10+ years ago I came home from a local computer show with two $12 CDs, one Yggdrasil Plug-and-play Linux the other FreeBSD {don't recall version}. I installed FreeBSD on my secondary 468DX2-66, it crashed. I then installed Linux, it didn't crash. Either platform, hardware compatibility aside, would have removed the need to visit the University computer labs or dial in through a modem to work on my Unix based homework assignments. So much for the academic world. For the professional world there is still the fact that FreeBSD was preferred over Linux for many larger sites until more recent years.
Please keep in mind that there's a difference between *nix users and kernel hackers.
I am very well aware of that. Hackers are a small niche and their preference for the GPL doesn't really change history much. The users are the important folks and they drive history. Linux was merely first to be "good enough" for them. If it wasn't Linux it would have been something else that they embraced.
The situation would only be much worse today, as none of the current technology would be nearly as advanced as it is currently
That's a load of speculative crap. One could just as plausibly propose that if FreeBSD had been first to become "good enough" and first to be embraced by users that corporations would have been less fearful of the move to Unix. No politics, no viral license fears. Perhaps, like Apple, IBM would have embraced FreeBSD and put the OS/2 presentation manager GUI on top of it and marketted it as an alternative to Windows. I'm not saying that this would have happened, just that it is as viable an alternative history as your computing dark age.
I honestly don't know why there is such hostility towards GNU or such a willngness to people to close their eyes to vast importance and goodness of what they've given us. Yeah, some mythical others could have achieved something, but they didn't. GNU was there to take care of it.
What is so hostile about:
(1) correcting someone's erroneous statement that gcc was the only free compiler available for x86? It was not.
(2) pointing out that gcc's uniqueness was not in being free but in targetting multiple architectures? Targetting multiple architectures is not a negative.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
It is quite humorous that you respond to my statement regarding false attribution with more false attribution. Thank you for the laugh. To clue you in: Roman politicians took the credit for non-Roman inventions. Shall we give Microsoft credit for the GUI although PARC and other researches invented it, Apple introduced it to the public, but Microsoft delivered it to the masses. The logic of your Roman quote would give MS the credit.
Slashdot Mirror
AAC is not a closed format and DRM is not required. You can use iTunes to rip your CDs to MP3 or AAC and they will work wherever you want. DRM is only an issue when you are buying an AAC online from the iTunes music store.
"You are aware of the difference between CDs sitting on a shelf unsold and an OS actually installed on a computer?"
...h tml
Spare me the theoretical ponderings. Here's a link: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-979064.html
What theoretical ponderings? I have explained to you *twice* that the publisher of the report you cite later clarified things. It is the publisher who says the numbers you cite refers to CD's shipped:
"IDC's Al Gillen, research director for systems software, explained to The Mac Observer that the number quoted is not for PC market share, but actually Linux's market share of new, licensed operating systems shipments worldwide.
For competitive reasons, IDC does not release specific numbers of the installed base, but Mr. Gillen confirmed Apple's market share was "nearly double that of Linux," putting it in second place behind the dominate OS leader, Windows by Microsoft Corp."
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/02/20.6.s
"My basis was that around 1990, give or take a couple of years, I was downloading compiler source code from BBS' I found indirectly though Dr Dobb's journal, the C User's Journal, or Byte Magazine."
It is, of course, hard to assess this without a copy. It could be anything. Most likely, it was a 16-bit version for DOS, if it existed. In any case, it clearly never went anywhere.
Never going anywhere is irrelevant. My point stands that gcc was convenient but not irreplacable with respect to x86 Linux. Other compilers existed. The BSD dev's mentioned a host of other compilers. I was able to download compiler source in those days. A friend working with a National Semi 32032 CPU at home had compiler source, he was under no obligation to redistribute so it was not gpl. It is a bit naive to dismiss everthing you are unaware of as 16-bit DOS.
"Actually around 1990 I was writing a 32-bit x86 multithreaded kernel for hosting telecommunications applications on custom designed hardware."
That's nice. Get a few comlete *nix ports done to a new CPU and we'll talk. Porting a full-fledged *nix distribution and getting it ready is a completely different matter.
Sorry, but you digress. You mentioned the difficulties with the C compiler, I mention experience in getting C Std Libs hosted in an embedded environment so that normal apps and utils can run. Getting such apps/utils running is the topic, not delivering a complete desktop. The fact remains that using one compiler or another is one small piece of a large project. Even *if* some other compiler had needed some additional work it would have affected the ultimate delivery of Linux very little. Gcc was merely a convenience.
I think you are getting a little confused as to my original point, a refresh: If gcc was not used something else would have been used for x86 Linux and the world would be little different. Gcc was convenient for x86 not essential, gcc only becomes more important in the context of non-x86 platforms, and frankly non-x86 was also merely convenient, not essential to Linux's growth.
Wrong. The GPL is not a use license.
I apologize for being too brief originally but there is something quite fundamental that you are missing. We are not talking about a book, we are talking about a network based game that as part of it's normal execution *transfers* copyrighted code and data between computers. In other words normal use involves what the GPL would consider distribution.
Sorry, you don't need a license to "access" copyright work.
"Access" was a poor choice of words, but you are missing something quite fundamental here. Were are not talking about a book, we are talking about a network based game that as part of it's normal execution *transfers* code and data that is copyrighted between computers. In other words to "access" the game's functionality copyrighted material must be "distributed".
I can tell you allready now that there is NOTHING in that law though that prevent someone to use a work withough a license so stop telling people such lies
Were are not talking about a book, we are talking about a network based game that *transfers* code and data that is copyrighted. That changes everything, no one is lieing, you are misunderstanding.
it also has no SAY whatsoever over how you USE the software. it only says that if you make changes and then distribute that code, that you have to provide the source. it doesn't say in any way how and why and where and when you can USE the software. .
Irrelevant, you are merely stating the GPL's terms not it's legal foundation, which is what I am referring to. The legal foundation of the GPL is that it is copyrighted material and only it's license give you access to that material. That one particular license chooses to address only distribution and not use is moot.
Vote with your wallet people! I haven't played on Bnet since Diablo 1 and I am no worse for wear! You can do it too!
Dude, the voting is over, long, long over. People voted for Blizzard. One million subscribers in North America, four million world wide.
I want to know where my part in negotiating a eula is "active". I don't get to change the terms, I don't get to talk with anyone in the company regarding it ...
Odd, one can make the same arguments regarding the GPL. One can also use the GPL to explain EULA. Like GPL'd software the game is copyrighted. The owner of the copyright only grants you permission to use the software, Linux, gcc, or game when you agree to their terms. If you do not agree to their terms you have no legal right to their copyrighted material.
Think about it this way - you bought something (a copy of a Blizzard game) and you want to use it in a different way than they want you to.
Consider: I bought a Linux CD but I want to use it in a different way than the GPL wants me to. What prevents this? The fact that the CD I purchased does not give me ownership of the copyrighted material on that disc, all I really have is a license to use that copyrighted material. Whether we are talking Linux, gcc, or a game our license to use that software is conditional to agreeing to its terms. If you do not agree you lose your right to that copyright material.
where's the part where the customer can sign to show that they will legally abide by the terms of the "contract"? hmmm?
It's right next to the line where you sign to abide by the GPL. You are free to not agree but then you don't have the right to use the software, the EULA and the GPL a similar in that regard.
Re: IDC/IDT. From my recollection of the article, it was about dead even at 4%, with Linux predicted to move to 6% next year.
..." That's because there were none.
I believe that due to misinterpretations such as yours IDC clarified their original report. Linux and Mac had parity when they were counting the number of CDs shipped, however when actual installed base was counted Mac was double Linux. This is the second time I am pointing that out. You are aware of the difference between CDs sitting on a shelf unsold and an OS actually installed on a computer?
"Actually your premise that Linux was "ahead" is mistaken." Please reread my statement. I said that BSD was ahead. It was much farther ahead. Furthermore, John Gilmore and Bill Jolitz were recruiting for kernel hackers in 1989 for BSD on the x86. John Gilmore and RMS were recruiting for kernel hackers for a GNU O.S. in 1990.
You are, deliberately ?, refering to a time frame over a decade earlier than what I was referring to. As I wrote, only *rrecently* has Linux caught up to BSD with respect to professionals running larger sites. In no small amout due to IBM, Red Hat, and other corporate sponsorts.
"... We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems." Thank you for finally posting the source. I can see now why you are confused. Notice carefully the words here. It does NOT say "Free C compilers on extant
That is not my basis for free compilers. My basis was that around 1990, give or take a couple of years, I was downloading compiler source code from BBS' I found indirectly though Dr Dobb's journal, the C User's Journal, or Byte Magazine.
"As do I, as a student, a hobbyist, and a professional." You have clearly never, ever put UNIX, Linux or BSD on a new CPU from scratch. If you had, you'd know that it takes a LOT of work; especially with the C compiler.
Actually around 1990 I was writing a 32-bit x86 multithreaded kernel for hosting telecommunications applications on custom designed hardware. I used MetaWare High-C and PharLap LinkLoc at work but at home I fiddled with compilers and their source code. You grossly exaggerate the effort required to have used one of those in the early days of Linux when it was leaving Minix.
I watched CNN this morning and one of the Governors was mentioning that the President and White House have been helping to orgranize federal efforts. The Governor(s) told the President it was too early to personally inspect the devastation.
I realize it may be difficult for some to realize but a President is never truly away from the office. Vacations are being offsite and only working single digit hours as opposed to being in DC and working far into the double digit hours. And that is when there is no crisis.
Actually the settlement started on the "high" ground. Over the centuries it grew, and sank.
:-)
And of course the obligatory: "blame France". It was their city to begin with.
Ah, but why did Congress have to cut funding? To pay for the tax cuts to get reelected and for the war that Bush wanted ...
... Remember, this is a war that Bush decided he could start without the need for Congress to declare it.
Congress passed the tax cuts, the budget is their Constitutional responsibility. They cut funding to spend money on their local pork projects, to resurrect local military contracts for weapons the Pentagon says they don't need or want, etc.
Congress authorized the President to use military force, they authorized the war although they did not want to use the word "war". Declaring war is Congress' Constitutional responsibility.
I realize you don't like Bush, that's fine, but at least be intellectually honest and blame the correct folks.
A monthly fee probably changes everything.
Over 500,000 concurrent in June.
c id=13437461
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160552&
The standard "rule" is that there are 5 times the number of accounts as there are people online at any one time.
..."m l
In June they had over 500,000 concurrent users outside of China.
"... in China, with peak concurrency during the open beta test topping 500,000 players, nearly equal to World of Warcraft's peak concurrency in all three current markets combined
http://www.blizzard.com/press/050614-2million.sht
From level 15-55 I could do any of the dungeons in less than 2 hours but when I hit 60 some of the dungeons like molten core could take 4-5 hours and multiple corpse runs to complete. I just can't justify wasting 4-5 hours on something that does not benifit me educationally or financially.
So 2 hour quests are good, 4-5 hour quests are bad, why not just play half the number of quests per month that you used to? Wouldn't that be roughly the same number of hours on a monthly basis?
"Sorry, you are still making the same naive mistake of assuming that all Linux contributors gave a rat's ass about the GPL and its politics." Not at all. My point was the people who did care about the GPL were able to accomplish far more than those in the BSD camp, ...
... even when the latter had a significant head start. This is due to the nature of the GPL, and is why GPL'd software can play a more powerful part than any other license.
Actually you prove my point again. You assume that those in the GPL camp are those who were performing development on Linux, they were merely a fraction of those performing development. You are ignoring the majority who were indifferent and could take or leave the GPL.
Actually your premise that Linux was "ahead" is mistaken. Linux may have been ahead in terms of hobbyists setting up websites in their dorm room but major commercial and FOSS sites were using *BSD quite heavily. It is only in relatively recent history that Linux has achieved serious consideration in that realm, and that was not due to the GPL or GPL advocates, it was due to corporate sponsorship and evangelism by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, etc.
"You are mistaken, and I had already provided you with an example. Apple's Mac OS X and it's FreeBSD internals, it outnumbers Linux by far." Mmmm. The studies I've seen put it about even, with Linux overtaking the Mac by about 2% next year. This was from an IDT study last year, IIRC.
IDT or IDC? I recall IDC later clarifying a "marketshare" report that they had published. The original report referred to OS units shipped, which included retail CDs that may never end up on a system. They said that if you look at the actual installed base marketshare Mac was double Linux.
"My argument is simply if not Linux, then something else would have filled the void, BSD most likely."
Yes, but the point is it would have taken many years in order to do come close; and wouldn't have filled the void by today. Especially since there was no free x86 C compiler like you claimed.
What are you talking about? *BSD was preferred by many experienced Unix professionals for larger scale sites until very recent history. Sure you could argue that Linux had the lead in the dorm room but that does not seem to be what the *BSD folks were focusing on. If there were no Linux the dorm room crowd would have most likely put their efforts into a *BSD as they did with Linux, it was far closer to what they wanted than anything else.
As for no other free x86 compilers, sorry, I don't have URLs for compiler source code that I downloaded from BBS' found via indirect references in Dr. Dobb's Journal, C User's Journal, etc. in the very late 80's and early 90's. However the 386BSD developers seem to have had many compiler options: "At the beginning of this port, we had little familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of GCC. We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems." DDJ, April 1991, Porting Unix to the 386, Jolitz and Jolitz.
I, on the otherhand, DO know what I'm talking about. I remember the time period quite well.
As do I, as a student, a hobbyist, and a professional. As someone who is not religious about OSs and who used/uses Linux, BSD, Mac, and even Windows. They all have their roles. My PC's have been dual booting and I have been following Linux and FreeBSD since the 93/94, I'd have to dig up the Yggdasil Plug-and-Play Linux CD to get a more accurate date.
AHumbleOpinion shoots self in foot. Gcc was - if not necessary - certainly a very useful tool in the development of Linux ...
... (in the circumstances in which it happened) ...
How is that shooting myself in the foot? That is the core of my point, useful but not unique (wrt free 386 compilers) nor irreplacable.
Which gets back to your ongoing error, how it happened is not the one and only way it could have happened. Gcc was merely convenient, one of several options as the 386BSD devs said in 1991. The only thing that gcc really did was help to make Linux cross-platform, hardly necessary for Linux's success given its overwhelming use on x86. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, but not essential.
Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft's going to come down on the dudes for giving them a free blast on Slashdot.
Where there is one violation there is probably more. When the XBox 360 is hacked it will not be due to some hacker working in a "clean room" environment. It will be hacked in cooperation with developers who have a legitimate copy. It would be prudent for Microsoft to be very concerned when any inappropriate access is granted to hardware or documentation. Microsoft merely needs to "make an example" of one company and/or employee to get the rest to take their NDA's more seriously. It worked for Apple, not perfectly, but it helped.
"Replace "many developers" with "some developers" and the latter half of your statement becomes realistic."
Well then, these "some developers" sure seem to have done even far more than anyone could possibly have imagined! The amount of their contributions are truly greater than people tend to believe! The amount of what they can accomplish is indeed impressive!
Sorry, you are still making the same naive mistake of assuming that all Linux contributors gave a rat's ass about the GPL and its politics. Most Linux users and developers just want something useful, they could take or leave the GPL.
It's completely relevant. It's a superb example of the problems with your claims. There are also lots of other examples of GPL'd code winning out in the marketplace, over completely free, or even closed commercial software. Just look at the software world around you.
You are mistaken, and I had already provided you with an example. Apple's Mac OS X and it's FreeBSD internals, it outnumbers Linux by far.
Ahem. Your entire defense of the camp which has basically lost out on the marketplace is not based on anything else. One of the few definitive claims you've made is that a free x86 compiler existed. Most everything else has been pure speculation.
I am not defending any camp, failing to tote the party line that GNU is, as another poster put, the alpha and the omega, does not put me in the BSD camp. I use both Linux and OpenBSD, and FreeBSD indirectly via Mac OS X. I am merely not religious about OS' and that is easily misunderstood by those who are, as you appear to be. My argument is simply if not Linux, then something else would have filled the void, BSD most likely.
"no viral license fears"
Ahhh. So you're one of those people, eh? Thanks for clarifying that.
What a pathetic misrepresentation you attempt, you know very well that I was referring to a fear often raised by suits when the GPL is brought up. My actual statement: "One could just as plausibly propose that if FreeBSD had been first to become "good enough" and first to be embraced by users that corporations would have been less fearful of the move to Unix. No politics, no viral license fears. Perhaps, like Apple, IBM would have embraced FreeBSD and put the OS/2 presentation manager GUI on top of it and marketted it as an alternative to Windows. I'm not saying that this would have happened, just that it is as viable an alternative history as your computing dark age."
My original point still stands. We should be appreciative of the work which RMS and the FSF have done. Even if the BSD fans find it galling.
Appreciate sure, worship it and consider it irreplacable, no. Sorry, the BSD folks are not the emotional irrational camp here, they are far more reasonable and practical. The BSD folks tell newcomers to write their app for Linux so it has a larger audience, it will still run under BSD via Linux emulation, that you only need to port your app to BSD if you truly need to maximize performance. The same BSD people use gcc and other GNU tools. Sorry, the BSD camp is not the camp that feels galled by the existence of the other. You might want to reflect a little on your own reaction when someone dared say the gcc and other GNU tools were convenient not irreplacable. You reacted as if hereacy was spoken.
Sorry, I don't have URLs for compiler source code that I downloaded from BBS' found via indirect references in Dr. Dobb's Journal, C User's Journal, etc. in the very late 80's and early 90's.
I was able to find the following but it refers to a BSD Unix environment, I was using MS-DOS at home at the time: "At the beginning of this port, we had little familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of GCC. We were also uncertain about its usefulness as an operating systems development tool, as it appeared primarily alongside other 386 C compilers on extant System 5 UNIX systems." DDJ, April 1991, Porting Unix to the 386, Jolitz and Jolitz.
No, the compilers do not have to run under Minix. That was a temporary bootstrap environment. Was it even 32-bit at the time?
There might well have been other "free" (as in beer) compilers around. I wouldn't discount the existance of some student class projects' compiler.
;-)
Odd that a Linux fan would seem to dismiss a student's project as something not worthy of consideration.
But your entire argument seems to center around the fact that the GPL is "irrelevant", when it is the sole reason why many developers perfer to work on GPL'd code.
Replace "many developers" with "some developers" and the latter half of your statement becomes realistic. As for the first half, yes, Linux's success was not a matter of innovations or technology, it was yet another implementation of Unix, it was not a matter or license, only a few zealots care about GPL vs BSD, it was a matter of being at the right place, 32-bit x86 architecture, at the right time, basically where there was a void, it was essentially the "first to market". Linux beat FreeBSD to the "stable enough" point, that's all. A free Unix would have happened one way or the other, only the politics would be different.
Or, to put it bluntly, which of these "free" compilers back then are still around and doing anything useful? I'm not aware of any.
Irrelevant. Gcc was used not because it was the one and only choice, but because it targetted multiple architectures. That was convenient. The point still stands that if there never was a gcc there still would have been a free x86 PC unix. To continue the Roman analogy another responder introduced, you can't pretend Carthage was not a major empire in the past just because Rome is around today and Carthage is not.
And, quite frankly, your example of BSD is a poor choice. BSD might have filled a small subset of Linux's current share; but I think it's quite clear that Microsoft would be even more firmly entrenched today without Linux.
Linux's success was due to being first to "stable enough". Only a few zealots care about GPL vs BSD. FreeBSD was ahead of Linux is some respects, larger sites seemed to prefer it at one point. Corporate support from the likes of IBM is what has really made Linux entrenched in the professional world.
*nix users were indeed suffering in the mid 90s, as Windows worked its way throughout the Academic and Corporate world, before Linux really took off - contrary to your claim. I can remember several *nix people complaining about it, until I showed them Linux.
Again, Linux was merely "good enough" first. 10+ years ago I came home from a local computer show with two $12 CDs, one Yggdrasil Plug-and-play Linux the other FreeBSD {don't recall version}. I installed FreeBSD on my secondary 468DX2-66, it crashed. I then installed Linux, it didn't crash. Either platform, hardware compatibility aside, would have removed the need to visit the University computer labs or dial in through a modem to work on my Unix based homework assignments. So much for the academic world. For the professional world there is still the fact that FreeBSD was preferred over Linux for many larger sites until more recent years.
Please keep in mind that there's a difference between *nix users and kernel hackers.
I am very well aware of that. Hackers are a small niche and their preference for the GPL doesn't really change history much. The users are the important folks and they drive history. Linux was merely first to be "good enough" for them. If it wasn't Linux it would have been something else that they embraced.
The situation would only be much worse today, as none of the current technology would be nearly as advanced as it is currently
That's a load of speculative crap. One could just as plausibly propose that if FreeBSD had been first to become "good enough" and first to be embraced by users that corporations would have been less fearful of the move to Unix. No politics, no viral license fears. Perhaps, like Apple, IBM would have embraced FreeBSD and put the OS/2 presentation manager GUI on top of it and marketted it as an alternative to Windows. I'm not saying that this would have happened, just that it is as viable an alternative history as your computing dark age.
I honestly don't know why there is such hostility towards GNU or such a willngness to people to close their eyes to vast importance and goodness of what they've given us. Yeah, some mythical others could have achieved something, but they didn't. GNU was there to take care of it.
What is so hostile about:
(1) correcting someone's erroneous statement that gcc was the only free compiler available for x86? It was not.
(2) pointing out that gcc's uniqueness was not in being free but in targetting multiple architectures? Targetting multiple architectures is not a negative.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
It is quite humorous that you respond to my statement regarding false attribution with more false attribution. Thank you for the laugh. To clue you in: Roman politicians took the credit for non-Roman inventions. Shall we give Microsoft credit for the GUI although PARC and other researches invented it, Apple introduced it to the public, but Microsoft delivered it to the masses. The logic of your Roman quote would give MS the credit.