> Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty
>
> This refers to hard disk access time penalties,
> not an overall 10-15% reduction in the performance
> of your computer. You wouldn't notice the
> difference.
And not even that -- this refers to file system performance. Which means the majority of your hard disk activity (swapping) isn't affected at all. As with virtually all filesystem speed impacts, the scenarios most affected will be those that generate a lot of metadata writes. Most single-user usage patterns aren't impacted. (On the other hand, most single-user usage patterns have the least to benefit from a JFS, but that's only fair.:-)
If you're going to put any effort into setting up a mail server on your Darwin/OS X machine, then put in a little extra work and switch to postfix. And lucky for you, Graham Orndorff has put together a comprehensive tutorial on postfix (also imapd, fetchmail, and stunnel) for OS X on stepwise. This is a man who background includes 3 years at NeXT and 4 years as mail architect at WebTV. In other words, you should trust his opinion. And he even writes great documentation!
The script is not a revision of the "final installment", the script is a revision of Douglas's last screenplay attempt. As someone pointed out, he spent virtually his entire adult lifetime trying to get it turned into a movie and finally had a deal that looked like it was going to happen (he had moved to California to be close to the movie production), when fate denied us all.
Note, of course, that the BBC doesn't read either, as they refer to The Salmon of Doubt as the sixth H2G2 novel. While Douglas had conveyed to his editors that he had decided it made more sense as an H2G2 installment, it began life as the third Dirk Gently novel, and the readable version that they were able to edit together for the book (two thirds of which is just collected writings of his, which are wonderful and superior to the abortive novel at the end) is still clearly a Dirk story.
To move on from rambling... I fear the movie. Yes, it's comedy, but it's cerebral, and simplifying the humor for the sake of visuals turned out AWFULLY in the TV series (admittedly, they were working with a budget whose scale had been vastly miscalculated for this galaxy). And there's simply no action. Hence, it makes a wonderful radio series, an incredible book (and a second...and a third...), and even a revolutionary (text-based) computer game, but how does looking at it improve anything? Maybe I'm wrong, after all, Douglas wanted to see it made into a movie. But if *he* made it into a movie, it would have tons of new material, be retold to take advantage of the medium, and generally be unshackled by the other versions. There's no way an unrelated screenwriter will get that freedom (and no doubt we'd all scream murder), which means it'll just be a rehash.
And for that, a much better solution is a trip to the library to check out the cassettes and novels. You know you haven't recently enough.
According to MacInTouch, the new paragraph is a result of uniformizing all their legal disclaimers, which meant importing the warning from Easy CD Creator, which in turn has to have it because it leverages Windows Media. Since it's unlikely that Toast or Jam on Mac will ever leverage WiMP, perhaps we can pragmatically leave our principles out of it (since they're not actually violating our data) and not dump an otherwise excellent product. Just a thought.
The text from MacInTouch:
[15:45 ET] Roxio's Toast Product Manager responded to customer issues raised in our Toast special report, regarding the company's licensing terms and "digital rights management" technology:
I wanted to set the facts straight with respect to the "Restrictions" section in the end user license agreement (EULA) that is displayed at installation of Toast 5.1.4 and Jam 5.0.1 (both the latest versions of our software).
1. Toast and Jam do not include any digital rights management (DRM) software. 2. Toast and Jam do not dynamically download, upload or update any software on your system, either automatically behind the scenes, or upon your request. 3. Toast and Jam do not store, collect or transmit any personally identifiable information about you or what you record, for any of its partners, or any content provider.
Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components. Hence, the language in the EULA. Companies frequently share EULAs across products since it saves time and money with respect to legal, documentation and translation into multiple languages.
> Large companies with thousands of users and software audits have to pay
> for their licenses, and thus, subsidize the pirates. This is not to say piracy
> is OK, but it is expected and accounted for.
That statement contains such a logical flaw that I can't let it pass unnoticed.
Perhaps I missed something, but as far as you can tell you didn't point out a logical flaw. I didn't say that anyone has to subsidize Bob's use of pirated Office, I'm simply saying that they are, if he does. A subsidy (by the accepted general use, not the government-based definition) is the covering of costs by one group (the enterprises' massive license costs) for another (the pirates). Software firms (although debatably not M$;-)) have to make a certain amount of money from somewhere. They can try to make a little bit of it off every person who uses their software, or larger amounts off a certain chunk of those users. Depending on your company, one strategy is better than the other. Hence, the pricetag disparity under discussion.
I'm not trying to place a value judgement on the situation, I'm simply saying that that's the way it is. Believe me, I spent a fair chunk of my life in Bob's shoes.
Programs like WS_FTP have the right idea. If you are a business user or a company looking to use the software you have to pay up. But if you are a home user who isn't profiting off of the use of the software, then its absolutely free.
This is precisely what the large software companies have achieved through their astronomical pricing schemes, and you can be assured that it is intentional. They don't expect you to pay $300 for Office, they expect you to get it for free on a new computer or bum it off a friend. Large companies with thousands of users and software audits have to pay for their licenses, and thus, subsidize the pirates. This is not to say piracy is OK, but it is expected and accounted for. The folks who lose are the righteously honest who actually need Office, and thus dish out the large pile of cash. You'll notice that today, the vast number of "reasonably priced" products (games, pims, etc.) are those that don't have a place in the office environment, and thus must make their money off the small fry.
Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need costs $584 at www.buy.com. That's well over what most people can afford. It's half the price of an extremely decent computer!
I take issue with your choice of Photoshop as an example. Perhaps it is just my personal love of the application, but I have no problems with their pricing. They sells to a much smaller market than the office-centric products, yet the development effort required is just as large. Additionally, for the vast majority of Photoshop users, Photoshop is their most valuable piece of property (equal to that of their computer, since their computer would be pointless without Photoshop). For most of these folks, Photoshop pays itself off immediately, which is why you rarely hear them complain about its cost. For the folks who pirate Photoshop citing its pricetag, my guess is that you don't remotely need Photoshop, and there are plenty of free/cheap image editors that would more than serve your actual needs. In fact, by pirating Photoshop you're doing much less to harm Adobe than you are the small developer groups that produce the app you actually need and could really use your $30 shareware fee. I'm fairly certain that you'd get a similar argument from a true Flash developer, although not being in that area I cannot guarantee it.
Slashdot Mirror
> Though it will cost you 10% to 15% performance penalty
:-)
>
> This refers to hard disk access time penalties,
> not an overall 10-15% reduction in the performance
> of your computer. You wouldn't notice the
> difference.
And not even that -- this refers to file system performance. Which means the majority of your hard disk activity (swapping) isn't affected at all. As with virtually all filesystem speed impacts, the scenarios most affected will be those that generate a lot of metadata writes. Most single-user usage patterns aren't impacted. (On the other hand, most single-user usage patterns have the least to benefit from a JFS, but that's only fair.
If you're going to put any effort into setting up a mail server on your Darwin/OS X machine, then put in a little extra work and switch to postfix. And lucky for you, Graham Orndorff has put together a comprehensive tutorial on postfix (also imapd, fetchmail, and stunnel) for OS X on stepwise. This is a man who background includes 3 years at NeXT and 4 years as mail architect at WebTV. In other words, you should trust his opinion. And he even writes great documentation!
The script is not a revision of the "final installment", the script is a revision of Douglas's last screenplay attempt. As someone pointed out, he spent virtually his entire adult lifetime trying to get it turned into a movie and finally had a deal that looked like it was going to happen (he had moved to California to be close to the movie production), when fate denied us all.
Note, of course, that the BBC doesn't read either, as they refer to The Salmon of Doubt as the sixth H2G2 novel. While Douglas had conveyed to his editors that he had decided it made more sense as an H2G2 installment, it began life as the third Dirk Gently novel, and the readable version that they were able to edit together for the book (two thirds of which is just collected writings of his, which are wonderful and superior to the abortive novel at the end) is still clearly a Dirk story.
To move on from rambling... I fear the movie. Yes, it's comedy, but it's cerebral, and simplifying the humor for the sake of visuals turned out AWFULLY in the TV series (admittedly, they were working with a budget whose scale had been vastly miscalculated for this galaxy). And there's simply no action. Hence, it makes a wonderful radio series, an incredible book (and a second...and a third...), and even a revolutionary (text-based) computer game, but how does looking at it improve anything? Maybe I'm wrong, after all, Douglas wanted to see it made into a movie. But if *he* made it into a movie, it would have tons of new material, be retold to take advantage of the medium, and generally be unshackled by the other versions. There's no way an unrelated screenwriter will get that freedom (and no doubt we'd all scream murder), which means it'll just be a rehash.
And for that, a much better solution is a trip to the library to check out the cassettes and novels. You know you haven't recently enough.
According to MacInTouch, the new paragraph is a result of uniformizing all their legal disclaimers, which meant importing the warning from Easy CD Creator, which in turn has to have it because it leverages Windows Media. Since it's unlikely that Toast or Jam on Mac will ever leverage WiMP, perhaps we can pragmatically leave our principles out of it (since they're not actually violating our data) and not dump an otherwise excellent product. Just a thought.
The text from MacInTouch:
[15:45 ET] Roxio's Toast Product Manager responded to customer issues raised in our Toast special report, regarding the company's licensing terms and "digital rights management" technology: I wanted to set the facts straight with respect to the "Restrictions" section in the end user license agreement (EULA) that is displayed at installation of Toast 5.1.4 and Jam 5.0.1 (both the latest versions of our software).
1. Toast and Jam do not include any digital rights management (DRM) software.
2. Toast and Jam do not dynamically download, upload or update any software on your system, either automatically behind the scenes, or upon your request.
3. Toast and Jam do not store, collect or transmit any personally identifiable information about you or what you record, for any of its partners, or any content provider.
Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components. Hence, the language in the EULA. Companies frequently share EULAs across products since it saves time and money with respect to legal, documentation and translation into multiple languages.
> Large companies with thousands of users and software audits have to pay
;-)) have to make a certain amount of money from somewhere. They can try to make a little bit of it off every person who uses their software, or larger amounts off a certain chunk of those users. Depending on your company, one strategy is better than the other. Hence, the pricetag disparity under discussion.
> for their licenses, and thus, subsidize the pirates. This is not to say piracy
> is OK, but it is expected and accounted for.
That statement contains such a logical flaw that I can't let it pass unnoticed.
Perhaps I missed something, but as far as you can tell you didn't point out a logical flaw. I didn't say that anyone has to subsidize Bob's use of pirated Office, I'm simply saying that they are, if he does. A subsidy (by the accepted general use, not the government-based definition) is the covering of costs by one group (the enterprises' massive license costs) for another (the pirates). Software firms (although debatably not M$
I'm not trying to place a value judgement on the situation, I'm simply saying that that's the way it is. Believe me, I spent a fair chunk of my life in Bob's shoes.
Programs like WS_FTP have the right idea. If you are a business user or a company looking to use the software you have to pay up. But if you are a home user who isn't profiting off of the use of the software, then its absolutely free.
This is precisely what the large software companies have achieved through their astronomical pricing schemes, and you can be assured that it is intentional. They don't expect you to pay $300 for Office, they expect you to get it for free on a new computer or bum it off a friend. Large companies with thousands of users and software audits have to pay for their licenses, and thus, subsidize the pirates. This is not to say piracy is OK, but it is expected and accounted for. The folks who lose are the righteously honest who actually need Office, and thus dish out the large pile of cash. You'll notice that today, the vast number of "reasonably priced" products (games, pims, etc.) are those that don't have a place in the office environment, and thus must make their money off the small fry.
Adobe Photoshop, which is a standard program that lots of people need costs $584 at www.buy.com. That's well over what most people can afford. It's half the price of an extremely decent computer!
I take issue with your choice of Photoshop as an example. Perhaps it is just my personal love of the application, but I have no problems with their pricing. They sells to a much smaller market than the office-centric products, yet the development effort required is just as large. Additionally, for the vast majority of Photoshop users, Photoshop is their most valuable piece of property (equal to that of their computer, since their computer would be pointless without Photoshop). For most of these folks, Photoshop pays itself off immediately, which is why you rarely hear them complain about its cost. For the folks who pirate Photoshop citing its pricetag, my guess is that you don't remotely need Photoshop, and there are plenty of free/cheap image editors that would more than serve your actual needs. In fact, by pirating Photoshop you're doing much less to harm Adobe than you are the small developer groups that produce the app you actually need and could really use your $30 shareware fee. I'm fairly certain that you'd get a similar argument from a true Flash developer, although not being in that area I cannot guarantee it.