While in a practical way it's good that you can enable the Linux kernel and XFree86 to make use of NVidia's hardware, I'm not very thrilled about the fact that NVidia provides this driver.
Some people seem to believe that these drivers are Free Software (well, they usually say "open source"), simply because you compile the glue between the binary and the kernel, but this is not the case. The NVidia drivers are proprietary software, and it's a problem when a task can only be done using non-free software. Since I (regretably) own an NVidia card, I've had to make the choice between 3d acceleration, or using only free software on my computer. Obviously, I chose the latter.
So, I would discourage people from using these drivers, and instead support a vendor whose boards do have fully functional Free drivers (these don't have to be provided by the vendor directly). Unfortunately, I haven't a clue as to what that vendor would be.
...the whole thing has apparently very few bugs, which is a good news.
This is a really strange statement. How can you know that there are few bugs when it has just been released? Of course the people who made it wouldn't have released it if they knew there were a lot of bugs, but making the connection to few bugs is... well unfounded. For a system like Debian woody with a 2.2 kernel you can probably safely talk about very few bugs, since it's been out and about and tested for very long.
I'm also very tired of all the comparison of Bill Gates/Hitler or Microsoft/Nazis, because that is really trivializing what happened in the third reich. Hitler was about creating a greater germany, advancing the aryan race (a noble but insanely misdirected cause) and killing all the Jews (altough that was not the intention from the begining, but part of the Final Solution which developed rather late during WW2).
Microsoft OTOH is about making money, and perhaps gaining some power, nothing else.
It spreads all by itself in the same way that a virus does. Let's say your friend has a cold, but you don't know it. He sneezes, you shake his hand, you rub your eye... the net result is that you get his cold. The virus has spread to you.
You're not convincing me the least. Viral nature I agree is if something spreads all by itself, even if you don't want it to (like a cold). Copylefted code simply does not do this.
Have you even read documentation for a copylefted library, used it in an application, linked against the library and then distributed (yes, only then are you forced to make your derivative work copylefted also) it all by mistake or chance? Somehow I don't think so. Programmers who say "hey this is a cool library, I'll try it out in my project" are not legally bound to copyleft their code until they actually distribute the application. And no one could possibly claim that it's easy to make the mistake to think that everything's ok, and distribute the thing not knowing anything about the license of the library. People who don't give a damn about licensing are not likely to be software publishers...
No, it is not viral -- it doens't spread all by itself. You're have the absolute freedom to not use copylefted code in your project. Rather (says rms) it is like a vaccine, that prevents the code from being used in ways that was not intended by the author. It protects the code by making sure all users of the codebase have the same freedoms.
Calling it viral is just repeating the lies that emerged from Redmond.
Companies such as MySQL AB and Trolltech (QT) appear to be making a living by offering software both as free software and non-free software. In the case of MySQL, it's my understanding that paying for the non-free version is simply a question of garuanteeing support (and possibly getting warranty of the product).
How do you feel about using this type of software? Technically it is non-free, but you could hardly claim that it's `dividing users and keeping them helpless', nor would I consider it immoral. What's your take on this sort of buisness?
I think your comment is well taken. There is however at least one more aspect to this which is significant:
When you fix a problem in GNU/Linux, it stays fixed until you unfix it again. At least this is true in most cases. Coming from a Windows life not even a year ago, it's wonderful to know that when something goes wrong, it's not only possible to fix it, but you will know why it started working again. In Windows, when things go wrong, it seems you just randomly punch a few monkeys, and ta-da it works again. And you cannot find out why.
While this is an interesting idea, I think I know why it will not, and should not be done.
I don't know an awful lot about the vorbis compression algorithm, but I do know that it is lossy -- parts get thrown away. This might be some ms after a loud sound, high frequencies -- anything which the ear does not notice. So if we're going to compare sample-by-sample from the ogg, I think almost every sample will be off by a little, because of the nature of the compression. So probably the "missing parts"-flac would be close to the size as a compressed flac of the original.
If you want to be able to scale down the HQ audio on your drive, for devises and stuff like you say, you'd be better of using some other method. Vorbis does have theoretical support from bitrate-scaling, meaning that audio can be scaled down without recompressing. However, this is only theoretical as I understand it, and is not yet implemented. But this is the feature you should be pushing for.
Also, if you want to have a lossless file on your computer, and a smaller one on your devise, why not recompress the file on the fly? With a fast computer, compressing takes only 1/10 the time of the actual song, so this would definitely be a viable solution until bitrate-scaling is fixed for real.
Considering Doom, Doom2, Quake and Quake2 are Free Software (under the GPL), odds are high you will see Quake3 and Doom4 as Free Software sooner or laer. ID are good people, I guess.
Not sure that Doom{1,2} are free software though, have to double-check that one...
The article is/.ed, so I can't read it. Sorry for any grave mistakes.
Could this be part of the elusive 'dark matter' talked about so much lately?
No, don't think so. As I understand it (and I know nothing really, I'm in the gymnasium), dark matter is neither matter or antimatter. Rather, dark matter is a hypothetical something which has been thought up to account for some otherwise unexplainable phenomena.
This simply seems to be concerned with our technology becoming more accurate and hence being able to record previously invisible things -- such as faint stars around our galaxy.
I feel I must point out that it's actually possible to want to look like this. I know for sure that I would grow an obnoxious beard like that if I could (my beard-growth, at 18, is limited). And the hair... it's coming along fine already.
The GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 states nothing of the kind. Rather, the notice which is reccomended to add to your software reads as:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version. and so on.
The conclusion? It is up to the user of the software to use it under the GPL 2, or GPL 3 when thay day comes. Hence, the FSF (god bless:) can do nothing to "harm" you, even if they wanted to.
I've also encountered this, and it's unfortunate. However, returning a disc because it is unplayable MUST be permitted, even by law or something. In any case, you can be sure to have a tough ride trying it:)
Hrm. I was not advocating the ogg framework specifically (what's with all thes idiots who think.ogg means ogg is a audio format? Ever heard of the avi codec?). If you did not notice, we (at least I) don't give a shit what's "teh standard", we use what we believe is the best. And that sure as hell is not MP3 (several reasons: quality, patents, licensing). If I were to use the "standard", I'd be killing myself on WinXP, MS Word, MSN Messenger and fscking MP3s! I'd rather eat my own arm, thank you very much!
Half of these comments are saying that it's no problem, since you can just download the music as mp3s (cough, vorbis!!, cough). While I would personally never (ever) buy a cd with copy protection, I think this mentality is sort of stupid. I actually believe that you should support the artists which you like. Yes, perhaps artists don't get very much when you buy a cd, but listen. You're not punishing the record labels buy not buying their stuff! Ok, perhaps they get less money, but it's not like it makes a difference (consumer power to hell). What would be nice to do is:
1. Buy the disc, rip it (as ogg vorbis, not fscking mp3). I've yet to encounter a copy protected disc which can't be copied...
2. Turn the disc back to the store, claiming it's useless. (it is, sort of)
3. Send a check to the artists, and say that you like them, but hate their record label, and explain what you did.
4. Send a letter to the record label, say that you hate them, and tell them what you did about it.
I'll admit I've never actually done this myself (because none of the music I like has been copy protected so far). But, hey, doesn't it sound like something?
This is a really Good Thing (tm). I have at least two friends who state different aspects of audio and music as being reasons for staying with Windows, so perhaps this will help a little.
BUT, don't many of these applications overlap in functionality? Personally I use Audacity and Sweep, and these do the same thing to some extent. Both have their tweaks, but anyway. While this is good for me, it seems like a potential source of grievance for some people.
It would appear that what would really be useful is putting alot of energy into one program to do most of the things users want, instead of many that each do one of these things.
While I agree that games are "better" being addicted to than most drugs (coffee, anyone?) I really can't agree with the conclusion of this article. Gaming addiction can be expensive as hell (especially if you're on dial-up and pay per minute, as we do in Sweden). I had a brush with this sort of behaviour when my brother was playing Ultima Online every day for about half a year -- although he eventually just got tired of it.
Any activity which holds you from interactive with other people for a very long time is quite harmful to you, even if you don't actually *like* people.
Many of us have followed the development on cvs and the mailing lists for the past few months, and this is really heading the right way. (offtopic: A while ago, I encoded Star Trek: First Contact, which required ~90 GB of temp space for the yuv file, that was fun).
What I wonder is when there will be a patch for mplayer to encode and decode theora. I realize it would be a bad idea putting it in the main tree, as that would result in people distributing files encoded with this yet-to-be-finished codec. But for testing purposes and hack value -- anyone up to writing such a thing?
Nice idea. Since Vorbis also has support for an infinite number of channels, it should be possible to - with the right ripper and player - rip it with 5.1 sound (for those who have surround PC speakers:)
Keep in mind that no single electron is moving faster than light. That would conflict with Einsten's theory of relativity since an electron has mass and accelerating any mass to the speed of light requires infinite (not a lot, infinite--hence impossible) energy. It is the signal itself (the wave) that is moving at speeds faster than light.
Compare (Actually equate) this to the movement of electrons in any cable. While the signal may get from your soundcard to your headphones instantaneously the individual electrons require a long time (minutes, hours: depending on the current) to go from one end of the cable to the other.
The writer makes the faulty assumption that a GNU/Linux user will use the "best" software if it is available at a low enough cost. But the fact is that many GNU/Linux people make this choice for partly ideological reasons.
Although the free (speach, !beer) software is often "better" (technologically, sometimes user-friendly-wise) I (and many others) would not use an even better version if it were not free software -- even if it were available at zero price.
Richard Stallman would certainly talk about making a sacrifice or resisting the temptation -- and I agree.
I do not use Macromedias Flash player for Linux even though I miss out on a lot of stuff on the internet because it is not free software. I tell myself that if the source of information (website) cannot be bothered to make the information available to everyone in a standard format then I do not want part of that information -- I will turn to someone who cares about my freedom instead.
Summary: I does not matter if Photoshop is made available for GNU/Linux at zero price -- I would still not use it if it were not free software.
Slashdot Mirror
While in a practical way it's good that you can enable the Linux kernel and XFree86 to make use of NVidia's hardware, I'm not very thrilled about the fact that NVidia provides this driver.
Some people seem to believe that these drivers are Free Software (well, they usually say "open source"), simply because you compile the glue between the binary and the kernel, but this is not the case. The NVidia drivers are proprietary software, and it's a problem when a task can only be done using non-free software. Since I (regretably) own an NVidia card, I've had to make the choice between 3d acceleration, or using only free software on my computer. Obviously, I chose the latter.
So, I would discourage people from using these drivers, and instead support a vendor whose boards do have fully functional Free drivers (these don't have to be provided by the vendor directly). Unfortunately, I haven't a clue as to what that vendor would be.
- The term "Open Source" is used instead of Free Software.
- The article is not about any GNU software.
- The persons in the article are not FSF people, or anything like that.
- The word GNU isn't mentioned once.
It's nice to see the GNU logo, but not if the article has nothing to do with GNU software, or does not talk about Free Software.This is a really strange statement. How can you know that there are few bugs when it has just been released? Of course the people who made it wouldn't have released it if they knew there were a lot of bugs, but making the connection to few bugs is... well unfounded. For a system like Debian woody with a 2.2 kernel you can probably safely talk about very few bugs, since it's been out and about and tested for very long.
No, it was not, as has already been pointed out..
I'm also very tired of all the comparison of Bill Gates/Hitler or Microsoft/Nazis, because that is really trivializing what happened in the third reich. Hitler was about creating a greater germany, advancing the aryan race (a noble but insanely misdirected cause) and killing all the Jews (altough that was not the intention from the begining, but part of the Final Solution which developed rather late during WW2).
Microsoft OTOH is about making money, and perhaps gaining some power, nothing else.
It spreads all by itself in the same way that a virus does. Let's say your friend has a cold, but you don't know it. He sneezes, you shake his hand, you rub your eye... the net result is that you get his cold. The virus has spread to you.
You're not convincing me the least. Viral nature I agree is if something spreads all by itself, even if you don't want it to (like a cold). Copylefted code simply does not do this.
Have you even read documentation for a copylefted library, used it in an application, linked against the library and then distributed (yes, only then are you forced to make your derivative work copylefted also) it all by mistake or chance? Somehow I don't think so. Programmers who say "hey this is a cool library, I'll try it out in my project" are not legally bound to copyleft their code until they actually distribute the application. And no one could possibly claim that it's easy to make the mistake to think that everything's ok, and distribute the thing not knowing anything about the license of the library. People who don't give a damn about licensing are not likely to be software publishers...
No, it is not viral -- it doens't spread all by itself. You're have the absolute freedom to not use copylefted code in your project. Rather (says rms) it is like a vaccine, that prevents the code from being used in ways that was not intended by the author. It protects the code by making sure all users of the codebase have the same freedoms.
Calling it viral is just repeating the lies that emerged from Redmond.
If you believe that which you say, you've never read or heard his words.
Go read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html to understand the difference between Free Software and the superfluous spin-off "Open Source".
Then read everything else in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
To finish off, go to http://audio-video.gnu.org/ to get some live action!
Don't take this as an insult, but please know the Word before you speak it (yes, that was a biblical allusion).
How do you feel about using this type of software? Technically it is non-free, but you could hardly claim that it's `dividing users and keeping them helpless', nor would I consider it immoral. What's your take on this sort of buisness?
I think your comment is well taken. There is however at least one more aspect to this which is significant:
When you fix a problem in GNU/Linux, it stays fixed until you unfix it again. At least this is true in most cases. Coming from a Windows life not even a year ago, it's wonderful to know that when something goes wrong, it's not only possible to fix it, but you will know why it started working again. In Windows, when things go wrong, it seems you just randomly punch a few monkeys, and ta-da it works again. And you cannot find out why.
Oh no you don't! Don't think you can fool us with that all too common last name. We know it's you, RMS!
I don't know an awful lot about the vorbis compression algorithm, but I do know that it is lossy -- parts get thrown away. This might be some ms after a loud sound, high frequencies -- anything which the ear does not notice. So if we're going to compare sample-by-sample from the ogg, I think almost every sample will be off by a little, because of the nature of the compression. So probably the "missing parts"-flac would be close to the size as a compressed flac of the original.
If you want to be able to scale down the HQ audio on your drive, for devises and stuff like you say, you'd be better of using some other method. Vorbis does have theoretical support from bitrate-scaling, meaning that audio can be scaled down without recompressing. However, this is only theoretical as I understand it, and is not yet implemented. But this is the feature you should be pushing for.
Also, if you want to have a lossless file on your computer, and a smaller one on your devise, why not recompress the file on the fly? With a fast computer, compressing takes only 1/10 the time of the actual song, so this would definitely be a viable solution until bitrate-scaling is fixed for real.
For those of you who don't much like macromedia stuff, you can see small pictures of these things on another page on the same site.
Not sure that Doom{1,2} are free software though, have to double-check that one...
The article is /.ed, so I can't read it. Sorry for any grave mistakes.
Could this be part of the elusive 'dark matter' talked about so much lately?
No, don't think so. As I understand it (and I know nothing really, I'm in the gymnasium), dark matter is neither matter or antimatter. Rather, dark matter is a hypothetical something which has been thought up to account for some otherwise unexplainable phenomena.
This simply seems to be concerned with our technology becoming more accurate and hence being able to record previously invisible things -- such as faint stars around our galaxy.
I feel I must point out that it's actually possible to want to look like this. I know for sure that I would grow an obnoxious beard like that if I could (my beard-growth, at 18, is limited). And the hair... it's coming along fine already.
The GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2 states nothing of the kind. Rather, the notice which is reccomended to add to your software reads as: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version. and so on.
The conclusion? It is up to the user of the software to use it under the GPL 2, or GPL 3 when thay day comes. Hence, the FSF (god bless :) can do nothing to "harm" you, even if they wanted to.
I've also encountered this, and it's unfortunate. However, returning a disc because it is unplayable MUST be permitted, even by law or something. In any case, you can be sure to have a tough ride trying it :)
Hrm. I was not advocating the ogg framework specifically (what's with all thes idiots who think .ogg means ogg is a audio format? Ever heard of the avi codec?).
If you did not notice, we (at least I) don't give a shit what's "teh standard", we use what we believe is the best. And that sure as hell is not MP3 (several reasons: quality, patents, licensing).
If I were to use the "standard", I'd be killing myself on WinXP, MS Word, MSN Messenger and fscking MP3s! I'd rather eat my own arm, thank you very much!
Half of these comments are saying that it's no problem, since you can just download the music as mp3s (cough, vorbis!!, cough). While I would personally never (ever) buy a cd with copy protection, I think this mentality is sort of stupid. I actually believe that you should support the artists which you like. Yes, perhaps artists don't get very much when you buy a cd, but listen. You're not punishing the record labels buy not buying their stuff! Ok, perhaps they get less money, but it's not like it makes a difference (consumer power to hell). What would be nice to do is:
1. Buy the disc, rip it (as ogg vorbis, not fscking mp3). I've yet to encounter a copy protected disc which can't be copied...
2. Turn the disc back to the store, claiming it's useless. (it is, sort of)
3. Send a check to the artists, and say that you like them, but hate their record label, and explain what you did.
4. Send a letter to the record label, say that you hate them, and tell them what you did about it.
I'll admit I've never actually done this myself (because none of the music I like has been copy protected so far). But, hey, doesn't it sound like something?
BUT, don't many of these applications overlap in functionality? Personally I use Audacity and Sweep, and these do the same thing to some extent. Both have their tweaks, but anyway. While this is good for me, it seems like a potential source of grievance for some people.
It would appear that what would really be useful is putting alot of energy into one program to do most of the things users want, instead of many that each do one of these things.
While I agree that games are "better" being addicted to than most drugs (coffee, anyone?) I really can't agree with the conclusion of this article. Gaming addiction can be expensive as hell (especially if you're on dial-up and pay per minute, as we do in Sweden). I had a brush with this sort of behaviour when my brother was playing Ultima Online every day for about half a year -- although he eventually just got tired of it. Any activity which holds you from interactive with other people for a very long time is quite harmful to you, even if you don't actually *like* people.
Many of us have followed the development on cvs and the mailing lists for the past few months, and this is really heading the right way. (offtopic: A while ago, I encoded Star Trek: First Contact, which required ~90 GB of temp space for the yuv file, that was fun). What I wonder is when there will be a patch for mplayer to encode and decode theora. I realize it would be a bad idea putting it in the main tree, as that would result in people distributing files encoded with this yet-to-be-finished codec. But for testing purposes and hack value -- anyone up to writing such a thing?
Nice idea. Since Vorbis also has support for an infinite number of channels, it should be possible to - with the right ripper and player - rip it with 5.1 sound (for those who have surround PC speakers :)
Keep in mind that no single electron is moving faster than light. That would conflict with Einsten's theory of relativity since an electron has mass and accelerating any mass to the speed of light requires infinite (not a lot, infinite--hence impossible) energy. It is the signal itself (the wave) that is moving at speeds faster than light. Compare (Actually equate) this to the movement of electrons in any cable. While the signal may get from your soundcard to your headphones instantaneously the individual electrons require a long time (minutes, hours: depending on the current) to go from one end of the cable to the other.
The writer makes the faulty assumption that a GNU/Linux user will use the "best" software if it is available at a low enough cost. But the fact is that many GNU/Linux people make this choice for partly ideological reasons.
Although the free (speach, !beer) software is often "better" (technologically, sometimes user-friendly-wise) I (and many others) would not use an even better version if it were not free software -- even if it were available at zero price.
Richard Stallman would certainly talk about making a sacrifice or resisting the temptation -- and I agree.
I do not use Macromedias Flash player for Linux even though I miss out on a lot of stuff on the internet because it is not free software. I tell myself that if the source of information (website) cannot be bothered to make the information available to everyone in a standard format then I do not want part of that information -- I will turn to someone who cares about my freedom instead.
Summary: I does not matter if Photoshop is made available for GNU/Linux at zero price -- I would still not use it if it were not free software.