Oh, my god! Some random doofus on Slashdot thought of something that hundreds of experienced hardware and product design experts at one of the world's most consistently profitable and innovative companies never thought of!
And that other guy was right, too! If only Apple had included OGG in the iPod, it would have been a successful product instead of the miserable failure it turned out to be!
You are assuming I am guilty of copyright theft before such has been proven
No, I'm saying that if you distribute an unprotected format somebody will pirate your content. Guaranteed, 100%, no question.
That's why I want to maintain my rights to my music.
Then buy music from vendors who are happy to offer yout those rights. Don't buy music from vendors who want to offer you limited rights. And quit your fucking whining about it, because you are not fucking entitled to anything.
However, by your logic, if a speeding BMW driver knocks over and kills a pedestrian, it would be valid to restrict all BMW cars to a maximum speed within the speed limit as a result.
Actually, they are close enough that this is arguable.
Nope.
But if Theora isn't suitable for your application, you can always license MPEG4 or Sorenson or something.
There are no licensing fees to decode either of those formats. They're free, bundled with QuickTime. And the licensing fee to encode is $29.95 per seat, unlimited, no per-clip costs.
Actually, because I am a Debian user...
You don't count then. Again: actual mainstream users, not the lunatic fringe.
Can you count on that?
Yes. That's how economics works. Dumbass.
Um... how about the ability of patent owners to decide under what terms, and for what fees, they license the patent?
Retroactively? Wrong, dumbass.
Frauhofer let everyone use MP3 for free for a few years, then changed the deal and started charging.
No, they didn't. Their MP3 encoder is still available for free to anybody who wants it, via QuickTime.
You really are a rude troll.
Attention shit-for-brains: "troll" does not mean "person who disagrees with you." If you've got nothing to add other than conspiracy theories and name-calling, kindly fuck off.
If all else were equal, why not use the tool that isn't patent-encumbered?
All else is not equal. All else has never been equal, and there's no sign that all else will be equal any time soon.
OGG isn't as good as AAC. I don't know about this new thing, but I find it hard to believe that it's as good as MPEG-4 at high bit rates or Sorenson at low bit rates.
But that's not the big deal. The big deal is the tool set. It's a pain in the ass to use a nonstandard codec, so why bother?
And... just as AMD forced Intel to stop charging too much for CPUs, Ogg keeps Frauhofer from getting too greedy with MP3.
Dumbass. Fraunhofer's own business plan keeps them from "getting too greedy." Besides, the very fact that you'd consider a company's pursuit of profit through licensing of patented technology to be "getting too greedy" makes me laugh at you derisively. Ha-ha.
And... imagine someone puts together a whole collection of stuff on the web in a patent-encumbered format such as MP3. The patent owners can literally tell that person "we control the patent, so you have to pay us or take your site down."
No, they cannot. There's absolutely no interpretation of patent law that would result in that interpretation. Which makes sense, given that your ignorance of patent law is matched only by your paranoia.
And finally, Linux distributions such as Debian, who are really careful about IP...
are irrelevant to any serious discussion. We're talking about the real world here, not the lunatic fringe.
Um, you do realize that MP3 began being used in 1995, but Fraunhofer waited until September 1998 to contact MP3 software developers to tell them they need a license, right?
Yes, and it's a damn shame they did, because now there are no free MP3 encoders or players out there. What a tragic loss.
both are proprietary and somewhat expensive to license
Bullshit.
Wanna create Sorenson 3 content? It's $29.95 for QuickTime Pro. Wanna stream it? Darwin Streaming Server runs on OS X, Solaris, Red Hat 9, and Windows Server, and it's free. Free to download, free to run, and free of per-stream license fees. Oh, it's also open source.
Honest to god, I don't know where these bullshit rumors get started. Sorenson 3 is NOT expensive. Neither is MPEG-4. Neither are any of the other QuickTime codecs. You can encode for nothing or for $29.95 depending on the codec, and you can stream them FOR FREE.
Because of this, the ability to have free tools to work with is a big deal.
QuickTime is already free. Anybody who wants to can use it to create their media, using any number of high-quality industry-standard codecs.
Whatsa problem again?
As long as I have access to tools that aren't encumbered by patents, and I can do whatever the fuck I want with them. As long as Fraunhoffer or MS controls things, it means I can't be certain about what happens to my content tomarrow.
Yeah... except no. You've got the encoder. You've got the decoder. You're safe, I swear.
Do not, however, believe the idiots who tell you this is a fine way to make river water potable when camping.
It had rained during the night, so we were having trouble getting the campfire started to boil a pot of water. My buddy, who was an Army Ranger for chrissakes, says, "No problem!" He pulls out this tiny bottle with an eyedropper, and plops one drop of bleach into the pot. No more buggies. Nice and clean. Tasted nasty, but it was safe.
Holy christ. Somebody needed to tell that to our digestive systems. About fifteen minutes later, somebody down there pulled the Big Red Switch and WHOOOM. More came out than ever went in, and it emerged with a force sufficient to lift me about a foot right up into the air. I expected to look down and see a pile of clean, white bones lying there. A couple of ribs, my left ulna, two vertibrae, and, right in the middle, my pelvis.
I was expelling so fast my butt actually got hot from the friction.
I've had dissentary and I've drunk bleach-water. I'll take the amoebas any day.
Re:A legitimate complaint? large music libraries
on
iTunes 4.6, DRM, and Hymn
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My problem with iTunes is that it is not graceful at handling large song libraries.
15,343 tracks here, and no problems at all. And that's on a G3 iMac running at 400 MHz.
I access the same library from my dual GHz G4 upstairs. No problems there either. In fact, apart from encoding speed, I can't tell the difference between the two machines as far as iTunes is concerned.
Re:Apple could build a G5 powerbook now.
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The CPU isn't the issue. The issue is the system controller. In the Power Mac G5, the system controller is an Apple-designed, IBM-fabbed ASIC that connects all the components of the system via HyperTransport. It's about half the size of a pop-tart and dissipates enough heat to keep your toes nice and toasty-warm.
Fedex is the highest bandwidth network in the world
Somewhere I read recently about a giant server that somebody had designed on paper, with storage in the high multi-terabyte range. They did the math and figured out that they could put the whole thing in a shipping container and ship it to Australia over 14 days, and it would STILL add up to something like 500 MB per second.
Why not just place a small memory card inside the pen?
What if the thing you want to copy is a 20 MB TIFF file? Or a 700 MB CD? Or a gig of video?
Not only are you limited by the amount of memory in the pen, you have to copy it twice. In this implementation, you're just shuttling pointers around until you finally do one transfer.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad.
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Saying there was no example of a compromised system that we know about is irrelevant.
No, it's not.
You can just as easily make the same claim about BeOS.
Then go right ahead!
You seem to be confusing the OS and the webserver
I'm not *confusing* them. I'm just not bothering to draw an arbitrary distinction between them for purposes of weasling out of an argument.
You keep repeating the claim there has been no successful exploit "in the wild" (that you know of) -- which may be true if you ignore the crack-a-mac contest, but it is irrelevant.
No, it's not. It's the only point that's relevant to this discussion: no Mac running classic Mac OS has ever been hacked into. That means a Mac running the classic Mac OS is a very secure platform indeed.
And, again, it is probably less secure, since once the service has been compromised, the attacker now has root access to the Mac.
No OS 9 Mac has ever been compromised. You're talking about the consequences of something that has never, ever happened, ever. You really don't realize how foolish this makes you sound? You're ignoring the fact that the lack of a command shell basically makes running arbitrary commands remotely a complete impossibility on a classic Mac. You're saying "if it happened, it would suck" while ignoring the fact that it cannot happen.
It's a simple hypothesis, and all you can say is "Bogus."
Was I unclear? Okay, let me use more words, then: "demonstrably untrue, and therefore laughable in the extreme."
Re:Not surprising, and not bad.
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Mac OS9 was not inherently any more secure than any other OS
You're spewing a lot of pseudo-theoretical claptrap and ignoring the point: no Mac OS 9 box was ever compromised in the wild. Ever.
the few Macs running WebStar were never an attractive enough target for hackers
Oh, okay. I see. Now we finally get to the heart of your argument. It's the old "Macs aren't more secure; they're just less common" thing.
Bogus then, bogus now.
I guess my point is that the OS is only as secure as the services it is running, and that's true of UNIX as well.
Which is, of course, crap. I mean, it's true, but it's crap. Saying "the system is only as secure as its components" ignores the slap-you-in-the-face fact that no Classic Mac OS system was ever compromised outside of a controlled test.
And WebStar was a damn fine server, but its big selling point was that it was a freakin' workhorse, not that it was any more secure than apache, except perhaps through obscurity.
Bogus.
Arguably OS9 is less secure as an OS than UNIX because it treats every user as root.
Go ahead, make that argument. Then cite all the countless examples of malicious intruders gaining root access to a Mac OS 9 system.
Oh, wait...
Don't compare Mac and UNIX "out of the box" because they're in very different boxes.
Bogus.
Re:Not surprising, and not bad.
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
But a remote compromise is a remote compromise.
I would argue that "crack-a-Mac" was not in the wild. But that's neither here nor there.
Okay, there's been ONE instance of a remote compromise, sort of in the wild, kinda.
As someone else pointed out, an app like Timbuktu gives you remote back-office-style control over a Mac if you can install the program
The Mac running OS 9, just like all computers with network connections, is vulnerable to trojan horses. But a trojan horse is not a remote compromise. By definition, because of the way the Mac worked under OS 9, you had to have physical access to the machine to install the trojan horse, be it a program like Timbuktu or something more insidious.
But all this is academic -- os9 was more secure "out of the box" because it didn't do anything.
All the webmasters at the DoD will be shocked to learn that their web servers don't do anything.
The same with any services you open up under UNIX.
No, NOT the same. Because nothing runs on a Mac under OS 9 unless you explicity enable it. Unlike UNIX, where services run by default out of the box.
How many RPC exploits are there?
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1
What does Parade have to do with Time-Life or Conde Nast?
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 1
If the nightmare scenario you and all the other morons were whining about were true, then there would be a business case for Apple to continue building Mac OS 9 machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Many HD's that close together is just asking for a heat related failure
Twice the drives in the same amount of space.
Oh, my god! Some random doofus on Slashdot thought of something that hundreds of experienced hardware and product design experts at one of the world's most consistently profitable and innovative companies never thought of!
And that other guy was right, too! If only Apple had included OGG in the iPod, it would have been a successful product instead of the miserable failure it turned out to be!
Dumbass.
The best, most rigorous listening test in the world results in the conclusion that the results are within the margin of error.
The tie-breaker is the fact that AAC is available and supported, while OGG is not.
AAC is superior.
No problem. First go here, and then go here. Sorry it's a two-step process, but that's the price you pay for starting out so far behind the curve.
Happily, my dear friend.
(Sorry, I think you made a typo in your post. You wrote "(as in -dom)" and that doesn't make any sense.)
You are assuming I am guilty of copyright theft before such has been proven
No, I'm saying that if you distribute an unprotected format somebody will pirate your content. Guaranteed, 100%, no question.
That's why I want to maintain my rights to my music.
Then buy music from vendors who are happy to offer yout those rights. Don't buy music from vendors who want to offer you limited rights. And quit your fucking whining about it, because you are not fucking entitled to anything.
However, by your logic, if a speeding BMW driver knocks over and kills a pedestrian, it would be valid to restrict all BMW cars to a maximum speed within the speed limit as a result.
Wow. You're an idiot.
Actually, they are close enough that this is arguable.
Nope.
But if Theora isn't suitable for your application, you can always license MPEG4 or Sorenson or something.
There are no licensing fees to decode either of those formats. They're free, bundled with QuickTime. And the licensing fee to encode is $29.95 per seat, unlimited, no per-clip costs.
Actually, because I am a Debian user...
You don't count then. Again: actual mainstream users, not the lunatic fringe.
Can you count on that?
Yes. That's how economics works. Dumbass.
Um... how about the ability of patent owners to decide under what terms, and for what fees, they license the patent?
Retroactively? Wrong, dumbass.
Frauhofer let everyone use MP3 for free for a few years, then changed the deal and started charging.
No, they didn't. Their MP3 encoder is still available for free to anybody who wants it, via QuickTime.
You really are a rude troll.
Attention shit-for-brains: "troll" does not mean "person who disagrees with you." If you've got nothing to add other than conspiracy theories and name-calling, kindly fuck off.
By this I mean the price will prevent the format from becoming "ubiquitous" as I was discussing in my parent reply.
Those formats are already ubiquitous. They're everywhere.
Granted, this most likely refers to streaming content and movies, but they do charge royalties per content you make and its length.
You're misreading. Go download Darwin Streaming Server and start streaming MPEG-4 content for free, and see how wrong you are.
If all else were equal, why not use the tool that isn't patent-encumbered?
All else is not equal. All else has never been equal, and there's no sign that all else will be equal any time soon.
OGG isn't as good as AAC. I don't know about this new thing, but I find it hard to believe that it's as good as MPEG-4 at high bit rates or Sorenson at low bit rates.
But that's not the big deal. The big deal is the tool set. It's a pain in the ass to use a nonstandard codec, so why bother?
And... just as AMD forced Intel to stop charging too much for CPUs, Ogg keeps Frauhofer from getting too greedy with MP3.
Dumbass. Fraunhofer's own business plan keeps them from "getting too greedy." Besides, the very fact that you'd consider a company's pursuit of profit through licensing of patented technology to be "getting too greedy" makes me laugh at you derisively. Ha-ha.
And... imagine someone puts together a whole collection of stuff on the web in a patent-encumbered format such as MP3. The patent owners can literally tell that person "we control the patent, so you have to pay us or take your site down."
No, they cannot. There's absolutely no interpretation of patent law that would result in that interpretation. Which makes sense, given that your ignorance of patent law is matched only by your paranoia.
And finally, Linux distributions such as Debian, who are really careful about IP...
are irrelevant to any serious discussion. We're talking about the real world here, not the lunatic fringe.
Rude troll.
Blow me.
Um, you do realize that MP3 began being used in 1995, but Fraunhofer waited until September 1998 to contact MP3 software developers to tell them they need a license, right?
Yes, and it's a damn shame they did, because now there are no free MP3 encoders or players out there. What a tragic loss.
Oh, wait.
Dial the hysteria back to a 7 or 8, please. Running around with your spazostat set to 11 isn't helping anybody.
both are proprietary and somewhat expensive to license
Bullshit.
Wanna create Sorenson 3 content? It's $29.95 for QuickTime Pro. Wanna stream it? Darwin Streaming Server runs on OS X, Solaris, Red Hat 9, and Windows Server, and it's free. Free to download, free to run, and free of per-stream license fees. Oh, it's also open source.
Honest to god, I don't know where these bullshit rumors get started. Sorenson 3 is NOT expensive. Neither is MPEG-4. Neither are any of the other QuickTime codecs. You can encode for nothing or for $29.95 depending on the codec, and you can stream them FOR FREE.
Sorenson certainly isn't free.
No, it costs $29.95.
What about the guy using BeOS?
You're joking, right?
Without having a Free standard, MS can ultimately declare WMV dead
There you go. Don't bother constructing a valid or persusive argument. Just bail out of the whole discussion with a "MS SUCKS!" Good job.
Nobody uses Real anymore
Tons of people use Real. The BBC, NPR, and C-SPAN all use Real.
the existing content in the format is as dead as VAX tapes or Video Disc
I keep a Real stream of C-SPAN open on my desktop pretty much all the time.
With Theora being an open format some guy will eventually write a video editor in PHP
Yes, we've seen how well that's worked for OGG.
Last time I checked, the Sorenson video codec was patented.
So? Last time I checked, a vendor can't go back and retroactively charge fees for the use of something that's already been used.
You're trying to make it sound like patent-holders are (1) evil and (2) all-powerful. You're not fooling anybody.
Because of this, the ability to have free tools to work with is a big deal.
QuickTime is already free. Anybody who wants to can use it to create their media, using any number of high-quality industry-standard codecs.
Whatsa problem again?
As long as I have access to tools that aren't encumbered by patents, and I can do whatever the fuck I want with them. As long as Fraunhoffer or MS controls things, it means I can't be certain about what happens to my content tomarrow.
Yeah... except no. You've got the encoder. You've got the decoder. You're safe, I swear.
Fucking idiot.
4. You upload those downloaded tracks to a million, million of your closest friends via Kazaa or whatever the piracy service of the week is.
5. The people who made the music lose out on lots of sales.
That's why it wouldn't work.
Do not, however, believe the idiots who tell you this is a fine way to make river water potable when camping.
It had rained during the night, so we were having trouble getting the campfire started to boil a pot of water. My buddy, who was an Army Ranger for chrissakes, says, "No problem!" He pulls out this tiny bottle with an eyedropper, and plops one drop of bleach into the pot. No more buggies. Nice and clean. Tasted nasty, but it was safe.
Holy christ. Somebody needed to tell that to our digestive systems. About fifteen minutes later, somebody down there pulled the Big Red Switch and WHOOOM. More came out than ever went in, and it emerged with a force sufficient to lift me about a foot right up into the air. I expected to look down and see a pile of clean, white bones lying there. A couple of ribs, my left ulna, two vertibrae, and, right in the middle, my pelvis.
I was expelling so fast my butt actually got hot from the friction.
I've had dissentary and I've drunk bleach-water. I'll take the amoebas any day.
My problem with iTunes is that it is not graceful at handling large song libraries.
15,343 tracks here, and no problems at all. And that's on a G3 iMac running at 400 MHz.
I access the same library from my dual GHz G4 upstairs. No problems there either. In fact, apart from encoding speed, I can't tell the difference between the two machines as far as iTunes is concerned.
The CPU isn't the issue. The issue is the system controller. In the Power Mac G5, the system controller is an Apple-designed, IBM-fabbed ASIC that connects all the components of the system via HyperTransport. It's about half the size of a pop-tart and dissipates enough heat to keep your toes nice and toasty-warm.
Fedex is the highest bandwidth network in the world
Somewhere I read recently about a giant server that somebody had designed on paper, with storage in the high multi-terabyte range. They did the math and figured out that they could put the whole thing in a shipping container and ship it to Australia over 14 days, and it would STILL add up to something like 500 MB per second.
Why not just place a small memory card inside the pen?
What if the thing you want to copy is a 20 MB TIFF file? Or a 700 MB CD? Or a gig of video?
Not only are you limited by the amount of memory in the pen, you have to copy it twice. In this implementation, you're just shuttling pointers around until you finally do one transfer.
Saying there was no example of a compromised system that we know about is irrelevant.
No, it's not.
You can just as easily make the same claim about BeOS.
Then go right ahead!
You seem to be confusing the OS and the webserver
I'm not *confusing* them. I'm just not bothering to draw an arbitrary distinction between them for purposes of weasling out of an argument.
You keep repeating the claim there has been no successful exploit "in the wild" (that you know of) -- which may be true if you ignore the crack-a-mac contest, but it is irrelevant.
No, it's not. It's the only point that's relevant to this discussion: no Mac running classic Mac OS has ever been hacked into. That means a Mac running the classic Mac OS is a very secure platform indeed.
And, again, it is probably less secure, since once the service has been compromised, the attacker now has root access to the Mac.
No OS 9 Mac has ever been compromised. You're talking about the consequences of something that has never, ever happened, ever. You really don't realize how foolish this makes you sound? You're ignoring the fact that the lack of a command shell basically makes running arbitrary commands remotely a complete impossibility on a classic Mac. You're saying "if it happened, it would suck" while ignoring the fact that it cannot happen.
It's a simple hypothesis, and all you can say is "Bogus."
Was I unclear? Okay, let me use more words, then: "demonstrably untrue, and therefore laughable in the extreme."
Mac OS9 was not inherently any more secure than any other OS
You're spewing a lot of pseudo-theoretical claptrap and ignoring the point: no Mac OS 9 box was ever compromised in the wild. Ever.
the few Macs running WebStar were never an attractive enough target for hackers
Oh, okay. I see. Now we finally get to the heart of your argument. It's the old "Macs aren't more secure; they're just less common" thing.
Bogus then, bogus now.
I guess my point is that the OS is only as secure as the services it is running, and that's true of UNIX as well.
Which is, of course, crap. I mean, it's true, but it's crap. Saying "the system is only as secure as its components" ignores the slap-you-in-the-face fact that no Classic Mac OS system was ever compromised outside of a controlled test.
And WebStar was a damn fine server, but its big selling point was that it was a freakin' workhorse, not that it was any more secure than apache, except perhaps through obscurity.
Bogus.
Arguably OS9 is less secure as an OS than UNIX because it treats every user as root.
Go ahead, make that argument. Then cite all the countless examples of malicious intruders gaining root access to a Mac OS 9 system.
Oh, wait...
Don't compare Mac and UNIX "out of the box" because they're in very different boxes.
Bogus.
But a remote compromise is a remote compromise.
I would argue that "crack-a-Mac" was not in the wild. But that's neither here nor there.
Okay, there's been ONE instance of a remote compromise, sort of in the wild, kinda.
As someone else pointed out, an app like Timbuktu gives you remote back-office-style control over a Mac if you can install the program
The Mac running OS 9, just like all computers with network connections, is vulnerable to trojan horses. But a trojan horse is not a remote compromise. By definition, because of the way the Mac worked under OS 9, you had to have physical access to the machine to install the trojan horse, be it a program like Timbuktu or something more insidious.
But all this is academic -- os9 was more secure "out of the box" because it didn't do anything.
All the webmasters at the DoD will be shocked to learn that their web servers don't do anything.
The same with any services you open up under UNIX.
No, NOT the same. Because nothing runs on a Mac under OS 9 unless you explicity enable it. Unlike UNIX, where services run by default out of the box.
How many RPC exploits are there?
What does Parade have to do with Time-Life or Conde Nast?
If the nightmare scenario you and all the other morons were whining about were true, then there would be a business case for Apple to continue building Mac OS 9 machines.
They're not. Ergo, there isn't. Ergo, it's not.