Yeah but you can't add any rights protection to MP3 files. The downloadable AAC files have some use restrictions. They're pretty generous, but you can only use the songs on 3 computers simultaneously.
Well... iTunes uses Rendezvous (aka Zeroconf) to allow machines on the same subnet to see each others' playlists. Perhaps the infrastructure for Rendezvous exists on 2000 and XP, but not on the 9x based systems?
I'm not sure, but there may well be support for functionality in 2000 and XP that doesn' exist in the 4+ year old OS versions.
He did answer your question though, which was "can you play OGG files in iTunes on the Mac."
Now you shouldn't be TOO upset... really it's your fault for using a fringe encoder. It's not THAT much better, and there's not much support for it (not to mention the iPod doesn't support it).
MP3 and AAC are your options for iTunes & iPod on Mac and Windows.
It's most definitely faster, and for a number of apps.
Hell, a common Mac benchmark is "XBench" and it runs about 20% faster on identical hardware (that is, on the SAME machine, depending on the OS you're booted into). The system libraries are the APIs that are used to build nearly all applications (unless you WANT to start writing from int main() {};-)
So apps that use system calls (graphics, etc.) are "automagically" faster even without a recompile. And with a recompile, they'll gain more, as GCC 3.3.x is faster than GCC 3.1.x (which was in turn faster than GCC 2.95). Apple is doing good work here -- they've had time to optimze the GCC back end for PowerPC -- which takes some doing because in the past it generated a lot better code for x86 than other targets (no surprise, due to the amount of work done for Linux). 2 years ago GCC/PPC had some *scary* bugs.
Every 6th grader in Maine has an Apple iBook. A lot of Apple's infrastructure (net boot, net install, etc.) is perfect for this, and iBooks are small, light, durable, and portable. I'd expect from an experience POV Apple would be ahead here -- there's a working implementation they can point to.
How did this get modded to +5 insightful? Is there a category for "-5 I've been living under a rock I haven't heard of nycfashiongirl or any other discussions in the last 6 months on this subject"?
Sigh... did you not read the discussion yesterday?
DRM is enabled IF you want to protect certain documents. If you don't want that, all is good. But if you DO want DRM on certain documents, that means they must be controlled (and you must WANT that because you selected it!). So the fact that randoms running free office suites can't read the documents is what you actually WANT to have happen.:-P
I don't know that this feature in and of itself will "make this very popular."
But you're telling me you can't fathom why people would want DRM on documents? How simplistic are you?
What if you're the CEO of a company and you want to send around a strategy document to your C level executives? And one of their laptops is stolen? DRM may seem useful in that scenario.
And don't give me some bullcrap about each exec being able to encrypt the documents on their laptop... they are NOT going to go through the trouble, they're not IT people.
To have security built in to the documents themselves is an important feature. To say Microsoft made this up with no customer requests, and to say I'm falling over them because I've bought into their marketing speil is quite frankly ridiculous.
DRM is not being used to mandate updates. It's there because some customers want it to do... DRM!
People who want the DRM features because they want... DRM! are going to have everyone use the versions of office that support... DRM. They don't care about compatibility with people that are using old versions of Office... because those people shouldn't have access to the documents in the first place!
Did you read the article? Naw, didn't think so. But be careful, the bogeyman is right there.
Fist, the rights management server is going to be behind the firewall. DUH.
Second, I'm sure once they validate they can get some kind of "token" which allows access for these things, for a period of time. The same way you can log into your Windows machine when it's not connected to the network if you set up a roaming profile.
Come on... I'm sure they thought through many/most of these scenarios when they took the customer requirements and designed the features. Analyzing how broken things are by reading a one paragraph description... well... who's brain dead here?
This doesn't automatically enable DRM in all documents. What it does do is make it POSSIBLE to enable DRM in some documents, when a Windows server is used.
Now, I can certainly see where people would WANT the ability to control distribution of specific key security-sensitive documents. And in those cases, sure you'd want tight controls on who could read it (and, what they would use to read it). So this would make sense.
But this isn't just a plain old proprietary document lock-in. Probably 99% of documents will still be non-DRM'd and open, and the 1% that aren't, well the people who enabled the DRM don't WANT joe l337 haxx0r reading them.
Sorry, but it's fairly obvious you're not familiar with the middleware market.
Tuxedo is a TP monitor application -- it is ONLY necessary when you have multiple data sources (i.e. two simultaneous database logins) and you want to coordinate them where the database itself cannot. In my experience, TP monitors like Tuxedo or Encina are necessary in about 5% of database application.
And then you mention WebLogic, and have the gall to mention WebLogic Enterprise! What percentage of BEA's sales do you think that product is? I'll give you a hint: It's far less than 2%. WebLogic Enterprise is a shell game application masquerading as an upgrade path for WebLogic customers who need "Enterprise" support. NONE of their customers have ever ported from WebLogic to WebLogic enterprise. Well, unless you're talking about people who would accept a SINGLE THREADED EJB container, which when coupled with the fact that the EJB spec says you can't have threads *in* a bean, basically means you have more containers running concurrently than a rabbit makes bunnies.
And DB2? Why the hell would anyone run DB2 on an Xserve? Note I said "middle tier" -- again this is why I wonder whether you understand what I'm talking about. I want you to find me a bunch of people (besides IBM consultants) who think DB2 is a "middle tier" app. If you want to run a database on an Xserve, you have a few choices: Sybase, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL can do some fairly heavy lifting, and then you have things like Filemaker for departmental databases.
As for your "platform for themselves" comment I am again confounded. Xserve supports X11, first and foremost. Then, you can have your Xserve running JBoss connecting via JDBC to Oracle, DB2 (on the database tier), or whatever you want. Really. It plays well and it works with databases on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, or a mainframe if you have the JDBC drivers.
When you consider the price of 8 clustered Xserves running JBoss+MySQL compared to an 8 way Solaris box running WebLogic and Oracle, what you see is something that costs about 5% to 10% as much for hardware and licensing costs, and performs equally well. Is it as stable? Depends more on how well the app was written. Is there more risk? Certiainly, today, there is. Is it worth it? Depends on how risk averse you are. When compared to shipping half of the IT staff overseas, it certainly may be worth taking the risk.
I get the feeling you haven't looked at an Xserve or OS X, ever. Which means you should throw up half-assed arguments when you don't know what you're talking about.
Which shows Apache Web Serving performance -- where it's faster than a Dell 1650 (not sure if it's running IIS or Apache). Point is, even allowing for a little marketing hyperbole, OS X + Xserve is a fully capable web server.
Assuming of course you think Apache is up to the job?
A Linux machine is not FAR cheaper. It's cheaper, but not FAR cheaper.
You have to decide what you're comparing against -- if it's a "premium" brand like a Dell 1650/1750 or an IBM, then for similar configurations the Xserve is in the same ballpark (mainly because if you put 520 GB of SCSI 320 in one of those boxes it blows the costs through the roof).
So let's say the Xserve is $5K versus a $3K Dell/IBM. That's a $2K hit. How long does it take to make up $2K, if you can run your data center with 5 IT guys, versus 8? Or even 7 guys, versus 8? Less than a week, per machine. If you figure a 2 or 3 year lifetime on the Xserves, you've made it up immediately.
There's a bit more server-side software ported to Linux right now, and it's a bit more mature for server-side use than OS X today. OS X 10.3 is going to completely change that.
Read the article, and note the points. Initial box cost factors into maybe 1% of the total cost of a system, in the long run
Slashdot Mirror
Heh.
:-)
It's listed as Run-DMC.
There are 9 Albums. You can find them by browsing.
Why "Run DMC" or "DMC" come up with nothing, when it's named Run-DMC, seems to be a limitation.
If you really care
Wrong. Rendezvous (based on Zeroconf) can work with NO configuration.
:-)
Take two machines, plug them into a hub, do NOTHING, and they'll see each other.
How? They each have a multicast DNS responder, and the Zeroconf spec has them pick a 169.254 address.
Rendezvous/Zeroconf also *automatically* handles DNS resolution for these devices (they self-assign names), and all sorts of other cool stuff.
You can do this with exactly NO work on networking. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about
Yeah but you can't add any rights protection to MP3 files. The downloadable AAC files have some use restrictions. They're pretty generous, but you can only use the songs on 3 computers simultaneously.
:-)
Time to buy an iPod, I guess
Well... iTunes uses Rendezvous (aka Zeroconf) to allow machines on the same subnet to see each others' playlists. Perhaps the infrastructure for Rendezvous exists on 2000 and XP, but not on the 9x based systems?
I'm not sure, but there may well be support for functionality in 2000 and XP that doesn' exist in the 4+ year old OS versions.
He did answer your question though, which was "can you play OGG files in iTunes on the Mac."
Now you shouldn't be TOO upset... really it's your fault for using a fringe encoder. It's not THAT much better, and there's not much support for it (not to mention the iPod doesn't support it).
MP3 and AAC are your options for iTunes & iPod on Mac and Windows.
Just put your mobile # on the do not call list too.
Thats what I did, at least.
*shrug*
Do you know that Panther Server (shipping next Friday) includes JBoss in the distribution, with deployment, configuration, and management tools?
If you're using the non-server version of Panther (or in fact Jaguar) just download JBoss and you're off and running.
It's most definitely faster, and for a number of apps.
;-)
Hell, a common Mac benchmark is "XBench" and it runs about 20% faster on identical hardware (that is, on the SAME machine, depending on the OS you're booted into). The system libraries are the APIs that are used to build nearly all applications (unless you WANT to start writing from int main() {}
So apps that use system calls (graphics, etc.) are "automagically" faster even without a recompile. And with a recompile, they'll gain more, as GCC 3.3.x is faster than GCC 3.1.x (which was in turn faster than GCC 2.95). Apple is doing good work here -- they've had time to optimze the GCC back end for PowerPC -- which takes some doing because in the past it generated a lot better code for x86 than other targets (no surprise, due to the amount of work done for Linux). 2 years ago GCC/PPC had some *scary* bugs.
Every 6th grader in Maine has an Apple iBook. A lot of Apple's infrastructure (net boot, net install, etc.) is perfect for this, and iBooks are small, light, durable, and portable. I'd expect from an experience POV Apple would be ahead here -- there's a working implementation they can point to.
Does Dell have a sub 5 lb laptop?
which originially referred to a large find of gold.
;-)
MotherLOAD... well that's what I give back after a good strong cup of Peet's. Very different
Er, wait... that's grapes :-/
"How To Make a Software Quilt."
Software is O(1).
:-P
Because I have like 357 hotfixes in that list now.
Damn, it's going to take me about 5 minutes to scroll down to uninstall any software that starts with a "Y" or "Z"
How did this get modded to +5 insightful? Is there a category for "-5 I've been living under a rock I haven't heard of nycfashiongirl or any other discussions in the last 6 months on this subject"?
Sigh... did you not read the discussion yesterday?
:-P
DRM is enabled IF you want to protect certain documents. If you don't want that, all is good. But if you DO want DRM on certain documents, that means they must be controlled (and you must WANT that because you selected it!). So the fact that randoms running free office suites can't read the documents is what you actually WANT to have happen.
I don't know that this feature in and of itself will "make this very popular."
But you're telling me you can't fathom why people would want DRM on documents? How simplistic are you?
What if you're the CEO of a company and you want to send around a strategy document to your C level executives? And one of their laptops is stolen? DRM may seem useful in that scenario.
And don't give me some bullcrap about each exec being able to encrypt the documents on their laptop... they are NOT going to go through the trouble, they're not IT people.
To have security built in to the documents themselves is an important feature. To say Microsoft made this up with no customer requests, and to say I'm falling over them because I've bought into their marketing speil is quite frankly ridiculous.
DRM is not being used to mandate updates. It's there because some customers want it to do... DRM!
People who want the DRM features because they want... DRM! are going to have everyone use the versions of office that support... DRM. They don't care about compatibility with people that are using old versions of Office... because those people shouldn't have access to the documents in the first place!
Did you read the article? Naw, didn't think so. But be careful, the bogeyman is right there.
Fist, the rights management server is going to be behind the firewall. DUH.
Second, I'm sure once they validate they can get some kind of "token" which allows access for these things, for a period of time. The same way you can log into your Windows machine when it's not connected to the network if you set up a roaming profile.
Come on... I'm sure they thought through many/most of these scenarios when they took the customer requirements and designed the features. Analyzing how broken things are by reading a one paragraph description... well... who's brain dead here?
This doesn't automatically enable DRM in all documents. What it does do is make it POSSIBLE to enable DRM in some documents, when a Windows server is used.
Now, I can certainly see where people would WANT the ability to control distribution of specific key security-sensitive documents. And in those cases, sure you'd want tight controls on who could read it (and, what they would use to read it). So this would make sense.
But this isn't just a plain old proprietary document lock-in. Probably 99% of documents will still be non-DRM'd and open, and the 1% that aren't, well the people who enabled the DRM don't WANT joe l337 haxx0r reading them.
I mean... when you see the bogeyman around every corner, help is just a pill away.
I think he's full of sh*t. I guess that means IBM is paying me. Damn, gotta go pick up my paycheck!
They're taking example from Sun who is so good at branding that it virtually guarantees people understand what you're talking about.
Except instead of naming an umbrella of 100 unrelated products under the One brand, they're renaming the entire company!
Sheer genius. Let's see if Geoffrey Moore can write a book on this phenomenon.
Sorry, but it's fairly obvious you're not familiar with the middleware market.
Tuxedo is a TP monitor application -- it is ONLY necessary when you have multiple data sources (i.e. two simultaneous database logins) and you want to coordinate them where the database itself cannot. In my experience, TP monitors like Tuxedo or Encina are necessary in about 5% of database application.
And then you mention WebLogic, and have the gall to mention WebLogic Enterprise! What percentage of BEA's sales do you think that product is? I'll give you a hint: It's far less than 2%. WebLogic Enterprise is a shell game application masquerading as an upgrade path for WebLogic customers who need "Enterprise" support. NONE of their customers have ever ported from WebLogic to WebLogic enterprise. Well, unless you're talking about people who would accept a SINGLE THREADED EJB container, which when coupled with the fact that the EJB spec says you can't have threads *in* a bean, basically means you have more containers running concurrently than a rabbit makes bunnies.
And DB2? Why the hell would anyone run DB2 on an Xserve? Note I said "middle tier" -- again this is why I wonder whether you understand what I'm talking about. I want you to find me a bunch of people (besides IBM consultants) who think DB2 is a "middle tier" app. If you want to run a database on an Xserve, you have a few choices: Sybase, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL can do some fairly heavy lifting, and then you have things like Filemaker for departmental databases.
As for your "platform for themselves" comment I am again confounded. Xserve supports X11, first and foremost. Then, you can have your Xserve running JBoss connecting via JDBC to Oracle, DB2 (on the database tier), or whatever you want. Really. It plays well and it works with databases on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, or a mainframe if you have the JDBC drivers.
When you consider the price of 8 clustered Xserves running JBoss+MySQL compared to an 8 way Solaris box running WebLogic and Oracle, what you see is something that costs about 5% to 10% as much for hardware and licensing costs, and performs equally well. Is it as stable? Depends more on how well the app was written. Is there more risk? Certiainly, today, there is. Is it worth it? Depends on how risk averse you are. When compared to shipping half of the IT staff overseas, it certainly may be worth taking the risk.
I get the feeling you haven't looked at an Xserve or OS X, ever. Which means you should throw up half-assed arguments when you don't know what you're talking about.
C'mon. Is /. run on a single 1 GHz PC?
I don't think so.
So Apple has a "benchmarking" page:
http://www.apple.com/xserve/performance.html
Which shows Apache Web Serving performance -- where it's faster than a Dell 1650 (not sure if it's running IIS or Apache). Point is, even allowing for a little marketing hyperbole, OS X + Xserve is a fully capable web server.
Assuming of course you think Apache is up to the job?
What about the middle tier?
The fact that JBoss, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and anything written in Java, Perl, PHP, Python, or Ruby runs on it, and runs very well?
The Xserve is a first class middle tier server. It's not targeting the 32 CPU database tier that's hosting Oracle.
And FYI Oracle already runs on Xserve.
A Linux machine is not FAR cheaper. It's cheaper, but not FAR cheaper.
You have to decide what you're comparing against -- if it's a "premium" brand like a Dell 1650/1750 or an IBM, then for similar configurations the Xserve is in the same ballpark (mainly because if you put 520 GB of SCSI 320 in one of those boxes it blows the costs through the roof).
So let's say the Xserve is $5K versus a $3K Dell/IBM. That's a $2K hit. How long does it take to make up $2K, if you can run your data center with 5 IT guys, versus 8? Or even 7 guys, versus 8? Less than a week, per machine. If you figure a 2 or 3 year lifetime on the Xserves, you've made it up immediately.
There's a bit more server-side software ported to Linux right now, and it's a bit more mature for server-side use than OS X today. OS X 10.3 is going to completely change that.
Read the article, and note the points. Initial box cost factors into maybe 1% of the total cost of a system, in the long run