That must be a recent change, they did offer a White laptop as well as a Black one that were different sizes.
Nope, the last time Apple had two different sized white laptops was when it still had the 12" and 14" (PPC) iBook G4s, and that was before the black MacBook came out.
I'm getting one of these X60 tablets, and I plan to run Linux on it. Do you have any links to information that would be useful to me? How much effort did it take for you to get all this working?
What isn't really available, and I'm sure this is what the parent post was talking about, is handwriting recognition software. AFAIK there isn't really any available for GNU/Linux (please reply if I'm wrong here).
Well, there's stuff like XStroke, but this post doesn't sound very encouraging. One thing I have found that seems cool, though, is this equation-entry system. Imagine how cool it would be if that were integrated into a general-purpose utility...
Are you suggesting that Microsoft get programmers to work for free? That's a truly revolutionary business model, but I get this odd feeling that there's a flaw in the plan that I can't quite put my finger on...
As the poster who started this whole thread, yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting, and yes, I was being sarcastic about it. Apprently, my half-hearted troll succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. : )
On a more serious note: similar business models work for Red Hat, IBM, Canonical, OSDL, etc.!
Going back to the top of the thread (since this has gone off on multiple tangents) someone said that without Microsoft's various security features, the cost of distributing DVDs would ONLY be the cost of producing the media.
No, what I said was that if Windows stopped being proprietary (i.e., became Free Software), the cost of distributing DVDs would only be the cost of producing the media. It was actually meant to be rather sarcastic, but hey -- if you wanna take it seriously and turn it into an amusing conversation, that's fine with me!
Thus, it's an exercise to the reader to apply reductio ad absurdum and reach a conclusion about whether or not the statement about DVD cost is true.
The (intended) absurd part was the idea that Microsoft would stop being proprietary.
Personally, I'm pretty damn surprised I ended up with a "+5, insightful" -- I was expecting something more like a "-1, troll."
In this digital age, how does something intangible, like music and movie files, get tagged to the rightful "owner"?
The fact that you put quotation marks around "owner" suggests that you know the answer already: that the whole concept of ownership of intangible stuff doesn't make sense. That's the reality of the situation, and sooner or later it's going to have to come out.
It's actually an Apple policy within the last year to let you [re-download your media] ONCE
Having to beg Apple for it doesn't count in my book, especially since it appears not to be an "official" policy (i.e. one explicitly mentioned in the iTunes store user agreement).
Ahh... minor detail... yes, they don't want the user to strip the DRM from the music file itself. But there are Open Source DRM projects going on right now. A quick Google search will reveal several such projects.
Well, I guess I just don't understand how it works, then.
The RIAA is the problem and so are the people who want to steal music.
"Stealing music" is a problem solved by mall security guards. Copyright infringment, on the other hand, is certainly not a black-and-white moral issue like stealing is. Assuming that they're the same thing blatantly ignores several aspects of the issue, such as the fact that when copyright is infringed nothing is lost except an "oppertunity" or "possibility," or the chance that maybe sharing the work would be a greater net benefit to society than giving the author a monopoly would have been.
Remember, stealing is prohibited on the basis that ownership of tangible property is a Natural Right, while copyright infringment is only prohibited because we theorize that it's contrary to the purpose of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts." If it turns out that other means can satisfy that purpose better than copyright -- which could very well be true, considering the success of the Free Software movement, Creative Commons, YouTube, etc. -- then what possible justification would we have for criminalizing sharing?
Everyone is theorizing that Microsoft is taking an innovative approach to the RIAA and paying them a royalty for every player sold. Since when does Microsoft pay royalties to anyone? I think the RIAA demanded that as the cost of entry because they dont' trust Microsoft or their technology. The RIAA has been yelling about royalties on players for years. They missed the boat on Apple but they got Microsoft.
My theory is that Microsoft is willing to pay royalties on the Zune specifically to screw over Apple, by setting a precedent that the RIAA will try to apply to the iPod.
Being able to do it and wanting to do it are two very different things. Besides, I may very well want to walk around holding the thing in one hand, like a clipboard. That's something that actually would be hard to do for any reasonable length of time if it weighed 10 lbs.
I don't see that as a problem afterall Apple makes what 4 different sized laptops, 12", 13", 15" and 17".
Actually, just 3 -- I'm pretty sure they stopped selling the 12" PowerBook.
Oh, maybe that's it! It's entirely possible that the reason we've had such different experiences is that Apple's service in the US (where I am) is much better than its service in Europe.
I don't know about that... using the gift to help the opposition sounds like pretty good evidence of resisting bias to me! In fact, I wish more people would do the same -- imagine how much better the world would be if, for example, politicians took bribes from Big Oil and then donated them to alternative energy research instead of letting them influence them.
If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media. Look, for instance, at organizations like Debian -- you don't see them paying for "key management," now do you?
To that, I'd say "make up your mind now". Would you really wait for Microsoft to start gaining traction before something is done about it or will you make sure they can never gain traction?
I think you misunderstand -- I don't want to see Apple get a strong monopoly an more than I do Microsoft. The best possible situation, aside from them both going out of the DRM business (which is pretty damn unlikely, unfortunately), is to play them off each other for as long as possible.
There are advantages with iTunes, like the ability to re-download all your purchased music if a fire wipes out your house. You can't do that with CDs.
You can't do it with the iTunes store, either! When you buy a song from iTunes, you get one chance to download it. If you lose the file and want a new copy, you get to pay for it all over again. Don't tell me you weren't aware of this! (You were, right?)
Open Source DRM is certainly possible. With proper encryption, the key is tagged to the user, not to the media and it's not in the source code. Everyone can look at the source code and create their own authentication system but the key to unlock purchased media is a secret which belongs to the user.
Re-read that, and you'll see it doesn't make any sense. The point of DRM is to hide the user's key from himself, so that he can only unlock the song under certain conditions chosen by a third party. If "the key to unlock purchased media is a secret which belongs to the user," it fails as DRM because the user can just unlock it any time he wants.
Remember, the purpose of encryption is to pass a message from Alice to Bob without Charlie having access to it. But with DRM, Bob and Charlie are the same person, which already makes it theoretically impossible. Nevertheless, it can "sort of" work by trying to hide as much as possible from Bob as well, but if you give Bob all the information (e.g. the source code) that whole idea falls apart.
Ah, see, I'd want a 12", 4lb (or less!) one, like the X60 I got (which was specifically due to the fact that it's the lightest convertible tablet with a reasonably-sized screen, except for the old X41).
I guess Apple would have to make two tablets, one for each of us, which might explain why it doesn't make any.
Where your ranting falls apart is the suspicion of Evil on the part of anyone touching DRM and the expectation that the worst is absolutely going to happen.
I'd rather be too paranoid, than not paranoid enough. As the saying goes, "expect the worst, and you'll never be disappointed." Besides, it takes extremists like me to make moderates like you look moderate. ; )
DRM IS OPTIONAL in Apple land, not required.
Yes, I know. Look, I'm not saying Apple is entirely bad, and the iTunes Store's DRM isn't going to stop me from using Macs (although I am rather upset about the presence of a TPM in my iMac, and I was forced to get a Thinkpad instead of a Macbook because Apple won't make a tablet...) or even iTunes itself, but I'm not going to buy anything from the store and will encourage others to refrain from doing so also.
Anything short of "Pay Per Play" with variable demand pricing displeases the RIAA, so Apple has done admirably well holding off the real Evil in this equation.
True, from a strategic perspective Apple is helping us, to an extent. However, it seems to me that there's "enough" people supporting Apple, that we don't really have to worry about Microsoft or the RIAA taking over any time in the immediate future. Therefore, the most important thing for me to do is remind everyone that the situation with Apple is still not optimal. If Apple started to lose out to Microsoft, with its brown-nosed pandering to the RIAA, I might indeed start encouraging people to use iTMS in order to combat that. But luckily, that day hasn't come yet.
However, I also sense that DRM which is not open sourced bothers you.
Well yes, in a metaphorical sense. However, there can be no such thing as literal "open source DRM," because it must be closed by its very nature.
That said, I still burn a CD of whatever I buy.
I just buy the CD to begin with. Remember, CDs are still higher quality than iTMS's AAC, and pressed CDs are more durable than burned ones.
My own personal machines haven't really been problematic, except for every Mac I've owned.
What brands are you comparing it to? If you've only ever used stuff like IBM, or built it yourself, I'd expect Apple to look relatively bad because your standards are so high. If you've had experience with Emachines or something, on the other hand... <shudder>
First time I've heard this. Usually, those I've talked to who haven't had problems, just didn't deal with Apple-care in the first place.
Each time my iBook needed to be repaired, Apple sent a postage-paid box for me to pack it in, had it overnighted to their repair center, and had it back to me within a week. I'd say that's pretty good service. The closest thing I ever had to a "problem" with it was when my power board was replaced and the battery was dead afterwards. I called them up and said "you know, the battery was pretty new, and was working just fine before the power board screwed up..." and Apple replaced the battery without any argument. Yes, it would have been nice if they'd just gone ahead and done it at the same time as the power board, but it wasn't a big deal.
From the wikipedia article you linked:
Oops. You said "latest version," so I skipped down to the "Version 4" part and missed the bit you quoted about 3.4.
Having had both PowerBooks and Thinkpads, I much prefer the hardware of the latter. So much so I ended up switching back to GNU/Linux because despite the superiority of Mac OS X, a T60 + GNU/Linux was a better choice for me than a Macbook + Mac OS X. But a Thinkpad + Mac OS X would have been even better.
What, in particular, do you like better about Thinkpads? I'm wondering because I'm in the process of replacing my iBook G4 with a Thinkpad X60t (it's in the mail), and it would be nice to know what to expect. I just hope I'm not too annoyed by the multiple mouse buttons -- I had a Thinkpad 560X in the past, but I got used to the one-button trackpad. : )
Also, have you ever tried running the Intel version of OSX on the Thinkpad? I'm thinking of trying it with my new one...
You need a private key (or whatever bit of proprietary information -- I'm not an expert on this stuff), and you can't get one unless you're a member of the Trusted Computing Group. And even if you were a member, they wouldn't let you do something contrary to their goal, which this most emphatically would be.
Ok. This is a bad comparison. So you'd rather not kill people who, with a jury of their peers, and after appeals, everyone says should be killed. People who rape and kill little kids. Yeah....
Jeez, sorry! I wasn't trying to make a social statement about the death penalty or anything; that wasn't the point. Think of it from the person-to-be-killed's perspective, or better yet, replace it with dying in your sleep. "Whether you die in your sleep, drown, get shot, or catch a horrible, painful disease, you're still dead" is the kind of argument I was trying to make.
The point was that all DRM of the same kind, so regardless of extent the end result is equally bad: you don't fully control the property you bought and paid for.
Where is your evidence to suggest that Apple is NOT going to let you do this?
I don't need evidence! The mere fact that it's possible is enough to condemn it! Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?
Look, I agree that Apple as it is currently managed isn't likely to do this. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Apple will never change into something much less friendly. Some people distrust Google (despite the "do no evil" motto) simply because it can have so much access into people's private data. Some people even distrust Richard Stallman and the FSF, and refuse to use the "or any later version" clause with the GPL because RMS might somehow morph into a Gates-esque lunatic and re-write the license to take away freedom instead of preserving it. I distrust Apple because I see no legitimate reason for it to hold the keys to my own property. Is that so hard to understand?
Apple's track record is quite good. Compare it to Microsoft. It's very good.
As I just said in response to another post, that's like saying "compared to Stalin, Fidel Castro is quite good" (disregarding for a moment, Mr. Pedantic, the political merits (or otherwise) of communism). You can't just measure on a relative scale; you have to measure on an absolute one too. I agree that Apple is better than Microsoft regarding DRM, but they're both unacceptably bad compared to, say, the EFF or FSF.
I don't see Apple screwing around with it's EULA because it would cause a huge uproar in the user base.
Apple already screwed with the EULA once, when it reduced the number of CDs that could be burned from the same playlist. Yes, I'm aware that it raised the authorized computer limit at the same time, but that's not the point. The point is that Apple can make any change at any time, arbitrarily, and with or without your consent. And that change retroactively applies to the media you've already bought, so you have no oppertunity to opt out. Sure, maybe you liked the last change, but there's no guarantee you'll like the next.
Yes, I realize Microsoft is much worse than Apple in this regard. However, that doesn't mean Apple isn't bad! As an analogy, does Fidel Castro deserve praise because he wasn't as bad as Stalin?
Besides, just because Apple might not want to push DRM doesn't mean it might not be forced to more in the future. What if, as another poster mentioned, Apple got bought out by Microsoft or something? Couldn't disallowing CD-buring-and-reimporting become a very real possibility in that case? The answer is yes. Because of that, DRM is not, and never will be, a safe option. And that's regardless of Apple's attitude towards it!
I can see both sides of the argument, but I think everyone forgets that before iTunes, the big labels weren't willing to open their catalogs.
To be honest, I'd rather see no distribution at all than to see distribution with DRM.
I do agree with you though, that Apple's use of DRM has one good aspect: it provides competition to Microsft's DRM, and keeps DRM as a whole fragmented and weak. Having DRM exist at all is bad, but having Microsft DRM exist without Apple to combat it would be even worse. It's an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing.
I will leave you with this nugget, though...
I'm well aware of that, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Apple can change or remove that ability at whim, just like all the other conditions.
Look, it's this simple: between the fact that it requires permission from an external party to use your own property, has no provisions for Fair Use, and does not deactivate itself when copyright expires, DRM is inherently, absolutely, indelibly wrong. Nothing about the magnitude or "friendliness" or relative leniency of the particular implementation can change that!
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, the last time Apple had two different sized white laptops was when it still had the 12" and 14" (PPC) iBook G4s, and that was before the black MacBook came out.
I'm getting one of these X60 tablets, and I plan to run Linux on it. Do you have any links to information that would be useful to me? How much effort did it take for you to get all this working?
Well, there's stuff like XStroke, but this post doesn't sound very encouraging. One thing I have found that seems cool, though, is this equation-entry system. Imagine how cool it would be if that were integrated into a general-purpose utility...
As the poster who started this whole thread, yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting, and yes, I was being sarcastic about it. Apprently, my half-hearted troll succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. : )
On a more serious note: similar business models work for Red Hat, IBM, Canonical, OSDL, etc.!
Hi, "top of the thread" poster here.
No, what I said was that if Windows stopped being proprietary (i.e., became Free Software), the cost of distributing DVDs would only be the cost of producing the media. It was actually meant to be rather sarcastic, but hey -- if you wanna take it seriously and turn it into an amusing conversation, that's fine with me!
The (intended) absurd part was the idea that Microsoft would stop being proprietary.
Personally, I'm pretty damn surprised I ended up with a "+5, insightful" -- I was expecting something more like a "-1, troll."
The fact that you put quotation marks around "owner" suggests that you know the answer already: that the whole concept of ownership of intangible stuff doesn't make sense. That's the reality of the situation, and sooner or later it's going to have to come out.
Having to beg Apple for it doesn't count in my book, especially since it appears not to be an "official" policy (i.e. one explicitly mentioned in the iTunes store user agreement).
Well, I guess I just don't understand how it works, then.
"Stealing music" is a problem solved by mall security guards. Copyright infringment, on the other hand, is certainly not a black-and-white moral issue like stealing is. Assuming that they're the same thing blatantly ignores several aspects of the issue, such as the fact that when copyright is infringed nothing is lost except an "oppertunity" or "possibility," or the chance that maybe sharing the work would be a greater net benefit to society than giving the author a monopoly would have been.
Remember, stealing is prohibited on the basis that ownership of tangible property is a Natural Right, while copyright infringment is only prohibited because we theorize that it's contrary to the purpose of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts." If it turns out that other means can satisfy that purpose better than copyright -- which could very well be true, considering the success of the Free Software movement, Creative Commons, YouTube, etc. -- then what possible justification would we have for criminalizing sharing?
My theory is that Microsoft is willing to pay royalties on the Zune specifically to screw over Apple, by setting a precedent that the RIAA will try to apply to the iPod.
Being able to do it and wanting to do it are two very different things. Besides, I may very well want to walk around holding the thing in one hand, like a clipboard. That's something that actually would be hard to do for any reasonable length of time if it weighed 10 lbs.
Actually, just 3 -- I'm pretty sure they stopped selling the 12" PowerBook.
Oh, maybe that's it! It's entirely possible that the reason we've had such different experiences is that Apple's service in the US (where I am) is much better than its service in Europe.
I don't know about that... using the gift to help the opposition sounds like pretty good evidence of resisting bias to me! In fact, I wish more people would do the same -- imagine how much better the world would be if, for example, politicians took bribes from Big Oil and then donated them to alternative energy research instead of letting them influence them.
Sigh... yeah, but we can dream, right?
Are you sure you replied to the right post? You're arguing on the same side as me!
If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media. Look, for instance, at organizations like Debian -- you don't see them paying for "key management," now do you?
I think you misunderstand -- I don't want to see Apple get a strong monopoly an more than I do Microsoft. The best possible situation, aside from them both going out of the DRM business (which is pretty damn unlikely, unfortunately), is to play them off each other for as long as possible.
You can't do it with the iTunes store, either! When you buy a song from iTunes, you get one chance to download it. If you lose the file and want a new copy, you get to pay for it all over again. Don't tell me you weren't aware of this! (You were, right?)
Re-read that, and you'll see it doesn't make any sense. The point of DRM is to hide the user's key from himself, so that he can only unlock the song under certain conditions chosen by a third party. If "the key to unlock purchased media is a secret which belongs to the user," it fails as DRM because the user can just unlock it any time he wants.
Remember, the purpose of encryption is to pass a message from Alice to Bob without Charlie having access to it. But with DRM, Bob and Charlie are the same person, which already makes it theoretically impossible. Nevertheless, it can "sort of" work by trying to hide as much as possible from Bob as well, but if you give Bob all the information (e.g. the source code) that whole idea falls apart.
They have that already; it's called GNUStep.
No kidding -- that's why I'm a much bigger fan of Crossover Mac and DarWINE.
Ah, see, I'd want a 12", 4lb (or less!) one, like the X60 I got (which was specifically due to the fact that it's the lightest convertible tablet with a reasonably-sized screen, except for the old X41).
I guess Apple would have to make two tablets, one for each of us, which might explain why it doesn't make any.
I'd rather be too paranoid, than not paranoid enough. As the saying goes, "expect the worst, and you'll never be disappointed." Besides, it takes extremists like me to make moderates like you look moderate. ; )
Yes, I know. Look, I'm not saying Apple is entirely bad, and the iTunes Store's DRM isn't going to stop me from using Macs (although I am rather upset about the presence of a TPM in my iMac, and I was forced to get a Thinkpad instead of a Macbook because Apple won't make a tablet...) or even iTunes itself, but I'm not going to buy anything from the store and will encourage others to refrain from doing so also.
True, from a strategic perspective Apple is helping us, to an extent. However, it seems to me that there's "enough" people supporting Apple, that we don't really have to worry about Microsoft or the RIAA taking over any time in the immediate future. Therefore, the most important thing for me to do is remind everyone that the situation with Apple is still not optimal. If Apple started to lose out to Microsoft, with its brown-nosed pandering to the RIAA, I might indeed start encouraging people to use iTMS in order to combat that. But luckily, that day hasn't come yet.
Well yes, in a metaphorical sense. However, there can be no such thing as literal "open source DRM," because it must be closed by its very nature.
I just buy the CD to begin with. Remember, CDs are still higher quality than iTMS's AAC, and pressed CDs are more durable than burned ones.
What brands are you comparing it to? If you've only ever used stuff like IBM, or built it yourself, I'd expect Apple to look relatively bad because your standards are so high. If you've had experience with Emachines or something, on the other hand... <shudder>
Each time my iBook needed to be repaired, Apple sent a postage-paid box for me to pack it in, had it overnighted to their repair center, and had it back to me within a week. I'd say that's pretty good service. The closest thing I ever had to a "problem" with it was when my power board was replaced and the battery was dead afterwards. I called them up and said "you know, the battery was pretty new, and was working just fine before the power board screwed up..." and Apple replaced the battery without any argument. Yes, it would have been nice if they'd just gone ahead and done it at the same time as the power board, but it wasn't a big deal.
Oops. You said "latest version," so I skipped down to the "Version 4" part and missed the bit you quoted about 3.4.
Either that was sarcasm, or you've been living under a rock for the past 50 years.
What, in particular, do you like better about Thinkpads? I'm wondering because I'm in the process of replacing my iBook G4 with a Thinkpad X60t (it's in the mail), and it would be nice to know what to expect. I just hope I'm not too annoyed by the multiple mouse buttons -- I had a Thinkpad 560X in the past, but I got used to the one-button trackpad. : )
Also, have you ever tried running the Intel version of OSX on the Thinkpad? I'm thinking of trying it with my new one...
iWork is big too -- on my iMac, it apparently takes up 568.2MB. The problem with OpenOffice is mostly the "unpolished" part, I think.
You need a private key (or whatever bit of proprietary information -- I'm not an expert on this stuff), and you can't get one unless you're a member of the Trusted Computing Group. And even if you were a member, they wouldn't let you do something contrary to their goal, which this most emphatically would be.
Right, and then fix all the mangled file names. Sorry, try again!
Jeez, sorry! I wasn't trying to make a social statement about the death penalty or anything; that wasn't the point. Think of it from the person-to-be-killed's perspective, or better yet, replace it with dying in your sleep. "Whether you die in your sleep, drown, get shot, or catch a horrible, painful disease, you're still dead" is the kind of argument I was trying to make.
The point was that all DRM of the same kind, so regardless of extent the end result is equally bad: you don't fully control the property you bought and paid for.
I don't need evidence! The mere fact that it's possible is enough to condemn it! Why are you having such difficulty understanding that?
Look, I agree that Apple as it is currently managed isn't likely to do this. However, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Apple will never change into something much less friendly. Some people distrust Google (despite the "do no evil" motto) simply because it can have so much access into people's private data. Some people even distrust Richard Stallman and the FSF, and refuse to use the "or any later version" clause with the GPL because RMS might somehow morph into a Gates-esque lunatic and re-write the license to take away freedom instead of preserving it. I distrust Apple because I see no legitimate reason for it to hold the keys to my own property. Is that so hard to understand?
As I just said in response to another post, that's like saying "compared to Stalin, Fidel Castro is quite good" (disregarding for a moment, Mr. Pedantic, the political merits (or otherwise) of communism). You can't just measure on a relative scale; you have to measure on an absolute one too. I agree that Apple is better than Microsoft regarding DRM, but they're both unacceptably bad compared to, say, the EFF or FSF.
Apple already screwed with the EULA once, when it reduced the number of CDs that could be burned from the same playlist. Yes, I'm aware that it raised the authorized computer limit at the same time, but that's not the point. The point is that Apple can make any change at any time, arbitrarily, and with or without your consent. And that change retroactively applies to the media you've already bought, so you have no oppertunity to opt out. Sure, maybe you liked the last change, but there's no guarantee you'll like the next.
Yes, I realize Microsoft is much worse than Apple in this regard. However, that doesn't mean Apple isn't bad! As an analogy, does Fidel Castro deserve praise because he wasn't as bad as Stalin?
Besides, just because Apple might not want to push DRM doesn't mean it might not be forced to more in the future. What if, as another poster mentioned, Apple got bought out by Microsoft or something? Couldn't disallowing CD-buring-and-reimporting become a very real possibility in that case? The answer is yes. Because of that, DRM is not, and never will be, a safe option. And that's regardless of Apple's attitude towards it!
To be honest, I'd rather see no distribution at all than to see distribution with DRM.
I do agree with you though, that Apple's use of DRM has one good aspect: it provides competition to Microsft's DRM, and keeps DRM as a whole fragmented and weak. Having DRM exist at all is bad, but having Microsft DRM exist without Apple to combat it would be even worse. It's an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing.
I'm well aware of that, but it makes no difference whatsoever. Apple can change or remove that ability at whim, just like all the other conditions.
Look, it's this simple: between the fact that it requires permission from an external party to use your own property, has no provisions for Fair Use, and does not deactivate itself when copyright expires, DRM is inherently, absolutely, indelibly wrong. Nothing about the magnitude or "friendliness" or relative leniency of the particular implementation can change that!