I don't know, but it occurred after MD stepped down. It occurred during Rollins time and I know MD was against such acquisitions.
"Not for long, come back two years from now, we'll see. take a look at PC growth rates now, take a look what companies are beating the PC growth rate. this should give you a clue."
Doesn't matter, what I said was correct. This was a discussion about the man, not the company, and MD no longer runs Dell.
"can you?"
Yes, I can. There were more than "two words".
"lavish expenditures? you mean R&D? small volumes? What is your definition of the word "small"? if by small you mean 20Billion per anum, "small" is kind of a funny word to use, wouldn't you say?"
Compared to Dell, yes. Apple is small compared to the large PC manufacturers and spends more on development as a percentage of revenues. That may give the fanboys a chubby but it's a weakness from a business perspective, not a strength.
"I don't see how SGI's history relates to apple on any level - not the same target market, not the same brand awareness, not the same tight strategy and excecution."
Keep in mind that I wasn't the one to make the comment. Also, the comment was made upwards of ten years ago.
SGI was an elitist, arrogant company who thought they would always be on top because of their technical superiority. Ultimately, SGI was put out from below because they never recognized that they would have to evolve as technology became commoditized. Once upon a time, SGI dominated certain creative markets (video production for example) long before Macs and PCs were remotely capable of the same kinds of tasks.
If you look at Apple in the late 90's when Jobs came back in, you see the same kind of company and attitudes that doomed SGI. Personally, I think the comparison was reasonable. The big difference was that Apple succeeeded in transforming itself and its products where SGI didn't. Today, macs are really Intel PC's running a polished NextStep and the rest is consumer electronics. Quite a huge transformation.
Regarding the target market, SGI made workstations that were differentiated by graphics. They marketed to applications that took advantage of their graphical nature---visualization, computation and creativity. Their systems where built on an in-house Unix base and featured a custom graphical desktop that SGI felt was the industry's best. The parallels between SGI then and OS X now are remarkable. Apple would have you believe their GUI is the industry's best and, as a result, they are the choice of creative professionals. The arrogance of Apple's claims sounds suspiciously like SGI.
"Apple strategy looks very well excecuted, both from the technological and the brand and marketing angles."
Perhaps, but I never stated otherwise. I simply responded to the mischaractization of the Michael Dell quote from 9 years ago.
"When a company such as dell fails in launching a a line of products that don't relate to it's core strategies and strengths (MP3),..."
mp3 players are a complimentary product for Dell, not a core strategy as they are for Apple. The failure of that product means nothing to Dell....then buys a company (alienware) that is, as you confess a "suprise"..."
I never "confessed" anything. It had nothing to do with me. I simply find it out of character for the company. There's no reason to believe the Alienware aquisition is a problem for Dell either. Dell clearly felt that the brand recognition of Alienware was worth purchasing. PC gamers are as brand-aware as mac users.
"...given thier core strategy - you should think."
I should think what? Do you know what Dell's "core strategy" is? I don't think you do. Dell wants to be the Walmart of computers. It doesn't care what succeeds and what fails. It doesn't care if you want fancy machines or cheap machines. It doesn't care what OS you want to run. All it wants to do is make the
"OK, you should REALLY check out dell's latest stategies over the last few years. I have two words for you: Alianware, XPS, ditty, DJ."
Alienware is a surprise. Dell basically doesn't buy other companies. XPS is a very old brand. It's simply the top Dimension machine and is successful. The music players aren't a surprise coming from Dell. They spent no development money on it.
Can you count?
"Do you want to know what I think? here it is: "Dell's future looks like SGI's" "
Didn't know that was the original topic, but you'd have a hard time defending that position. Dell is the largest supplier of PC's worldwide and is the polar opposite of a company like SGI. Apple is far closer a comparison with its lavish expenditures, small volumes and corporate hubris. Of course Dell may fail. All companies may fail.
Besides the infammatory and unsubstantiated garbage on your part, the discussion was about Michael Dell, not the company. Michael has been retired as CEO for some time now.
Dell was asked what HE would do if HE were CEO of Apple and he said that HE would shut down Apple and return the money to the shareholders. Of course he would. He also said that he would never accept that job---acknowledging that he would not be a good fit for that style of company. Dell has also said that Apple's future looks like SGI's and he hasn't been proven wrong. If Apple hadn't shifted its focus toward digital entertainment it may well have gone out of business.
Michael Dell is all about ROIC. For those that don't know, think of ROIC is the interest rate paid on your savings account. Dell maximizes earnings and minimizes capital investment. Clearly Apple doesn't work that way. Low volumes, high margins, unique aesthetics and boutique sales are relatively capital-intensive. Apple also employs a lot of people for their volumes compared to Dell.
It's funny how fanboys like to change this story and embrace it as a rallying cry. Fact is that Michael Dell has never had interest in Apple's market and always said so. These days, Apple lovers are always measuring their computing penises against Dell. Michael, BTW, retired as the company's CEO.
"Having WMV files not play on an iPod is a loss of virtually all customers."
A loss that is forced on those customers by APPLE. Perhaps you should ask Apple to stop their boycott of the WMV format then. Meanwhile, the iPod will be iTMS only for DRMed content. I'll remind you that the iPod itself was once Mac-only. Where would the iPod be now if that continued? Lockouts of the iPod are ALWAYS Apple's fault.
That said, the iPod has yet to prove itself as the portable video player of choice. I've used one in that capacity but it's screen is too small and the formats it supports are limiting. Other devices make it easier with flexible input formats and automatic transcoding. Virtually all customers? Hardly. I'm not sure what the ultimate device will look like but I promise you that "virtually all customers" desire a bigger screen than the iPod offers.
"Actually the Desktop is the only place Power architecture isn't used on a big scale anymore. Just as x86 isn't used anywhere in any significant amounts but on the desktop."
x86 is big in in servers and has a near total lock in notebooks as well. PowerPC and Power are NOT the same. PowerPC is strong in embedded and that's it. Power is strong in servers but that doesn't count.
"The only reason that x86 is still around is, that it is the only architecture Microsoft ever got their operating systems working on decently. Tells you a lot about code quality."
No, the reason is that no other architecture offered a significantly compelling reason to switch. x86 had market dominance and binary compatibility and now it has no competitors.
"The spirit of law is never written -- the letter is written."
Then it doesn't exist.
"Changing the software isn't relevent if you can't apply those changes."
You CAN apply those changes to any software effort you wish. It's up to you to provide hardware to run it on. Tivo is not obligated to do that.
"RMS has always maintained his three fundamental freedoms, and Freedom Number 1 is the freedom to change the program and make it do what you want. Tivo doesn't respect this freedom."
It absolutely does. You have complete software sources licensed to you under the GPL. Just as the authors licensed their software to Tivo. Those authors didn't give Tivo hardware to run their work on either.
"Well, it's still only applicable to software: it still doesn't cover the hardware in any way. It just says that if a key is needed to run the software that the key needs to be made available. If someone puts the key into hardware that's their problem - not the GPL's problem."
I suppose you're speaking of GPLv3, and yes, that is specifically extending GPL onto the hardware that runs it.
"And since the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that "If I share my code with you you must share your revisions back", shouldn't that suggest to you that GPL developers feel that the Tivo did an end-run on them?"
Yes, it does and that's how some feel. They are mistaken, however. Tivo has totally respected the GPL license by sharing their revisions back.
"But it seems to me that RMS has always been about ensuring software freedoms."
Yes, in fact RMS is about more than that. The BSD license ensures software freedoms. The GPL goes beyond that.
"GPLv3 just clarrifies and further codifies what Stallman always had in mind."
Perhaps, but it is a different license with additional restrictions compared to the GPLv2. There is a reason for that.
"If Linus just wanted to share his code with others he could have picked BSD..."
Yes, he could have, but there's no reason to speculate on Linus's position on GPLv3. He is clearly against it, he feels that applications such as Tivo are appropriate and respect the GPLv2, and he feels that further such uses should be encouraged. He has also stated that the GPLv3 can never be applied to the Linux kernel regardless.
"This may surprise you, but what most of us wish is to study/tinker with/improve/customize the source code. Not -- for example -- to set it to music and record a hit single"
I don't think you speak for "most of us", but those who do should not buy a Tivo Tivo doesn't advertise that they support customizing of their products.
"So the comment about the spirit of the GPL really addresses the fact that TiVO makes it impossible to do what everyone who wants the source code wants to do."
They do not. You are free to do whatever you want with the source code. You aren't free to do that with their hardware (which is not covered by the GPL and contains no GPL content).
"-TiVO gets a boatload of free software and utilities to make their hardware work, saving prolly millions in development costs"
Nope. Tivo gets free software in exchange for freeing theirs (which they do). The software is not licensed to "make their hardware work".
"In exchange, TiVO is supposed to pass on their changes for others to expand upon."
Which they do.
"If they pass on their changes and make it so that others have to manufacture their own specialized hardware in order to study/customize/etc the source code, they violate the spirit of the GPL quite clearly."
Not only do they not, but no GPL software includes hardware that's enabled to run modified versions of it. GPL software doesn't include hardware AT ALL, it is only software. The hardware is not covered by the license.
"Not the spirit and intent of the GPL... they just respect the letter. (hence GPLv3)"
No, that's just RMS sour grapes. The spirit and intent of the GPL was written into the GPL.
Tivo sells you a fixed function device; not a general purpose computing device that it intends that you modify at your leisure. Because Tivo uses and respects GPL software, it offers the software to you in source form along with all the modifications it makes in the true spirit of the GPL. You are free to do with the software as you wish, and that includes integrating their work into future GPL'ed works and even competitors to the Tivo product itself. What you are not allowed to do is change the function of the original device which was always fixed function and not covered by the GPL. Any other interpretation of the GPL, its letter or its "spirit", is a foolish attempt to extend the GPL to the hardware.
When the GPL was written, it was only considered to be applicable to software products. Once GPLed software started being bundled with hardware, GPL fanatics proclaimed that the hardware was subject to the whims of RMS's warped views on freedom as well. Ain't so. GPL authors licensed their code then got pissed when their code got used in a matter that respected the license. Nothing Tivo has done has limited in any way the freedoms of the GPL code it uses. Nowhere in the GPL does it say that Tivo is obligated to offer you source, the rights to modify it, AND provide you a computing platform in which to run it. That's what GPLv3 does and that's why Linus rightly objects to it.
"Limited transcoding from DRM isn't the same as total freedom to do whatever you want, which is what MythTV offers."
And it's what MCE offers, too. MCE records in a format that doesn't use DRM. It's simply MPEG-2 with an alternate container and can be converted to the format of your choice.
"Companies doing an end-run on the letter of the GPL is unacceptable. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo doesn't play nice."
Maybe unacceptable to you, but in Tivo's case the GPL is respected entirely. The GPL covers the software, not the hardware. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo software provides all the freedom the GPL is "about". You are free to use the Tivo source code all you like; the hardware, on the other hand, is under their control.
"Tivo includes DRM. That's reason on it's own"
Then iTunes and all Intel Macs deserve a similar boycott.
"...and the DRM is forced on you in mandatory software updates"
as it is in Windows and OS X.
"The mandatory updates change the product after you buy it. How this is acceptable to anyone is beyond me."
That's true of other products as well. Windows does it. OS X mostly likely does it.
"Basically in short, it's not your hardware, even though you've paid for it. You pay them, and they change the deal after they get your money."
"UI that doesn't mostly freeze when all we're doing is copying a file..."
So you must disqualify any system using X then and OS X in the case of network filesystems. Seriously, if that's your criteria then Windows should be your choice.
"...the ability to use the machine without having to worry about malware, etc."
I don't worry about malware any more than anyone else running Windows alternatives should. I maintain a good firewall and avoid obvious unsafe practices. I occasionally remove tracking cookies that everyone gets, including browsers on Linux and OS X.
"...decent POSIX support and standard utility programs (e.g. bash)..."
Oh boy, welcome to the 1980's. Programmers need a platform that allows development for their target system. End users don't need shells. Nerds who screw around for the fun of it don't matter. if you want bash on Windows it's yours for free (and about as easy to install as anything on Linux is).
"Statements like this really do suggest the negative effect that Microsoft has had on computing. Users now are "perfectly" satisfied if their OS doesn't routinely crash. What should be a basic assumption has become a lauded feat....Nor do they have a spyware virus problem (or even need for software to prevent such). But that's just what they do to not suck."
Now who's lauding a trivial accomplishment as a feat? The fact that Linux and OS X don't have spyware (they do) and virus problems isn't even attributable to them!!!
Get over the whole iLife thing. The only app consistently useful in iLife is iTunes and it's (a) available for free on the PC, and (b) a competitor to one bundled on the PC. The rest is of marginal use, is not state-of-the-art, and is not bundled with OS X. iPhoto is terrible. Who uses GarageBand? I know...everybody;)
BTW, my Linux and OS X installs crash, too. None of my systems are perfect. Between all of them I find OS X marginally less frustrating from a stability standpoint. It is also the slowest despite having the newest hardware and it's the most sluggish to use due to all the mouse movement. Linux I stopped using once I didn't need it for work.
"(where did all these Windows fanboys come from?)"
since when is "no worse than Mac or Linux" an indication of fanboy-ism?
"The difference is that Apple releases a new and vastly improved system every year"
That is subject to debate. Apple's core OS was terribly old and slow, so performance improvements were possible and have been introduced incrementally. It's actual feature improvements hardly qualify for "vastly improved" on every release. It's release cycle is also not every year. Let's not forget how bad OS X was in the beginning. Many mac faithful didn't consider OS X usable until 10.3. We've had one update since then?
"Linux updates are even more frequent"
Linux is not a single product and there are no syncronized releases for it. Linux is also much rougher around the edges than Windows and OS X so frequent releases are more justified. Linux, by its free nature, cannot be directly compared to to the others in this way.
"...while Microsoft hasn't had a new desktop release in, what, over 5 years?"
Depends on how you measure it. MS releases service packs and, with them, new boxed media that contains all updates to that point. It does not change the product name as Apple does and it does not charge. Service packs are significant enough to become dependencies for future software, however, and MS updates applications to add significant new features at times. Windows and OS X are not bundled or updated the same way and cannot be directly compared.
Just because Windows, OS X, and Linux have different strategies for product upgrades doesn't mean that one remains stagnant while the others improve. Apple has it easy with upgrades with its single point of control and it's limited hardware base. MS has a monumental problem with compatibility and heavy scrutiny while Linux has no centralized control of development or release cycles (plus a zoo of hardware to worry about). If the update cycles of any of these were similar I would think something was wrong.
You're argument is hardly coherent and is filled with Apple buzztalk. Apple DRM doesn't "just work" any more than MS DRM does and it is not "more flexible". It may allow more licensed playback devices but that's subject to change. On the other hand, MS is open to licensing on any device whereas Apple locks itself to Apple products and iTunes only. Hardly more flexible.
If you don't want to be "accused" then maybe you shouldn't accuse others and sound like a mac fanboy.
How generous of Apple to make iTunes work in WINE. Perhaps WMP does as well. Your point?
The difference between Windows and Windows+Mac is a couple percentage points of marketshare. Mac users who will buy DRMed content are likely to use iTMS in any case. Having WMV files not play on Mac is a loss of virtually no customers.
When Apple does it through iTMS they will be hailed as a success, though, despite having basically the same story. Sure they will support your mac minis but those machines constitute and insignificant portion of the market. The number of systems each will support will be essentially the same, and if your household had any PCs as modern as your underpowered minis you wouldn't be having such a problem.
I'm not familiar with the audio book you refer to or its motivations. I knew him personally and that accounts for a lot more as far as I'm concerned. It would be easier for me to believe that you're a poor judge of character or a terrible listener than to believe what you say. I've heard him speak many, many times nad he never comes off as arrogant.
"Dell apparently is one of the most brilliant businessmen of our time, because he told me so."
Dell IS one of the most brilliant businessmen of our time and he has never had to tell anyone. Unlike some of the silicon valley pirates that are worshipped here, Dell never backstabbed anyone to be successful. You don't want to be on the other side of the negotiating table from him though.
"The split funnel suspect The last suspect is the locking system. In Panther, only two threads could lock into the kernel to execute code of the kernel. One thread could lock into the networking part, while the other into the rest of the kernel services.
In Tiger, the locking is finer. Although Apple's documents indicate that it is still rather coarse grained, it is clear that more than two locks into the kernel can exist at the same time. In the case of MySQL, this should be a very important improvement, but we didn't see any improvement at all when performing the tests on both Panther and Tiger. This is speculation, but based on our data, we are tempted to hypothesize that the new locking system isn't really working right now, and that Tiger continues to behave like Panther."
I used a DP Powermac with both Panther and Tiger and it's performance was pathetic with network file I/O almost certainly due to this. Any mac home theater solution that requires a network file server is not only unnecessarily complicated, but a poor performing choice. A better choice for a mini would be an external FW hard drive, but what Apple really needs is a pizza-box headless mac for the living room. The mini is too small.
"Stated with the absolute assurity of one providing no proof. Bravo."
Right back at ya.
"Obviously if someone wants to use GPL software it's because it is the best choice for one reason or another."
Not so.
If the ability to modify software is of no use whatsoever, then what's the point of not releasing it under the GPL?"
Protection of the codebase from competitors.
"If there's no need to modify software, then that means the GPL can't possibly harm it because no one will take advantage of the extra rights the GPL grants."
You mean the extra restrictions the GPL places.
The GPL cannot restrict developers from releasing their software unless they are already entangled in some legal issues regarding the software they've written and merged with GPL software. In most cases they would be unable to release the code as BSD or public domain either."
Not true. It may simply be the case that they don't want to. In some cases code can be released as open source but not under the GPL.
"Free software is paid for by other free software, period."
You don't know what you're talking about. Even in the case of Red Hat, it's more complicated than that. Open source developers are paid by companies other than Red Hat. Ever heard of IBM, Intel, Sun, Novell, HP, Dell? All these companies fund open source projects directly and indirectly. Remember Transmeta? I guess Linus doesn't count as an open source developer in your eyes.
"There are plenty of other ways to get GPL software developed, like code bounties or just directly hiring programmers to write what you need."
Deep thinker, aren't you?
"Are you?"
Yes, with over 20 years of professional experience.
"Can you formalize a turing machine using set theory?"
What? I am a programmer, not a mathematician. Mathematicians rarely make good programmers. Have you seen Donald Knuth's actual code? I have.
"Do you know how to write compilers?"
Yes, and I have modified gcc and extended linkers to product loadable modules for embedded systems. You?
"...vastly outweighs anything even a large team of programmers can generate in a lifetime."
Provably untrue based on the fact that such systems have been produced from scratch in far less than my lifetime. Besides the stupidity of that statement, your point is...?
"I believe that AI will surpass human intelligence within the next 50 years, and that simply will result in mathematics understanding itself."
Don't know much about the unfulfilled promises of AI, do you? Dream on.
"...the myth of godly programmers..."
That is certainly no myth. There will always be gifted programmers and there will always be a need got them.
"I have no hubris as a programmer..."...nor knowledge or experience either. Perhaps after you've entered college, studied computer science, and worked in the field you might have a real perspective. Programming is real work and machines won't be doing it any time soon, of ever.
The GPL isn't needed to assure the freedom of code. All open source licenses do that. If a derivative work becomes closed, as is possible under some licenses, the freedom of the original source is uneffected. What the GPL is about is extending "freedom" to new codebases, specifically derivative works. One only has to look at RMS's early experiences to understand why.
RMS worked in a lab where everyone had access to all code and everyone else's work. When that code was used commercially and RMS didn't get access to the commercial code, he was pissed. The GPL is specifically designed to prevent that. RMS wants your source code, now and forever in the future.
As for the GPL being a poison pill to business, it certainly is in most cases. For someone like Red Hat it isn't, but many commercial software efforts could not survive the release of their source to the public.
I believe that the GPL is a good license for programmers in certain cases. There are plenty of reasons to not use it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Do you have an explanation?"
...then buys a company (alienware) that is, as you confess a "suprise"..."
I don't know, but it occurred after MD stepped down. It occurred during Rollins time and I know MD was against such acquisitions.
"Not for long, come back two years from now, we'll see. take a look at PC growth rates now, take a look what companies are beating the PC growth rate. this should give you a clue."
Doesn't matter, what I said was correct. This was a discussion about the man, not the company, and MD no longer runs Dell.
"can you?"
Yes, I can. There were more than "two words".
"lavish expenditures? you mean R&D?
small volumes? What is your definition of the word "small"? if by small you mean 20Billion per anum, "small" is kind of a funny word to use, wouldn't you say?"
Compared to Dell, yes. Apple is small compared to the large PC manufacturers and spends more on development as a percentage of revenues. That may give the fanboys a chubby but it's a weakness from a business perspective, not a strength.
"I don't see how SGI's history relates to apple on any level - not the same target market, not the same brand awareness, not the same tight strategy and excecution."
Keep in mind that I wasn't the one to make the comment. Also, the comment was made upwards of ten years ago.
SGI was an elitist, arrogant company who thought they would always be on top because of their technical superiority. Ultimately, SGI was put out from below because they never recognized that they would have to evolve as technology became commoditized. Once upon a time, SGI dominated certain creative markets (video production for example) long before Macs and PCs were remotely capable of the same kinds of tasks.
If you look at Apple in the late 90's when Jobs came back in, you see the same kind of company and attitudes that doomed SGI. Personally, I think the comparison was reasonable. The big difference was that Apple succeeeded in transforming itself and its products where SGI didn't. Today, macs are really Intel PC's running a polished NextStep and the rest is consumer electronics. Quite a huge transformation.
Regarding the target market, SGI made workstations that were differentiated by graphics. They marketed to applications that took advantage of their graphical nature---visualization, computation and creativity. Their systems where built on an in-house Unix base and featured a custom graphical desktop that SGI felt was the industry's best. The parallels between SGI then and OS X now are remarkable. Apple would have you believe their GUI is the industry's best and, as a result, they are the choice of creative professionals. The arrogance of Apple's claims sounds suspiciously like SGI.
"Apple strategy looks very well excecuted, both from the technological and the brand and marketing angles."
Perhaps, but I never stated otherwise. I simply responded to the mischaractization of the Michael Dell quote from 9 years ago.
"When a company such as dell fails in launching a a line of products that don't relate to it's core strategies and strengths (MP3),..."
mp3 players are a complimentary product for Dell, not a core strategy as they are for Apple. The failure of that product means nothing to Dell.
I never "confessed" anything. It had nothing to do with me. I simply find it out of character for the company. There's no reason to believe the Alienware aquisition is a problem for Dell either. Dell clearly felt that the brand recognition of Alienware was worth purchasing. PC gamers are as brand-aware as mac users.
"...given thier core strategy - you should think."
I should think what? Do you know what Dell's "core strategy" is? I don't think you do. Dell wants to be the Walmart of computers. It doesn't care what succeeds and what fails. It doesn't care if you want fancy machines or cheap machines. It doesn't care what OS you want to run. All it wants to do is make the
"OK, you should REALLY check out dell's latest stategies over the last few years. I have two words for you:
Alianware, XPS, ditty, DJ."
Alienware is a surprise. Dell basically doesn't buy other companies.
XPS is a very old brand. It's simply the top Dimension machine and is successful.
The music players aren't a surprise coming from Dell. They spent no development money on it.
Can you count?
"Do you want to know what I think?
here it is:
"Dell's future looks like SGI's" "
Didn't know that was the original topic, but you'd have a hard time defending that position. Dell is the largest supplier of PC's worldwide and is the polar opposite of a company like SGI. Apple is far closer a comparison with its lavish expenditures, small volumes and corporate hubris. Of course Dell may fail. All companies may fail.
Besides the infammatory and unsubstantiated garbage on your part, the discussion was about Michael Dell, not the company. Michael has been retired as CEO for some time now.
Dell was asked what HE would do if HE were CEO of Apple and he said that HE would shut down Apple and return the money to the shareholders. Of course he would. He also said that he would never accept that job---acknowledging that he would not be a good fit for that style of company. Dell has also said that Apple's future looks like SGI's and he hasn't been proven wrong. If Apple hadn't shifted its focus toward digital entertainment it may well have gone out of business.
Michael Dell is all about ROIC. For those that don't know, think of ROIC is the interest rate paid on your savings account. Dell maximizes earnings and minimizes capital investment. Clearly Apple doesn't work that way. Low volumes, high margins, unique aesthetics and boutique sales are relatively capital-intensive. Apple also employs a lot of people for their volumes compared to Dell.
It's funny how fanboys like to change this story and embrace it as a rallying cry. Fact is that Michael Dell has never had interest in Apple's market and always said so. These days, Apple lovers are always measuring their computing penises against Dell. Michael, BTW, retired as the company's CEO.
"Having WMV files not play on an iPod is a loss of virtually all customers."
A loss that is forced on those customers by APPLE. Perhaps you should ask Apple to stop their boycott of the WMV format then. Meanwhile, the iPod will be iTMS only for DRMed content. I'll remind you that the iPod itself was once Mac-only. Where would the iPod be now if that continued? Lockouts of the iPod are ALWAYS Apple's fault.
That said, the iPod has yet to prove itself as the portable video player of choice. I've used one in that capacity but it's screen is too small and the formats it supports are limiting. Other devices make it easier with flexible input formats and automatic transcoding. Virtually all customers? Hardly. I'm not sure what the ultimate device will look like but I promise you that "virtually all customers" desire a bigger screen than the iPod offers.
There, fixed for you. You can thank me now.
"The PowerPC platform still has a strong presence in the server room and is FAR from dying."
No it doesn't. Power and PowerPC are not the same. PowerPC is strong in embedded but has little presence outside that.
"Actually the Desktop is the only place Power architecture isn't used on a big scale anymore. Just as x86 isn't used anywhere in any significant amounts but on the desktop."
x86 is big in in servers and has a near total lock in notebooks as well. PowerPC and Power are NOT the same. PowerPC is strong in embedded and that's it. Power is strong in servers but that doesn't count.
"The only reason that x86 is still around is, that it is the only architecture Microsoft ever got their operating systems working on decently. Tells you a lot about code quality."
No, the reason is that no other architecture offered a significantly compelling reason to switch. x86 had market dominance and binary compatibility and now it has no competitors.
"The spirit of law is never written -- the letter is written."
Then it doesn't exist.
"Changing the software isn't relevent if you can't apply those changes."
You CAN apply those changes to any software effort you wish. It's up to you to provide hardware to run it on. Tivo is not obligated to do that.
"RMS has always maintained his three fundamental freedoms, and Freedom Number 1 is the freedom to change the program and make it do what you want. Tivo doesn't respect this freedom."
It absolutely does. You have complete software sources licensed to you under the GPL. Just as the authors licensed their software to Tivo. Those authors didn't give Tivo hardware to run their work on either.
"Well, it's still only applicable to software: it still doesn't cover the hardware in any way. It just says that if a key is needed to run the software that the key needs to be made available. If someone puts the key into hardware that's their problem - not the GPL's problem."
I suppose you're speaking of GPLv3, and yes, that is specifically extending GPL onto the hardware that runs it.
"And since the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that "If I share my code with you you must share your revisions back", shouldn't that suggest to you that GPL developers feel that the Tivo did an end-run on them?"
Yes, it does and that's how some feel. They are mistaken, however. Tivo has totally respected the GPL license by sharing their revisions back.
"But it seems to me that RMS has always been about ensuring software freedoms."
Yes, in fact RMS is about more than that. The BSD license ensures software freedoms. The GPL goes beyond that.
"GPLv3 just clarrifies and further codifies what Stallman always had in mind."
Perhaps, but it is a different license with additional restrictions compared to the GPLv2. There is a reason for that.
"If Linus just wanted to share his code with others he could have picked BSD..."
Yes, he could have, but there's no reason to speculate on Linus's position on GPLv3. He is clearly against it, he feels that applications such as Tivo are appropriate and respect the GPLv2, and he feels that further such uses should be encouraged. He has also stated that the GPLv3 can never be applied to the Linux kernel regardless.
"This may surprise you, but what most of us wish is to study/tinker with/improve/customize the source code. Not -- for example -- to set it to music and record a hit single"
I don't think you speak for "most of us", but those who do should not buy a Tivo Tivo doesn't advertise that they support customizing of their products.
"So the comment about the spirit of the GPL really addresses the fact that TiVO makes it impossible to do what everyone who wants the source code wants to do."
They do not. You are free to do whatever you want with the source code. You aren't free to do that with their hardware (which is not covered by the GPL and contains no GPL content).
"-TiVO gets a boatload of free software and utilities to make their hardware work, saving prolly millions in development costs"
Nope. Tivo gets free software in exchange for freeing theirs (which they do). The software is not licensed to "make their hardware work".
"In exchange, TiVO is supposed to pass on their changes for others to expand upon."
Which they do.
"If they pass on their changes and make it so that others have to manufacture their own specialized hardware in order to study/customize/etc the source code, they violate the spirit of the GPL quite clearly."
Not only do they not, but no GPL software includes hardware that's enabled to run modified versions of it. GPL software doesn't include hardware AT ALL, it is only software. The hardware is not covered by the license.
"Not the spirit and intent of the GPL ... they just respect the letter. (hence GPLv3)"
No, that's just RMS sour grapes. The spirit and intent of the GPL was written into the GPL.
Tivo sells you a fixed function device; not a general purpose computing device that it intends that you modify at your leisure. Because Tivo uses and respects GPL software, it offers the software to you in source form along with all the modifications it makes in the true spirit of the GPL. You are free to do with the software as you wish, and that includes integrating their work into future GPL'ed works and even competitors to the Tivo product itself. What you are not allowed to do is change the function of the original device which was always fixed function and not covered by the GPL. Any other interpretation of the GPL, its letter or its "spirit", is a foolish attempt to extend the GPL to the hardware.
When the GPL was written, it was only considered to be applicable to software products. Once GPLed software started being bundled with hardware, GPL fanatics proclaimed that the hardware was subject to the whims of RMS's warped views on freedom as well. Ain't so. GPL authors licensed their code then got pissed when their code got used in a matter that respected the license. Nothing Tivo has done has limited in any way the freedoms of the GPL code it uses. Nowhere in the GPL does it say that Tivo is obligated to offer you source, the rights to modify it, AND provide you a computing platform in which to run it. That's what GPLv3 does and that's why Linus rightly objects to it.
"Limited transcoding from DRM isn't the same as total freedom to do whatever you want, which is what MythTV offers."
And it's what MCE offers, too. MCE records in a format that doesn't use DRM. It's simply MPEG-2 with an alternate container and can be converted to the format of your choice.
"Companies doing an end-run on the letter of the GPL is unacceptable. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo doesn't play nice."
Maybe unacceptable to you, but in Tivo's case the GPL is respected entirely. The GPL covers the software, not the hardware. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo software provides all the freedom the GPL is "about". You are free to use the Tivo source code all you like; the hardware, on the other hand, is under their control.
"Tivo includes DRM. That's reason on it's own"
Then iTunes and all Intel Macs deserve a similar boycott.
"...and the DRM is forced on you in mandatory software updates"
as it is in Windows and OS X.
"The mandatory updates change the product after you buy it. How this is acceptable to anyone is beyond me."
That's true of other products as well. Windows does it. OS X mostly likely does it.
"Basically in short, it's not your hardware, even though you've paid for it. You pay them, and they change the deal after they get your money."
A lot of software is this way too.
DVD authoring is more complicated than that. Ever seen anything that simple on any platform?
"MCE can't write to MPEG4, because MS will never care about writing the feature."
Only for TV recording.
"MCE only has support for DRM formats."
This is not true. Recorded MCE content can be transcoded to other formats.
"Open Source in this instance basically means you can play the movie you recorded on any computer."
True for MCE as well. You can play MCE content on other MCE's or extenders and you can transcode it.
"UI that doesn't mostly freeze when all we're doing is copying a file..."
So you must disqualify any system using X then and OS X in the case of network filesystems. Seriously, if that's your criteria then Windows should be your choice.
"...the ability to use the machine without having to worry about malware, etc."
I don't worry about malware any more than anyone else running Windows alternatives should. I maintain a good firewall and avoid obvious unsafe practices. I occasionally remove tracking cookies that everyone gets, including browsers on Linux and OS X.
"...decent POSIX support and standard utility programs (e.g. bash)..."
Oh boy, welcome to the 1980's. Programmers need a platform that allows development for their target system. End users don't need shells. Nerds who screw around for the fun of it don't matter. if you want bash on Windows it's yours for free (and about as easy to install as anything on Linux is).
"Statements like this really do suggest the negative effect that Microsoft has had on computing. Users now are "perfectly" satisfied if their OS doesn't routinely crash. What should be a basic assumption has become a lauded feat. ...Nor do they have a spyware virus problem (or even need for software to prevent such). But that's just what they do to not suck."
;)
Now who's lauding a trivial accomplishment as a feat? The fact that Linux and OS X don't have spyware (they do) and virus problems isn't even attributable to them!!!
Get over the whole iLife thing. The only app consistently useful in iLife is iTunes and it's (a) available for free on the PC, and (b) a competitor to one bundled on the PC. The rest is of marginal use, is not state-of-the-art, and is not bundled with OS X. iPhoto is terrible. Who uses GarageBand? I know...everybody
BTW, my Linux and OS X installs crash, too. None of my systems are perfect. Between all of them I find OS X marginally less frustrating from a stability standpoint. It is also the slowest despite having the newest hardware and it's the most sluggish to use due to all the mouse movement. Linux I stopped using once I didn't need it for work.
"(where did all these Windows fanboys come from?)"
since when is "no worse than Mac or Linux" an indication of fanboy-ism?
"The difference is that Apple releases a new and vastly improved system every year"
That is subject to debate. Apple's core OS was terribly old and slow, so performance improvements were possible and have been introduced incrementally. It's actual feature improvements hardly qualify for "vastly improved" on every release. It's release cycle is also not every year. Let's not forget how bad OS X was in the beginning. Many mac faithful didn't consider OS X usable until 10.3. We've had one update since then?
"Linux updates are even more frequent"
Linux is not a single product and there are no syncronized releases for it. Linux is also much rougher around the edges than Windows and OS X so frequent releases are more justified. Linux, by its free nature, cannot be directly compared to to the others in this way.
"...while Microsoft hasn't had a new desktop release in, what, over 5 years?"
Depends on how you measure it. MS releases service packs and, with them, new boxed media that contains all updates to that point. It does not change the product name as Apple does and it does not charge. Service packs are significant enough to become dependencies for future software, however, and MS updates applications to add significant new features at times. Windows and OS X are not bundled or updated the same way and cannot be directly compared.
Just because Windows, OS X, and Linux have different strategies for product upgrades doesn't mean that one remains stagnant while the others improve. Apple has it easy with upgrades with its single point of control and it's limited hardware base. MS has a monumental problem with compatibility and heavy scrutiny while Linux has no centralized control of development or release cycles (plus a zoo of hardware to worry about). If the update cycles of any of these were similar I would think something was wrong.
curious this got modded insightful when it added nothing to the conversation and explicitly said as much.
You're argument is hardly coherent and is filled with Apple buzztalk. Apple DRM doesn't "just work" any more than MS DRM does and it is not "more flexible". It may allow more licensed playback devices but that's subject to change. On the other hand, MS is open to licensing on any device whereas Apple locks itself to Apple products and iTunes only. Hardly more flexible.
If you don't want to be "accused" then maybe you shouldn't accuse others and sound like a mac fanboy.
How generous of Apple to make iTunes work in WINE. Perhaps WMP does as well. Your point?
The difference between Windows and Windows+Mac is a couple percentage points of marketshare. Mac users who will buy DRMed content are likely to use iTMS in any case. Having WMV files not play on Mac is a loss of virtually no customers.
When Apple does it through iTMS they will be hailed as a success, though, despite having basically the same story. Sure they will support your mac minis but those machines constitute and insignificant portion of the market. The number of systems each will support will be essentially the same, and if your household had any PCs as modern as your underpowered minis you wouldn't be having such a problem.
DVD is also capable of higher chroma bandwidth than S-Video offers. Even with interlaced NTSC, component is better than S-Video.
I'm not familiar with the audio book you refer to or its motivations. I knew him personally and that accounts for a lot more as far as I'm concerned. It would be easier for me to believe that you're a poor judge of character or a terrible listener than to believe what you say. I've heard him speak many, many times nad he never comes off as arrogant.
"Dell apparently is one of the most brilliant businessmen of our time, because he told me so."
Dell IS one of the most brilliant businessmen of our time and he has never had to tell anyone. Unlike some of the silicon valley pirates that are worshipped here, Dell never backstabbed anyone to be successful. You don't want to be on the other side of the negotiating table from him though.
Network file I/O on OS X sucks. Here's why: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p =8
"The split funnel suspect
The last suspect is the locking system. In Panther, only two threads could lock into the kernel to execute code of the kernel. One thread could lock into the networking part, while the other into the rest of the kernel services.
In Tiger, the locking is finer. Although Apple's documents indicate that it is still rather coarse grained, it is clear that more than two locks into the kernel can exist at the same time. In the case of MySQL, this should be a very important improvement, but we didn't see any improvement at all when performing the tests on both Panther and Tiger. This is speculation, but based on our data, we are tempted to hypothesize that the new locking system isn't really working right now, and that Tiger continues to behave like Panther."
I used a DP Powermac with both Panther and Tiger and it's performance was pathetic with network file I/O almost certainly due to this. Any mac home theater solution that requires a network file server is not only unnecessarily complicated, but a poor performing choice. A better choice for a mini would be an external FW hard drive, but what Apple really needs is a pizza-box headless mac for the living room. The mini is too small.
"Stated with the absolute assurity of one providing no proof. Bravo."
...nor knowledge or experience either. Perhaps after you've entered college, studied computer science, and worked in the field you might have a real perspective. Programming is real work and machines won't be doing it any time soon, of ever.
Right back at ya.
"Obviously if someone wants to use GPL software it's because it is the best choice for one reason or another."
Not so.
If the ability to modify software is of no use whatsoever, then what's the point of not releasing it under the GPL?"
Protection of the codebase from competitors.
"If there's no need to modify software, then that means the GPL can't possibly harm it because no one will take advantage of the extra rights the GPL grants."
You mean the extra restrictions the GPL places.
The GPL cannot restrict developers from releasing their software unless they are already entangled in some legal issues regarding the software they've written and merged with GPL software. In most cases they would be unable to release the code as BSD or public domain either."
Not true. It may simply be the case that they don't want to. In some cases code can be released as open source but not under the GPL.
"Free software is paid for by other free software, period."
You don't know what you're talking about. Even in the case of Red Hat, it's more complicated than that. Open source developers are paid by companies other than Red Hat. Ever heard of IBM, Intel, Sun, Novell, HP, Dell? All these companies fund open source projects directly and indirectly. Remember Transmeta? I guess Linus doesn't count as an open source developer in your eyes.
"There are plenty of other ways to get GPL software developed, like code bounties or just directly hiring programmers to write what you need."
Deep thinker, aren't you?
"Are you?"
Yes, with over 20 years of professional experience.
"Can you formalize a turing machine using set theory?"
What? I am a programmer, not a mathematician. Mathematicians rarely make good programmers. Have you seen Donald Knuth's actual code? I have.
"Do you know how to write compilers?"
Yes, and I have modified gcc and extended linkers to product loadable modules for embedded systems. You?
"...vastly outweighs anything even a large team of programmers can generate in a lifetime."
Provably untrue based on the fact that such systems have been produced from scratch in far less than my lifetime. Besides the stupidity of that statement, your point is...?
"I believe that AI will surpass human intelligence within the next 50 years, and that simply will result in mathematics understanding itself."
Don't know much about the unfulfilled promises of AI, do you? Dream on.
"...the myth of godly programmers..."
That is certainly no myth. There will always be gifted programmers and there will always be a need got them.
"I have no hubris as a programmer..."
I simply don't agree.
The GPL isn't needed to assure the freedom of code. All open source licenses do that. If a derivative work becomes closed, as is possible under some licenses, the freedom of the original source is uneffected. What the GPL is about is extending "freedom" to new codebases, specifically derivative works. One only has to look at RMS's early experiences to understand why.
RMS worked in a lab where everyone had access to all code and everyone else's work. When that code was used commercially and RMS didn't get access to the commercial code, he was pissed. The GPL is specifically designed to prevent that. RMS wants your source code, now and forever in the future.
As for the GPL being a poison pill to business, it certainly is in most cases. For someone like Red Hat it isn't, but many commercial software efforts could not survive the release of their source to the public.
I believe that the GPL is a good license for programmers in certain cases. There are plenty of reasons to not use it.