I realize it goes against all reason to say this to many here, including you JimNTonik, but just because Apple says it doesn't make it so. They said the iPhone was a "revolution". It takes more than a web browser on a phone to make a revolution.
"_If_ it does well, it'll be because of Apple's UI + vertical integration from the PC to the phone."
How will Apple bring all these mythical "ease of use" UI benefits if all it's apps are based on AJAX and run in Safari? Oh yeah, because Apple isn't stupid enough to eat its own crap.
"That said Apple has said numerous times that the Killer App _is_ the phone."
I don't recall them ever saying that, but the "killer app" can't be the phone, there needs to be something compelling that it does besides make you look cool.
"Yes, they're targeting the smart phone market, but Apple will rely on their own tools for the time being - there's no need to let developers mess it up."
They aren't targeting the smartphone market, they're targeting the trendsetter market. There's no need for developers to mess it up, they can do just fine at that themselves.
Microsoft has 2 versions of Vista, not 24. The rest is bundling and pricing which Apple has chosen not to do. There are no technical reasons to produce 12 different variations of each.
Microsoft could make its 32 and 64 bit versions the same if it wanted to. It has chosen to separate the two because it wants to enforce different rules for 64 bit versions than it can get away with in 32 bit mode. Microsoft has legacy issues to deal with, coming from its massive market share, that Apple does not have to deal with.
While Leopard's "one version for everything" approach is certainly appealing, it isn't "unprecedented thus far". Many OSes, including versions of OS X before it, offer precedent. Likewise, "And the more featured your system is, the more features Leopard will automatically enable." is not unusual, it is how we expect products to work. If Vista were restricted to supporting a dozen machines it would work like Leopard, too. The fact that Vista doesn't arguably support that many is beside the point!
They don't need a 50 pound limit, all they need is small plates. This is exactly how they deal with this problem. Packet shaping isn't all that different.
You've got to be really juvenile to not understand this. If you want a line with full bandwidth 24/7, go out and buy a T3. That's what they have to provide upstream in order to deliver what you expect with your cheap cable line after all.
The moment hardware patents interfere with RMS gaining free use of all the world's software he will have a problem with them.
There is nothing wrong with software patents that is not also wrong with hardware patents. The problem is obviousness and a consistent failure to identify prior art. Saying that a programmer is incapable of being an inventor is ridiculous.
"You are absolutely right - patents sometimes don't really disclose as much as they should."
That's not what he said. He said you could get a patent without disclosing an invention AT ALL. It is up to the examiner to determine if a patent is valid and if it is sufficiently described. It is not required of anyone in the system to make it so an uneducated/. reader can understand it.
A patent system that's incapable of responding to the application demand is an ineffective one. Not saying our current system is effective, but the solution you describe is a step backwards in responsiveness of the office which can't be afforded. It also would greatly increase costs and raise the barrier of entry, further restricting who can play.
We need a system that is responsive and accessible to all yet maintains reasonable standards. The problem with patents today is that obviousness has gone out the window.
That's total bullshit. The documentation of your invention is, and always has been, the means of sharing. The purpose of the limited monopoly is not the enable you to share your invention but to restrict its commercialization without your benefit. It works exactly how it's supposed to.
Your notion that source code is required to teach a software is also ridiculous. How would any software textbook work then?
"That's where the problem is - you can get a patent to protect your invention without disclosing that very same invention."
Bullshit again. Just because you can't read a patent doesn't mean that no one can.
"Alternative methods to accomplish the same goal have been used as patent work-arounds from the earliest days. If not for someone working-around the Wright Brother's patents, jets would be using "wing warping" instead of "flaps.""
Any patents the Wright brothers received would be out of force long before today. In fact, the Wright brothers are a great example of why patents work. We granted them a limited monopoly so that our society could more quickly understand how their invention worked. As a result, more inventors contributed to advancing flight faster. It's absurd to suggest that flaps wouldn't have developed had the patent system not created incentive for alternative solutions. You're crazy.
"Besides that, the free market constantly lobbies the government... if they get bit by broad patents enough times, they'll put their efforts towards ending that."
Horseshit. The "free market" doesn't lobby anybody because it doesn't exist as an organizational element at all. Special interest groups lobby the government and the "free market" is the opposite of a special interest group. Free markets don't have special interests with laws tailored to give them advantages.
"And finally, if numerous companies go out of business, the patent office will no longer be over-loaded..."
As though that will fix things. Come back when you have a legitimate point.
Not at all. The patent system exists to encourage the exchange of knowledge and technology so that "free market" grows stronger faster. Patents temporarily exchange some of the freeness of the market for the longer term strength of it. Patents are not the antithesis of a free market at all since without them the free market would be worse off.
How is it a penalty for the US government to fine itself? Just where does that money go, right back into the same fund it came out of?
"As the next step, I'd introduce the right for any professional body to issue patents in their own field."
Of course, because we all know that professional organizations can never be corrupt. Patent abuse doesn't have to take the form of issuing invalid and obvious patents, it can also mean only issuing patents to favored members. Let's exchange a flawed system for a totally fucked one.
"If no professional body is prepared to take the risk of issuing patents in a particular field, then it's because that field can never reliably determine whether the patent should be issued, and is better off without patents."
Patents exist to encourage the flow of information and knowledge. Entrusting such a system to cartels is absurd.
You mean you need someone who actually understands color to put their stamp of approval on your status symbol? It's hard to be a poser without buying the right outfit, right?
"The color spectrum that a given LED provides will necessarily be different than the spectrum that CCF backlights generate, and different from the spectra that the various CRT monitor phosphors generate."
They will likely be, but not "necessarily" be. There's no requirement that makes it "necessary". CRTs work much different and shouldn't be included in the discussion.
"If a given portion of the spectrum is not present in the "white light" (using that term very loosely here) backlight, no amount of filtering by the LCD screen overlay can put it back. If this is not intuitive, imagine trying to create blue using only a pure-red LED backlight. (You can't do it - the backlight must have at least some blue)."
Yes, but LCD displays work using color filters and the "white light" does not need to have a particularly full spectrum. It only needs to offer what the filters wish to pass.
"So if, for example, the LED backlight has more green and red light available in its "white light" spectrum than a CCF backlight has, the LCD overlay so-illuminated can produce yellow tones (since red and green are the constituent primaries that make yellow) that a LCD illuminated with a CCF cannot. That gives the LED-illuminated LCD a wider gamut."
What do you mean by "more green and red"? If it has simply "more" then you are wrong. The gamut will be the same but the brightness will be different. In order for there to be differences in possible yellow tones there needs to be qualitative differences in the green and red itself.
"However, if both the LED-illuminated and the CCF-illuminated LCD overlays only filter light at a resolution of 8 bits per channel, they will both be able to display the same amount of information about color, but because the gamut of one is different from the gamut of the other, in many cases they will not be able to display the same colors."
Who says the gamut of one is different from the other? The LCD panels may be the same thus required spectra the same and the color balance of the light sources may be the same. In that case, even though the backlights are different and have different CRIs, the result will be a matching gamut.
"In general, an 8-bit display should in fact have a larger (but not necessarily wider) gamut than a 6-bit."
The color gamut is the range of color possible to achieve. The bit depth determines the quantization within that gamut. Your use of the confusing and similar term "larger" is not helping matters any. Most people will equate "larger" and "wider" (understandably) as meaning the same thing. You should not be creating confusion in an effort to eliminate it. Having more bits does not make a gamut "larger". What it does is provide smoother tonality.
"In an LCD display the spectrum of the backlight will determine how wide the gamut can be at its absolute maximum..."...but not how wide it actually is. A backlight that determines gamut is a crappy backlight.
"...if a color is not present in that spectrum, it cannot be filtered into existance by the LCD overlay."
but a metamer of it can. That's how tristimulus display works!!! Whether a given spectral line exists in a backlight has no impact on whether a given color exists in the resulting gamut. If what you say were true, we wouldn't be using LED OR CCFL for backlights and CRTs wouldn't work worth a shit!
"By the same token, the bit-depth-per-channel of the LCD overlay will determine how many individual color tones are in that gamut."
Finally you got something right. Bit depth determines tonality, not gamut "largeness".
"In reality, it's a lot more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it."
Yes it is, and you know just enough to be dangerous. What you offered isn't "the gist of it" at all.
"If this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse"
You mean "If this is yet-another 6-bit display AND it's wider gamut, this situation will be even worse".
Quantization issues are well understood, it doesn't take a color guru to understand that. However, name-dropping digitaldog as you leap to conclusions about the new display is total bullshit. Claiming that the new displays have improved gamut is pure, baseless speculation at this point. Furthermore, I've read reliable explanations for why notebook LED displays can't be wider gamut.
Color temperature (CCT) cannot be compared between light sources without consideration of CRI. In order to make qualitative judgements, CRI has to be very good (>95) and neither CCFL nor LED qualify. Your statement, while true, is meaningless. Furthermore, even though CCT does effect color, there's no reason to believe that changing CCT of the light source will have an appreciable effect on color gamut. You might try harder to understand what's going on.
I doubt that's the "general consensus" but if it is then it's incorrect. It may be the consensus of fanboys to imagine new things to heap credit on Apple for.
Mac notebook displays have poor color gamuts typical of those found in notebooks, and the LED version are unlikely to change that appreciably. The new model is simply LED backlit, its display is still LCD.
Re:Can someone please explain to me...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
You are exactly right and what Tivo has done is not only compliant but perfectly ethical.
RMS and his fanatics aren't actually upset because of software freedom in this case, the software is totally free according to the GPLv2, they are upset because they can't do whatever they want with a piece of hardware. It's not about software freedom, it's about them getting what they want. The key authors of the software Tivo used aren't upset about the situation at all.
RMS has always been motivated by getting what *he* wants. He doesn't care about giving away the results of his efforts because he's never had to work for a living. His idealism isn't motivated by common good, it's motivated by his own personal greed.
Re:Tivo has a very easy out...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Tivo has an even easier out than that. They can simply stay with what they have.
Re:The next "One major danger"...
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"Tivo's lil' trick takes away the freedom from the audience GPL is meant for, hence V.3"
No it didn't. All the freedoms the GPLv2 provides were provided in the case of Tivo. Claims otherwise are all based on a lie, and a lie RMS willingly propogates, that Tivo prevents you from modifying the software. Nothing is further from the truth; you are free to modify Tivo's software and even implement a competing product with it. You have to provide your own hardware to do it but that's true of every piece of GPLed software that RMS ever provided! RMS's lie is claiming that the Tivo product is the software. It is not, the product is the appliance and the appliance is not covered by the GPL. Throughout time, the end user has been responsible for providing the hardware and the means for modifying the software itself. The assumption that Tivo is obligated to make their hardware suitable for that is the mistake of those who made it.
"I've been thinking about this, and I really can't see anything to be concerned about."
There's no need to think about it. It's not like Apple invented the touchscreen cellphone keyboard after all. It's not even substantially different than previous models.
The one thing different about the iPhone is that it *cannot* use a stylus and that means your big, fat finger is covering up those little, fake chicklet keys. So much for your eyesight providing all that glorious tactile feedback substitute you've been "thinking" about.
"I can't think of many, if any, that do, and that doesn't seem to have hindered them."
Of course, all of those have key differences too.
"How often do you actually use a phone without looking at it?"
Frequently.
"Unless you've got a screen reader in there, don't you kind of have to look at it to use those features?"
Yes, I do but, unlike the iPhone, my fingers aren't covering up the screen because my keyboard is seperate.
"I'll wait until I actually see one in action to pass judgment, but I'm a lot more skeptical of the "no tactile feedback" argument than I used to be..."
Of course you will. The speculated advantages you can pass judgement on now; the speculated disadvantages you should wait to pass judgement on. That's what it means to be open-minded regarding Apple, right?
Unless you plan to find your contacts exclusively through scrolling, you're still in need of a keypad. Too bad the iPhone's one sucks balls.
Apple can pretend that the user doesn't actually need to enter data all they want. Watching their demos you'd think that all you do on a cellphone is browse preloaded content. That and dance in multicolored silhouette, of course.
"I think you're underestimating the UI mechanisms used to use the device."
No, we're not.
"If you look at the demo of the Google map, you'll see what I'm talking about. It makes dialing easy. No current phone does this right now. None."
Of course they do. Handmark Pocket Express has existed for years and Google maps runs on cell phones already. If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be so arrogant about it.
Of course, none of that matters because you don't usually place calls be searching through maps. Ordinarily you use the keypad or the contacts database and Apple hasn't improved that at all.
"About the only way this could get easier is if they start scanning your voice mail for phone numbers to associate with the visual voice mail.... hold on. I need to go write a business plan."
There was no loophole. Tivo released all its code under the terms of the GPL.
The GPL has always been about code being free. Tivo code is free. When the "I want your stuff" fanatics realized they couldn't modify the Tivo product (though there was never a suggestion that they could) they were furious. Stallman realized that his vision of free code wasn't enough, it needed to be "free code only on suitable hardware". It is RMS and the FSF that has changed the GPL because their true motivations, it was never because of a loophole. Tivo's code IS free, its hardware platform is not.
The GPL is about the freedom of code and it always said that GPL code could be used in commercial products as long as the GPL was respected. The ramifications are unambiguous when the product is software, but when it is a mixture of software and hardware, the GPL only impacted the software portion. The reaction when this was tested exposes the true nature of RMS, the FSF, and their fanatics. The RMS GPL is not really about the freedom of code, it's about RMS's freedom to use the product of your work. It is not enough that Tivo gave away all its software modifications in compliance with the GPL, RMS believes he should dictate how Tivo makes its dedicated hardware platform as well. He doesn't just want the freedom of Tivo's code, he wants the ability to modify Tivo's product. Tivo doesn't make a computing platform and there's no reason for anyone to expect that they do. As RMS gets more militant and more restrictive in his licenses he risks his own relevance.
This bullshit claim has been debunked countlessly yet narrow-minded fanatics continue to trot it out.
Tivo does not disagree with the "fundamental goal" of the GPL, they use it and comply with it. Their compliance with the license has never been in doubt, and core developers of the code most important to Tivo have stated unambiguously that they desire their work to be used in the manner Tivo uses it. Tivo releases its code and in no way prevents its modification or integration into other products, even commercial ones that compete with Tivo. What Tivo does do is place restrictions on parts of its product not covered by the GPL.
Tivo is clearly impacted by GPLv3 since some its changes are specifically meant to do that. By placing further restrictions on its users, GPLv3 claims to enhance "freedom". The irony of it all that somehow, by preventing me from using GPL code in a manner RMS doesn't like, my freedoms are enhanced.
Tivo is not restricted in using any of its existing codebase, and the portion of "GNU/Linux" that Tivo cares about is the "Linux" part, not the "GNU" part. The linux code is mostly likely remaining v2 anyway and, if not, then they do without it. There is never any promise in any license that developers continue to offer new contributions under an existing free license. Just what part of userland utilities does Tivo think there will be critical improvements to that the GPLv3 will prevent them from using? It's a joke, really.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize it goes against all reason to say this to many here, including you JimNTonik, but just because Apple says it doesn't make it so. They said the iPhone was a "revolution". It takes more than a web browser on a phone to make a revolution.
"_If_ it does well, it'll be because of Apple's UI + vertical integration from the PC to the phone."
How will Apple bring all these mythical "ease of use" UI benefits if all it's apps are based on AJAX and run in Safari? Oh yeah, because Apple isn't stupid enough to eat its own crap.
"That said Apple has said numerous times that the Killer App _is_ the phone."
I don't recall them ever saying that, but the "killer app" can't be the phone, there needs to be something compelling that it does besides make you look cool.
"Yes, they're targeting the smart phone market, but Apple will rely on their own tools for the time being - there's no need to let developers mess it up."
They aren't targeting the smartphone market, they're targeting the trendsetter market. There's no need for developers to mess it up, they can do just fine at that themselves.
Microsoft has 2 versions of Vista, not 24. The rest is bundling and pricing which Apple has chosen not to do. There are no technical reasons to produce 12 different variations of each.
Microsoft could make its 32 and 64 bit versions the same if it wanted to. It has chosen to separate the two because it wants to enforce different rules for 64 bit versions than it can get away with in 32 bit mode. Microsoft has legacy issues to deal with, coming from its massive market share, that Apple does not have to deal with.
While Leopard's "one version for everything" approach is certainly appealing, it isn't "unprecedented thus far". Many OSes, including versions of OS X before it, offer precedent. Likewise, "And the more featured your system is, the more features Leopard will automatically enable." is not unusual, it is how we expect products to work. If Vista were restricted to supporting a dozen machines it would work like Leopard, too. The fact that Vista doesn't arguably support that many is beside the point!
Yours is nothing but an Apple ad.
They don't need a 50 pound limit, all they need is small plates. This is exactly how they deal with this problem. Packet shaping isn't all that different.
You've got to be really juvenile to not understand this. If you want a line with full bandwidth 24/7, go out and buy a T3. That's what they have to provide upstream in order to deliver what you expect with your cheap cable line after all.
The moment hardware patents interfere with RMS gaining free use of all the world's software he will have a problem with them.
There is nothing wrong with software patents that is not also wrong with hardware patents. The problem is obviousness and a consistent failure to identify prior art. Saying that a programmer is incapable of being an inventor is ridiculous.
"You are absolutely right - patents sometimes don't really disclose as much as they should."
/. reader can understand it.
That's not what he said. He said you could get a patent without disclosing an invention AT ALL. It is up to the examiner to determine if a patent is valid and if it is sufficiently described. It is not required of anyone in the system to make it so an uneducated
A patent system that's incapable of responding to the application demand is an ineffective one. Not saying our current system is effective, but the solution you describe is a step backwards in responsiveness of the office which can't be afforded. It also would greatly increase costs and raise the barrier of entry, further restricting who can play.
We need a system that is responsive and accessible to all yet maintains reasonable standards. The problem with patents today is that obviousness has gone out the window.
That's total bullshit. The documentation of your invention is, and always has been, the means of sharing. The purpose of the limited monopoly is not the enable you to share your invention but to restrict its commercialization without your benefit. It works exactly how it's supposed to.
Your notion that source code is required to teach a software is also ridiculous. How would any software textbook work then?
"That's where the problem is - you can get a patent to protect your invention without disclosing that very same invention."
Bullshit again. Just because you can't read a patent doesn't mean that no one can.
"Alternative methods to accomplish the same goal have been used as patent work-arounds from the earliest days. If not for someone working-around the Wright Brother's patents, jets would be using "wing warping" instead of "flaps.""
Any patents the Wright brothers received would be out of force long before today. In fact, the Wright brothers are a great example of why patents work. We granted them a limited monopoly so that our society could more quickly understand how their invention worked. As a result, more inventors contributed to advancing flight faster. It's absurd to suggest that flaps wouldn't have developed had the patent system not created incentive for alternative solutions. You're crazy.
"Besides that, the free market constantly lobbies the government... if they get bit by broad patents enough times, they'll put their efforts towards ending that."
Horseshit. The "free market" doesn't lobby anybody because it doesn't exist as an organizational element at all. Special interest groups lobby the government and the "free market" is the opposite of a special interest group. Free markets don't have special interests with laws tailored to give them advantages.
"And finally, if numerous companies go out of business, the patent office will no longer be over-loaded..."
As though that will fix things. Come back when you have a legitimate point.
Not at all. The patent system exists to encourage the exchange of knowledge and technology so that "free market" grows stronger faster. Patents temporarily exchange some of the freeness of the market for the longer term strength of it. Patents are not the antithesis of a free market at all since without them the free market would be worse off.
How is it a penalty for the US government to fine itself? Just where does that money go, right back into the same fund it came out of?
"As the next step, I'd introduce the right for any professional body to issue patents in their own field."
Of course, because we all know that professional organizations can never be corrupt. Patent abuse doesn't have to take the form of issuing invalid and obvious patents, it can also mean only issuing patents to favored members. Let's exchange a flawed system for a totally fucked one.
"If no professional body is prepared to take the risk of issuing patents in a particular field, then it's because that field can never reliably determine whether the patent should be issued, and is better off without patents."
Patents exist to encourage the flow of information and knowledge. Entrusting such a system to cartels is absurd.
You mean you need someone who actually understands color to put their stamp of approval on your status symbol? It's hard to be a poser without buying the right outfit, right?
"The color spectrum that a given LED provides will necessarily be different than the spectrum that CCF backlights generate, and different from the spectra that the various CRT monitor phosphors generate."
...but not how wide it actually is. A backlight that determines gamut is a crappy backlight.
They will likely be, but not "necessarily" be. There's no requirement that makes it "necessary". CRTs work much different and shouldn't be included in the discussion.
"If a given portion of the spectrum is not present in the "white light" (using that term very loosely here) backlight, no amount of filtering by the LCD screen overlay can put it back. If this is not intuitive, imagine trying to create blue using only a pure-red LED backlight. (You can't do it - the backlight must have at least some blue)."
Yes, but LCD displays work using color filters and the "white light" does not need to have a particularly full spectrum. It only needs to offer what the filters wish to pass.
"So if, for example, the LED backlight has more green and red light available in its "white light" spectrum than a CCF backlight has, the LCD overlay so-illuminated can produce yellow tones (since red and green are the constituent primaries that make yellow) that a LCD illuminated with a CCF cannot. That gives the LED-illuminated LCD a wider gamut."
What do you mean by "more green and red"? If it has simply "more" then you are wrong. The gamut will be the same but the brightness will be different. In order for there to be differences in possible yellow tones there needs to be qualitative differences in the green and red itself.
"However, if both the LED-illuminated and the CCF-illuminated LCD overlays only filter light at a resolution of 8 bits per channel, they will both be able to display the same amount of information about color, but because the gamut of one is different from the gamut of the other, in many cases they will not be able to display the same colors."
Who says the gamut of one is different from the other? The LCD panels may be the same thus required spectra the same and the color balance of the light sources may be the same. In that case, even though the backlights are different and have different CRIs, the result will be a matching gamut.
"In general, an 8-bit display should in fact have a larger (but not necessarily wider) gamut than a 6-bit."
The color gamut is the range of color possible to achieve. The bit depth determines the quantization within that gamut. Your use of the confusing and similar term "larger" is not helping matters any. Most people will equate "larger" and "wider" (understandably) as meaning the same thing. You should not be creating confusion in an effort to eliminate it. Having more bits does not make a gamut "larger". What it does is provide smoother tonality.
"In an LCD display the spectrum of the backlight will determine how wide the gamut can be at its absolute maximum..."
"...if a color is not present in that spectrum, it cannot be filtered into existance by the LCD overlay."
but a metamer of it can. That's how tristimulus display works!!! Whether a given spectral line exists in a backlight has no impact on whether a given color exists in the resulting gamut. If what you say were true, we wouldn't be using LED OR CCFL for backlights and CRTs wouldn't work worth a shit!
"By the same token, the bit-depth-per-channel of the LCD overlay will determine how many individual color tones are in that gamut."
Finally you got something right. Bit depth determines tonality, not gamut "largeness".
"In reality, it's a lot more complicated than this, but this is the gist of it."
Yes it is, and you know just enough to be dangerous. What you offered isn't "the gist of it" at all.
"If this is yet-another 6-bit display, this situation will be even worse"
You mean "If this is yet-another 6-bit display AND it's wider gamut, this situation will be even worse".
Quantization issues are well understood, it doesn't take a color guru to understand that. However, name-dropping digitaldog as you leap to conclusions about the new display is total bullshit. Claiming that the new displays have improved gamut is pure, baseless speculation at this point. Furthermore, I've read reliable explanations for why notebook LED displays can't be wider gamut.
Color temperature (CCT) cannot be compared between light sources without consideration of CRI. In order to make qualitative judgements, CRI has to be very good (>95) and neither CCFL nor LED qualify. Your statement, while true, is meaningless. Furthermore, even though CCT does effect color, there's no reason to believe that changing CCT of the light source will have an appreciable effect on color gamut. You might try harder to understand what's going on.
I doubt that's the "general consensus" but if it is then it's incorrect. It may be the consensus of fanboys to imagine new things to heap credit on Apple for.
Mac notebook displays have poor color gamuts typical of those found in notebooks, and the LED version are unlikely to change that appreciably. The new model is simply LED backlit, its display is still LCD.
No mac notebooks come with a mighty mouse.
You are exactly right and what Tivo has done is not only compliant but perfectly ethical.
RMS and his fanatics aren't actually upset because of software freedom in this case, the software is totally free according to the GPLv2, they are upset because they can't do whatever they want with a piece of hardware. It's not about software freedom, it's about them getting what they want. The key authors of the software Tivo used aren't upset about the situation at all.
RMS has always been motivated by getting what *he* wants. He doesn't care about giving away the results of his efforts because he's never had to work for a living. His idealism isn't motivated by common good, it's motivated by his own personal greed.
Tivo has an even easier out than that. They can simply stay with what they have.
"Tivo's lil' trick takes away the freedom from the audience GPL is meant for, hence V.3"
No it didn't. All the freedoms the GPLv2 provides were provided in the case of Tivo. Claims otherwise are all based on a lie, and a lie RMS willingly propogates, that Tivo prevents you from modifying the software. Nothing is further from the truth; you are free to modify Tivo's software and even implement a competing product with it. You have to provide your own hardware to do it but that's true of every piece of GPLed software that RMS ever provided! RMS's lie is claiming that the Tivo product is the software. It is not, the product is the appliance and the appliance is not covered by the GPL. Throughout time, the end user has been responsible for providing the hardware and the means for modifying the software itself. The assumption that Tivo is obligated to make their hardware suitable for that is the mistake of those who made it.
If only the Tivo complainers would realize that's exactly what Tivo did.
"I've been thinking about this, and I really can't see anything to be concerned about."
There's no need to think about it. It's not like Apple invented the touchscreen cellphone keyboard after all. It's not even substantially different than previous models.
The one thing different about the iPhone is that it *cannot* use a stylus and that means your big, fat finger is covering up those little, fake chicklet keys. So much for your eyesight providing all that glorious tactile feedback substitute you've been "thinking" about.
"I can't think of many, if any, that do, and that doesn't seem to have hindered them."
Of course, all of those have key differences too.
"How often do you actually use a phone without looking at it?"
Frequently.
"Unless you've got a screen reader in there, don't you kind of have to look at it to use those features?"
Yes, I do but, unlike the iPhone, my fingers aren't covering up the screen because my keyboard is seperate.
"I'll wait until I actually see one in action to pass judgment, but I'm a lot more skeptical of the "no tactile feedback" argument than I used to be..."
Of course you will. The speculated advantages you can pass judgement on now; the speculated disadvantages you should wait to pass judgement on. That's what it means to be open-minded regarding Apple, right?
Unless you plan to find your contacts exclusively through scrolling, you're still in need of a keypad. Too bad the iPhone's one sucks balls.
Apple can pretend that the user doesn't actually need to enter data all they want. Watching their demos you'd think that all you do on a cellphone is browse preloaded content. That and dance in multicolored silhouette, of course.
"I think you're underestimating the UI mechanisms used to use the device."
.... hold on. I need to go write a business plan."
No, we're not.
"If you look at the demo of the Google map, you'll see what I'm talking about. It makes dialing easy. No current phone does this right now. None."
Of course they do. Handmark Pocket Express has existed for years and Google maps runs on cell phones already. If you're going to be ignorant, try not to be so arrogant about it.
Of course, none of that matters because you don't usually place calls be searching through maps. Ordinarily you use the keypad or the contacts database and Apple hasn't improved that at all.
"About the only way this could get easier is if they start scanning your voice mail for phone numbers to associate with the visual voice mail
You do that, fanboy.
Sorry, no GPS in the iPhone.
Love that "seafood" keyboard demo. That's as easy as they could make it look?
There was no loophole. Tivo released all its code under the terms of the GPL.
The GPL has always been about code being free. Tivo code is free. When the "I want your stuff" fanatics realized they couldn't modify the Tivo product (though there was never a suggestion that they could) they were furious. Stallman realized that his vision of free code wasn't enough, it needed to be "free code only on suitable hardware". It is RMS and the FSF that has changed the GPL because their true motivations, it was never because of a loophole. Tivo's code IS free, its hardware platform is not.
The GPL is about the freedom of code and it always said that GPL code could be used in commercial products as long as the GPL was respected. The ramifications are unambiguous when the product is software, but when it is a mixture of software and hardware, the GPL only impacted the software portion. The reaction when this was tested exposes the true nature of RMS, the FSF, and their fanatics. The RMS GPL is not really about the freedom of code, it's about RMS's freedom to use the product of your work. It is not enough that Tivo gave away all its software modifications in compliance with the GPL, RMS believes he should dictate how Tivo makes its dedicated hardware platform as well. He doesn't just want the freedom of Tivo's code, he wants the ability to modify Tivo's product. Tivo doesn't make a computing platform and there's no reason for anyone to expect that they do. As RMS gets more militant and more restrictive in his licenses he risks his own relevance.
This bullshit claim has been debunked countlessly yet narrow-minded fanatics continue to trot it out.
Tivo does not disagree with the "fundamental goal" of the GPL, they use it and comply with it. Their compliance with the license has never been in doubt, and core developers of the code most important to Tivo have stated unambiguously that they desire their work to be used in the manner Tivo uses it. Tivo releases its code and in no way prevents its modification or integration into other products, even commercial ones that compete with Tivo. What Tivo does do is place restrictions on parts of its product not covered by the GPL.
Tivo is clearly impacted by GPLv3 since some its changes are specifically meant to do that. By placing further restrictions on its users, GPLv3 claims to enhance "freedom". The irony of it all that somehow, by preventing me from using GPL code in a manner RMS doesn't like, my freedoms are enhanced.
Tivo is not restricted in using any of its existing codebase, and the portion of "GNU/Linux" that Tivo cares about is the "Linux" part, not the "GNU" part. The linux code is mostly likely remaining v2 anyway and, if not, then they do without it. There is never any promise in any license that developers continue to offer new contributions under an existing free license. Just what part of userland utilities does Tivo think there will be critical improvements to that the GPLv3 will prevent them from using? It's a joke, really.