I'm not aware of any DRM'ed content being distributed on "enhanced CD"'s for sale at a local store, but since you say it is "actually fairly common" what are some examples? Are you saying that none of these common enhanced CD's have any kind of license associated with them? Some kind of "break the seal" or "click through" requirement?
I know DRMed content is available via download but those services impose terms. I'm eager to head down to the local store and find some of this on an unmarked CD.
"All the copyright holder "owns" is the privilage of making copies. The user is the legitimate owner of the individual copy!"
Irrelevant.
"Have you ever re-sold a CD, book, VHS tape, etc.? Yes? Then either you already agree with me, or you believe you've broken the law!"
The DRM is part of the container but is associated with the copyrighted content.
"The "proper functioning of the media" is defined by Fair Use. DRM prevents it."
It is *partly* defined by Fair Use, and yes, DRM prevents it.
"You're right: you're free to hold any opinion you want, even if everyone else realizes it's a stupid one."...and I suppose your opinion defines what "everyone else" thinks?
"Yep, and they're equally wrong!"
Good, I can ignore the GPL from now on.
"Maybe you do, but I don't."
Right, every piece of software you use is in the public domain. Perhaps you meant that you can't read.
Yes, but that's not "every file" on the device. In fact, it's not even a file on the device; it's a file sent to another device. DRM is applied to files WHEN they are shared with friends but not to the orginal that remains on your player (nor to the original source that was used to download that file to your player).
As I said in that original thread, if you don't like the DRM applied to that file then wait three days and it will be gone.
I certainly agree that 512(a) doesn't apply. After all, I was trying specifically to differentiate ISPs and YouTube in response to the original question. You comment changed the subject (for me) to why YouTube might qualify anyway.
Regarding "derivative works" that was simply careless language on my part. I didn't mean it in the legal sense that the phrase carries. What I meant was that the data was not bit-identical which 512(a) required. It is moot anyway since 512(a) we both agree doesn't work for YouTube. That was the extent of my original argument.
It is true that ISPs frequently provide storage in addition to an internet connection. The difference IMO is that the ISP doesn't promote what its customer stores in any way. It doesn't profit from what is stored, it simply profits from offering the storage service whether it is used or not. YouTube can only profit from what is stored since it doesn't charge subscription fees for the storage itself.
YouTube's slogan is "Broadcast Yourself". The question is whether YouTube is "a partner" in that effort or that they are simply offering a tool. I have noticed recently that MySpace's similar video-hosting service overlays the myspace logo on top of the uploaded content. It would be interesting to see the opinion on whether that has any impact on liability. I haven't read any user agreements for YouTube or MySpace so I don't know how that might impact things either.
IANAL so it is not for me to judge, but I see distinct differences between what an ISP does and what YouTube does. That doesn't mean that YouTube doesn't qualify and there's no doubt that they must believe that they do. I hope so.
"It is software that the user never desired that interferes with the proper functioning of the media."
The "proper functioning of the media" is defined by the terms you accepted when you paid. DRM ensures it.
"I don't think you can blame people for considering it an infection."
Oh yes I can. It is in no way an infection other than the fact that I don't want it.
Copy protection schemes and enforced licensing for software are no different yet we see and accept those all the time. People also bypass them, yet we don't hear a license check being referred to as "an infection".
Nope. The claim was "It silently infects every file on the device with DRM." That is not true and the article you linked to made no such claim. Sorry, but you've bought into the hysteria.
It does not. It wraps files on the player with DRM when sending them to other plays for a time limited demo. It does not impose DRM on the music you already have.
Even if it did, doing so would only mean that music on the player could only be used on the player. That would be no different that an iPod since you can't upload iPod music into iTunes. Sure, you can use 3rd party software but then you could also use 3rd party software to remove the DRM (which doesn't actually exist).
Wordstar existed before TeX. It first version was available around the time Knuth began his work. TeX, furthermore, is not in any way a word processor or text editor. TeX itself is a batch program, that is unless you like to use it in interactive mode (which would make it the most hostile word processor of all time).
It is probably true that it's not a "derivative work" but I used that term in response to the requirement "...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"...". Clearly YouTube doesn't meet that requirement so that question of whether it's a derivative work is moot. Furthermore, someone else pointed out that they believed that definition didn't apply in any case and I agree. Instead, they argued that YouTube was a storage service and I disagreed. Curiously, I attempted to explain how YouTube is different from an ISP and others are more than happy to argue yet none will take a position and back it up with a coherent explanation.
jitter is clocking inaccuracy in the DAC and was once a problem because the DACs were self-clocked by the data stream. What you are suggesting is impossible as there isno such thing as jitter in a strictly digital system. Once the data appears at the DAC any DRM is long gone.
"We're talking about the data here, not the disk."
Who says? I didn't find anything in this thread that says that.
To use the car analogy, the data installed on your computer is like the ride you get in the counterfeit car. The fake car still gets you to the store but that doesn't mean it's not fake.
What is counterfeited is the Windows distribution and that is physical media, not just the bits.
"All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft."
No, they aren't. Driving a counterfeit BMW doesn't mean the ride you got came from BMW.
"And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
A counterfeit Windows disc is not genuine. That fact that it can be used to produce a Windows installation that is identical to the real thing doesn't make it genuine.
"Take the example of stolen money plates, paper, and inks for $100 bills. If I steal those and print them up in my basement, do you really think a proper forensic setup wouldn't be able to tell that one set of bills was printed legitimately at the Mint, and another set was printed somewhere else? The exact molecular content of the atmosphere, the humidity levels, even the amount of light the bills are exposed to during printing... The density banding in the ink would be different if it dried at different rates in slightly warmer or more humid air, etc. Obviously a clerk at the supermarket isn't going to be able to tell, but the information exists and can be detected."
I think you're wrong on that, but assuming you are right, a similar argument could be made for the physical media used for the distribution. Yes, it may be an identical bit copy but the physical pressing and the media itself might be distiguishable (and in fact it's more likely than your example of the stolen plates).
The copied Picasso may have used identical sources for canvas and paint as well but that oesn't make it a Picasso. The ingredients aren't what makes it so.
If Picasso made a copy of one og his paintings then it would be a Picasso whether the copy was exact or not.
"They shouldn't have to; rather, they should just go back to releasing specifications to their customers like they used to."
That would be supporting GPLed software now, wouldn't it? These companies don't release specs because they don't want to document their designs for their competitors. It's universal in that particular business.
"You've made an attempt to totally dodge my question."
No I didn't. I just pointed out that what you request is offered all the time and a quick search will show that. I have no interest in taking up that argument myself but others are and you suggest they don't exist.
"That does nothing to address my point, which is that forks of this nature are bad."
Except that it is your opinion and it is not shared by some notable others (specifically the BSD team). You are holding them up as an example of why it's bad when they fundamentally disagree with you. The BSD teams are doing exactly what they want and their work is getting used in the manner that pleases them. You say it's bad but they are perfectly happy with it. OS X is an example of goodness in their mind, just not in yours.
"Nice try twisting my words."
Your words are twisted to begin with. When open source code is used in a new project, whether is taken in part or forked in its entirety, it is being used in the spirit of which it is offered. As a developer of GPLed or BSDed software, you are specifically offering your work for free and encouraging others to use it and that includes forking. If someone doesn't want their code to be forked, they shouldn't release it under an open source license. Forking is an inherent part of the process and sometimes natural selection hurts some developers.
My comments stand on their own merit. People like you suggest that code is taken and that somehow harms it, but code that is reused is still available under its original license. That's true for BSD and for GPL and that's why the GPL's claim that it alone ensures code freedom is a lie. All open source licenses, including BSD, ensure freedom for the code they license. I chose to address your comment because your language ("run off with the code") is specifically the kind of statement that perpetuates that myth. As far as developers being taken, they wouldn't be if their current work is of sufficient interest to them. That's also part of the process.
"...Mr. Hannum, a NetBSD founder, said that did damage to NetBSD."
Yes, forking damages projects from time to time. Some of those damaged projects are GPLed ones and the GPL itself does nothing to discourage forking or the taking of developers for new projects.
"The GPL creates a level playing field where no one party's contributions can be used unfairly against them."
That's just nonsense. BSD code isn't used unfairly against the BSD community. BSD *wants* its code to be used and they don't care if the usage is commercial or not. Just because one contributor now has regrets doesn't mean that the entire BSD community has had a change of heart.
"Why do you think that Linux, and GPL code in general, has such a huge level of corporate support, while BSD has virtually none?"
Momentum. Had Linux not existed then BSD may well have that kind of support, and if BSD hadn't been engaged in lawsuits at one time Linux may well not exist today. I'm pretty sure that Linus wouldn't attribute the success of Linux to the GPL as you do. Linux is not a GPL zealot.
"This is exactly what I mean about BSD zealots buring their heads in the sand. Wake up, it's 2006! Linux is faster, more portable and has more features than any BSD. Linux runs on everything from cell phones to supercomputers. Pretending that this is not true is asinine."
You said Linux was technically superior and I took issue with that. First off I'm not a BSD zealot; you just assume so because I disagree with you. I do not run BSD because I have no need but I do run Linux when it suits my work. Second, I am an embedded systems
"...they are largely at the whims of the moron companies that haven't gotten around to pulling their heads out of their asses yet."
Curious that you blame that hardware companies and not X. Why should hardware companies feel obligated to support GPLed software?
"If you believe that UNIX with X-Windows on top of it is not suitable for the average user, you should provide some facts to back up that opinion. Because as every day passes, I've seen all the arguments get displaced by proof of concept and running code."
Documentation of that opinion appears regularly and it take far more than "proof of concept" to make a platform "suitable for the average user".
"Finally, what Apple did with OS X indicates just what is wrong with the BSD license."
Acutally it proves what's right with it. Apple used BSD code precisely in the manner that BSD people would like.
"...which is exactly what the Wine project did after Transgaming and others ran off with their code and developers."
They didn't run off with the code. The WINE project still had the code afterward. As for the developers, perhaps the WINE project wasn't appealing enough to hold on to its team.
"The BSD license's shortcomings in this area mean that BSD will continue to go nowhere fast."
There are multiple BSD projects and they are going how they want them to be.
"When all of this engineering talent and financial power gets pooled into one project, that one project goes a long ways."
Sure, but that's not atributable to the GPL.
"...tossing its technical superiority totally aside..."
you don't know much about linux, do you?
"The BSD project and license followers have been operating with their heads in the sand for a very long time now."
No they haven't.
"...there were still a thousand BSD fans that chose to ignore the majority of the issues he raised..."
or not agree with them.
"Given history, I don't expect this to change."
Neither do I. It doesn't need to.
"There will always be BSD users with their heads buried in the sand..."
sure, just like there will always be Linux users in a similar mindset.
you don't consider "...before Windows even knew what to do with one screen. Some say it still doesn't" flamebait? The claim was also incorrect when you consider PCs are far more than Windows. Computers did multiple monitors before the mac even existed and one of those was the IBM PC. Windows is really quite irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that the original post was nothing more than an inflammatory mac fanboy troll.
I brought up color to provide a separate example of how macs were really behind their competitors from a hardware standpoint. Personally I think the Amiga represented a serious threat to the mac because it's hardware and OS were better in every way. Too bad it was mismanaged and unstable. When it came out I expected that mac to be put under.
Regarding color on the Amiga, I don't agree that it was better than the PC. The PC at the time had 640x350 16 color EGA graphics (ignoring the expensive PGC adapter) and EGA clones did even higher resolutions when used with multisync monitors that came out around that time. The Amiga was 640x200 32 color and output NTSC composite. Any computer that intends to use an NTSC television as a monitor isn't high resolution in my book. The trouble with the Amiga was that it was horribly unstable and without stability it couldn't do anything better than the PC (or the mac).
"As far as the HTPC goes, the mac mini is certainly suitable in all way except software."
I've never really liked the mini because it could be slightly larger and support a more appropriate hard drive. Any HTPC will be seriously constrained by the limited capacity of one 2.5" hard drive. The standard response is always to use network storage but that's a complication that many home users won't understand. An external drive is an option (and one I had to add to my mini) but requiring such a thing is simply evidence that the mini isn't well suited to the task. My mini wasn't even capable of holding my music collection without added storage.
I'd love to see the mini replaced with a model 50% larger and supporting 3.5" disks and better expandability. I don't think the extra size would deter any existing customers and it would make the box much more capable. The mini, like many apple products, is about style over substance and using it as an HTPC requires too many apologies.
"We'll never see an Apple DVR (how would tey sell iTunes content?), but I'm doubtful that even MCE or MythTV, which are very good, will ever be more than niche products. Once again, just my speculation."...and I agree with that.
I'm sure that's what he meant. I'm confident he was simply offering an objective, unbiased, noninflammatory perspective on the relative histories of the two platforms. Here's what he said:
"Don't forget that Macs were supporting dual display setups (and triple, etc.) before Windows even knew what to do with one screen. Some say it still doesn't."
Lord knows I wouldn't want to forget that. It's so easy to forget that Windows doesn't know how to use one screen yet.;-)
Windows 1.0 was irrelevant to the PC platform at the time. PCs supported dual monitor configs whether Win1.0 did or not.
If you'd like another interesting discussion on PC graphics capability, which platform offered color graphics and high resolution first? What did Steve Jobs once say about the usefulness of color graphics back when Macs were all monochrome? When did macs get their first color graphics? 86 or 87? Haha. In contrast, IBM instroduced the EGA and PGC in 1984 and the VGA and 8514 in 1987.
It's a shame with the mac's multimonitor prowess at the time that its hardware graphics capabilities were so behind the PC platform. If I were stuck with such crappy hardware resolution like the mac was I might believe in Fitt's "Law" too.
Never said that it was. The claim was that Macs had multimonitor support before PCs (actually before PCs even had one) and I pointed out the indisputable fact that it was not true. PCs offered multimonitor support from the very beginning. If you now want to change the claim to require a GUI that spans multiple monitors, then I would say you are a typical mac fanboy. Apple didn't pioneer mutliple monitor configs and neither did PCs. Between the two, PCs did it first.
"The trick, of course, was finding ISA graphics cards that could be re-strapped to stay off each other's I/O ports and memory mappings, and drivers that could be set up to attach to the appropriate card."
Yes, in the days of ISA EGA and VGA cards that was true. The original IBM MDC and CGA cards coexisted without modification and the MDC/Hercules card could coexist with an EGA or VGA without modification as well. Such configs were useful prior to Windows even existing.
When a user uploads a video to YouTube, what gets stored on the YouTube site is not what the user uploaded. Instead, a new video is created using the user's video as input. The user cannot download what he originally uploaded so YouTube is not internet file storage. YouTube is a content publishing site.
I think MCE is pretty miserable, frankly. The problem is that Windows MCE is the only platform that you KNOW will play all video content. If that isn't important to you, then other platforms may be viable.
Regardless of the "10 foot interface", my guests want to browse, run P2P software and run iTunes. Because of that, no 10 foot interface (MCE, MythTV, FrontRow) will work and you will have to switch out. I'm not a huge fan of iTunes but everyone knows it and that's what they're comfortable with. A Mac might be a good choice but it has no builtin Tivo functions through FrontRow and it won't play WMV protected content. That leaves MCE, sorry as it is. I dismissed MythTV as an option because it won't play protected content, it won't run iTunes natively, and it won't be familiar to many of my guests. I considered using mini's but the hard drive and WMV issues are a killer for me.
"My Movies" is a plugin that offers DVD ripping (that I don't use), a small database and a tool for using IMDB and similar services. It works great for managing a reasonable DVD collection. Don't know how well it scales.
I am pleased with my LX100 case. It doesn't take a normal video card, though, due to the height. It is totally silent, well made, and looks appropriate. No one so far has figured out that it's a PC.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of any DRM'ed content being distributed on "enhanced CD"'s for sale at a local store, but since you say it is "actually fairly common" what are some examples? Are you saying that none of these common enhanced CD's have any kind of license associated with them? Some kind of "break the seal" or "click through" requirement?
I know DRMed content is available via download but those services impose terms. I'm eager to head down to the local store and find some of this on an unmarked CD.
Go cry to momma then.
"All the copyright holder "owns" is the privilage of making copies. The user is the legitimate owner of the individual copy!"
...and I suppose your opinion defines what "everyone else" thinks?
Irrelevant.
"Have you ever re-sold a CD, book, VHS tape, etc.? Yes? Then either you already agree with me, or you believe you've broken the law!"
The DRM is part of the container but is associated with the copyrighted content.
"The "proper functioning of the media" is defined by Fair Use. DRM prevents it."
It is *partly* defined by Fair Use, and yes, DRM prevents it.
"You're right: you're free to hold any opinion you want, even if everyone else realizes it's a stupid one."
"Yep, and they're equally wrong!"
Good, I can ignore the GPL from now on.
"Maybe you do, but I don't."
Right, every piece of software you use is in the public domain. Perhaps you meant that you can't read.
"You can own an MP3 just as you can own a book." ...but you don't own the content.
"That depends highly on how those terms were presented to you, and by what manner you indicated acceptance."
How so?
Yes, but that's not "every file" on the device. In fact, it's not even a file on the device; it's a file sent to another device. DRM is applied to files WHEN they are shared with friends but not to the orginal that remains on your player (nor to the original source that was used to download that file to your player).
As I said in that original thread, if you don't like the DRM applied to that file then wait three days and it will be gone.
I certainly agree that 512(a) doesn't apply. After all, I was trying specifically to differentiate ISPs and YouTube in response to the original question. You comment changed the subject (for me) to why YouTube might qualify anyway.
Regarding "derivative works" that was simply careless language on my part. I didn't mean it in the legal sense that the phrase carries. What I meant was that the data was not bit-identical which 512(a) required. It is moot anyway since 512(a) we both agree doesn't work for YouTube. That was the extent of my original argument.
It is true that ISPs frequently provide storage in addition to an internet connection. The difference IMO is that the ISP doesn't promote what its customer stores in any way. It doesn't profit from what is stored, it simply profits from offering the storage service whether it is used or not. YouTube can only profit from what is stored since it doesn't charge subscription fees for the storage itself.
YouTube's slogan is "Broadcast Yourself". The question is whether YouTube is "a partner" in that effort or that they are simply offering a tool. I have noticed recently that MySpace's similar video-hosting service overlays the myspace logo on top of the uploaded content. It would be interesting to see the opinion on whether that has any impact on liability. I haven't read any user agreements for YouTube or MySpace so I don't know how that might impact things either.
IANAL so it is not for me to judge, but I see distinct differences between what an ISP does and what YouTube does. That doesn't mean that YouTube doesn't qualify and there's no doubt that they must believe that they do. I hope so.
"It locks out the legitimate owner. I"
The legitimate owner is the copyright holder.
"It is software that the user never desired that interferes with the proper functioning of the media."
The "proper functioning of the media" is defined by the terms you accepted when you paid. DRM ensures it.
"I don't think you can blame people for considering it an infection."
Oh yes I can. It is in no way an infection other than the fact that I don't want it.
Copy protection schemes and enforced licensing for software are no different yet we see and accept those all the time. People also bypass them, yet we don't hear a license check being referred to as "an infection".
Nope. The claim was "It silently infects every file on the device with DRM." That is not true and the article you linked to made no such claim. Sorry, but you've bought into the hysteria.
It does not. It wraps files on the player with DRM when sending them to other plays for a time limited demo. It does not impose DRM on the music you already have.
Even if it did, doing so would only mean that music on the player could only be used on the player. That would be no different that an iPod since you can't upload iPod music into iTunes. Sure, you can use 3rd party software but then you could also use 3rd party software to remove the DRM (which doesn't actually exist).
Wordstar existed before TeX. It first version was available around the time Knuth began his work. TeX, furthermore, is not in any way a word processor or text editor. TeX itself is a batch program, that is unless you like to use it in interactive mode (which would make it the most hostile word processor of all time).
It is probably true that it's not a "derivative work" but I used that term in response to the requirement "...without modification to the content of the material as sent or received"...". Clearly YouTube doesn't meet that requirement so that question of whether it's a derivative work is moot. Furthermore, someone else pointed out that they believed that definition didn't apply in any case and I agree. Instead, they argued that YouTube was a storage service and I disagreed. Curiously, I attempted to explain how YouTube is different from an ISP and others are more than happy to argue yet none will take a position and back it up with a coherent explanation.
jitter is clocking inaccuracy in the DAC and was once a problem because the DACs were self-clocked by the data stream. What you are suggesting is impossible as there isno such thing as jitter in a strictly digital system. Once the data appears at the DAC any DRM is long gone.
"We're talking about the data here, not the disk."
Who says? I didn't find anything in this thread that says that.
To use the car analogy, the data installed on your computer is like the ride you get in the counterfeit car. The fake car still gets you to the store but that doesn't mean it's not fake.
What is counterfeited is the Windows distribution and that is physical media, not just the bits.
"All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft."
No, they aren't. Driving a counterfeit BMW doesn't mean the ride you got came from BMW.
"And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
A counterfeit Windows disc is not genuine. That fact that it can be used to produce a Windows installation that is identical to the real thing doesn't make it genuine.
"However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine."
The thing you hold in your hand is not copied software, it's a disc that contains it. That disc is not manufactured by microsoft so it is not genuine.
"Take the example of stolen money plates, paper, and inks for $100 bills. If I steal those and print them up in my basement, do you really think a proper forensic setup wouldn't be able to tell that one set of bills was printed legitimately at the Mint, and another set was printed somewhere else? The exact molecular content of the atmosphere, the humidity levels, even the amount of light the bills are exposed to during printing... The density banding in the ink would be different if it dried at different rates in slightly warmer or more humid air, etc. Obviously a clerk at the supermarket isn't going to be able to tell, but the information exists and can be detected."
I think you're wrong on that, but assuming you are right, a similar argument could be made for the physical media used for the distribution. Yes, it may be an identical bit copy but the physical pressing and the media itself might be distiguishable (and in fact it's more likely than your example of the stolen plates).
The copied Picasso may have used identical sources for canvas and paint as well but that oesn't make it a Picasso. The ingredients aren't what makes it so.
If Picasso made a copy of one og his paintings then it would be a Picasso whether the copy was exact or not.
You both saw a genuine movie and breathed genuine air and sat in a genuine seat while doing it. Only one of you bought a genuine ticket however.
"They shouldn't have to; rather, they should just go back to releasing specifications to their customers like they used to."
That would be supporting GPLed software now, wouldn't it? These companies don't release specs because they don't want to document their designs for their competitors. It's universal in that particular business.
"You've made an attempt to totally dodge my question."
No I didn't. I just pointed out that what you request is offered all the time and a quick search will show that. I have no interest in taking up that argument myself but others are and you suggest they don't exist.
"That does nothing to address my point, which is that forks of this nature are bad."
Except that it is your opinion and it is not shared by some notable others (specifically the BSD team). You are holding them up as an example of why it's bad when they fundamentally disagree with you. The BSD teams are doing exactly what they want and their work is getting used in the manner that pleases them. You say it's bad but they are perfectly happy with it. OS X is an example of goodness in their mind, just not in yours.
"Nice try twisting my words."
Your words are twisted to begin with. When open source code is used in a new project, whether is taken in part or forked in its entirety, it is being used in the spirit of which it is offered. As a developer of GPLed or BSDed software, you are specifically offering your work for free and encouraging others to use it and that includes forking. If someone doesn't want their code to be forked, they shouldn't release it under an open source license. Forking is an inherent part of the process and sometimes natural selection hurts some developers.
My comments stand on their own merit. People like you suggest that code is taken and that somehow harms it, but code that is reused is still available under its original license. That's true for BSD and for GPL and that's why the GPL's claim that it alone ensures code freedom is a lie. All open source licenses, including BSD, ensure freedom for the code they license. I chose to address your comment because your language ("run off with the code") is specifically the kind of statement that perpetuates that myth. As far as developers being taken, they wouldn't be if their current work is of sufficient interest to them. That's also part of the process.
"...Mr. Hannum, a NetBSD founder, said that did damage to NetBSD."
Yes, forking damages projects from time to time. Some of those damaged projects are GPLed ones and the GPL itself does nothing to discourage forking or the taking of developers for new projects.
"The GPL creates a level playing field where no one party's contributions can be used unfairly against them."
That's just nonsense. BSD code isn't used unfairly against the BSD community. BSD *wants* its code to be used and they don't care if the usage is commercial or not. Just because one contributor now has regrets doesn't mean that the entire BSD community has had a change of heart.
"Why do you think that Linux, and GPL code in general, has such a huge level of corporate support, while BSD has virtually none?"
Momentum. Had Linux not existed then BSD may well have that kind of support, and if BSD hadn't been engaged in lawsuits at one time Linux may well not exist today. I'm pretty sure that Linus wouldn't attribute the success of Linux to the GPL as you do. Linux is not a GPL zealot.
"This is exactly what I mean about BSD zealots buring their heads in the sand. Wake up, it's 2006! Linux is faster, more portable and has more features than any BSD. Linux runs on everything from cell phones to supercomputers. Pretending that this is not true is asinine."
You said Linux was technically superior and I took issue with that. First off I'm not a BSD zealot; you just assume so because I disagree with you. I do not run BSD because I have no need but I do run Linux when it suits my work. Second, I am an embedded systems
"...they are largely at the whims of the moron companies that haven't gotten around to pulling their heads out of their asses yet."
Curious that you blame that hardware companies and not X. Why should hardware companies feel obligated to support GPLed software?
"If you believe that UNIX with X-Windows on top of it is not suitable for the average user, you should provide some facts to back up that opinion. Because as every day passes, I've seen all the arguments get displaced by proof of concept and running code."
Documentation of that opinion appears regularly and it take far more than "proof of concept" to make a platform "suitable for the average user".
"Finally, what Apple did with OS X indicates just what is wrong with the BSD license."
Acutally it proves what's right with it. Apple used BSD code precisely in the manner that BSD people would like.
"...which is exactly what the Wine project did after Transgaming and others ran off with their code and developers."
They didn't run off with the code. The WINE project still had the code afterward. As for the developers, perhaps the WINE project wasn't appealing enough to hold on to its team.
"The BSD license's shortcomings in this area mean that BSD will continue to go nowhere fast."
There are multiple BSD projects and they are going how they want them to be.
"When all of this engineering talent and financial power gets pooled into one project, that one project goes a long ways."
Sure, but that's not atributable to the GPL.
"...tossing its technical superiority totally aside..."
you don't know much about linux, do you?
"The BSD project and license followers have been operating with their heads in the sand for a very long time now."
No they haven't.
"...there were still a thousand BSD fans that chose to ignore the majority of the issues he raised..."
or not agree with them.
"Given history, I don't expect this to change."
Neither do I. It doesn't need to.
"There will always be BSD users with their heads buried in the sand..."
sure, just like there will always be Linux users in a similar mindset.
you don't consider "...before Windows even knew what to do with one screen. Some say it still doesn't" flamebait? The claim was also incorrect when you consider PCs are far more than Windows. Computers did multiple monitors before the mac even existed and one of those was the IBM PC. Windows is really quite irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is that the original post was nothing more than an inflammatory mac fanboy troll.
I brought up color to provide a separate example of how macs were really behind their competitors from a hardware standpoint. Personally I think the Amiga represented a serious threat to the mac because it's hardware and OS were better in every way. Too bad it was mismanaged and unstable. When it came out I expected that mac to be put under.
Regarding color on the Amiga, I don't agree that it was better than the PC. The PC at the time had 640x350 16 color EGA graphics (ignoring the expensive PGC adapter) and EGA clones did even higher resolutions when used with multisync monitors that came out around that time. The Amiga was 640x200 32 color and output NTSC composite. Any computer that intends to use an NTSC television as a monitor isn't high resolution in my book. The trouble with the Amiga was that it was horribly unstable and without stability it couldn't do anything better than the PC (or the mac).
"As far as the HTPC goes, the mac mini is certainly suitable in all way except software."
...and I agree with that.
I've never really liked the mini because it could be slightly larger and support a more appropriate hard drive. Any HTPC will be seriously constrained by the limited capacity of one 2.5" hard drive. The standard response is always to use network storage but that's a complication that many home users won't understand. An external drive is an option (and one I had to add to my mini) but requiring such a thing is simply evidence that the mini isn't well suited to the task. My mini wasn't even capable of holding my music collection without added storage.
I'd love to see the mini replaced with a model 50% larger and supporting 3.5" disks and better expandability. I don't think the extra size would deter any existing customers and it would make the box much more capable. The mini, like many apple products, is about style over substance and using it as an HTPC requires too many apologies.
"We'll never see an Apple DVR (how would tey sell iTunes content?), but I'm doubtful that even MCE or MythTV, which are very good, will ever be more than niche products. Once again, just my speculation."
I'm sure that's what he meant. I'm confident he was simply offering an objective, unbiased, noninflammatory perspective on the relative histories of the two platforms. Here's what he said:
;-)
"Don't forget that Macs were supporting dual display setups (and triple, etc.) before Windows even knew what to do with one screen. Some say it still doesn't."
Lord knows I wouldn't want to forget that. It's so easy to forget that Windows doesn't know how to use one screen yet.
Windows 1.0 was irrelevant to the PC platform at the time. PCs supported dual monitor configs whether Win1.0 did or not.
If you'd like another interesting discussion on PC graphics capability, which platform offered color graphics and high resolution first? What did Steve Jobs once say about the usefulness of color graphics back when Macs were all monochrome? When did macs get their first color graphics? 86 or 87? Haha. In contrast, IBM instroduced the EGA and PGC in 1984 and the VGA and 8514 in 1987.
It's a shame with the mac's multimonitor prowess at the time that its hardware graphics capabilities were so behind the PC platform. If I were stuck with such crappy hardware resolution like the mac was I might believe in Fitt's "Law" too.
"Truly a seamless multi-display experience."
Never said that it was. The claim was that Macs had multimonitor support before PCs (actually before PCs even had one) and I pointed out the indisputable fact that it was not true. PCs offered multimonitor support from the very beginning. If you now want to change the claim to require a GUI that spans multiple monitors, then I would say you are a typical mac fanboy. Apple didn't pioneer mutliple monitor configs and neither did PCs. Between the two, PCs did it first.
"The trick, of course, was finding ISA graphics cards that could be re-strapped to stay off each other's I/O ports and memory mappings, and drivers that could be set up to attach to the appropriate card."
Yes, in the days of ISA EGA and VGA cards that was true. The original IBM MDC and CGA cards coexisted without modification and the MDC/Hercules card could coexist with an EGA or VGA without modification as well. Such configs were useful prior to Windows even existing.
When a user uploads a video to YouTube, what gets stored on the YouTube site is not what the user uploaded. Instead, a new video is created using the user's video as input. The user cannot download what he originally uploaded so YouTube is not internet file storage. YouTube is a content publishing site.
I think MCE is pretty miserable, frankly. The problem is that Windows MCE is the only platform that you KNOW will play all video content. If that isn't important to you, then other platforms may be viable.
Regardless of the "10 foot interface", my guests want to browse, run P2P software and run iTunes. Because of that, no 10 foot interface (MCE, MythTV, FrontRow) will work and you will have to switch out. I'm not a huge fan of iTunes but everyone knows it and that's what they're comfortable with. A Mac might be a good choice but it has no builtin Tivo functions through FrontRow and it won't play WMV protected content. That leaves MCE, sorry as it is. I dismissed MythTV as an option because it won't play protected content, it won't run iTunes natively, and it won't be familiar to many of my guests. I considered using mini's but the hard drive and WMV issues are a killer for me.
"My Movies" is a plugin that offers DVD ripping (that I don't use), a small database and a tool for using IMDB and similar services. It works great for managing a reasonable DVD collection. Don't know how well it scales.
I am pleased with my LX100 case. It doesn't take a normal video card, though, due to the height. It is totally silent, well made, and looks appropriate. No one so far has figured out that it's a PC.