Contrary to the other reply you received, yes, you can load OS 9 on it, but only in "Classic" mode... in other words, you can't boot off of OS 9 (at least I don't think so), but you can always use 9 within OSX... that part kinda sucks when you realize just how much quicker OS 9 can be (until you come to a crashing halt trying to run too many apps within OS 9 native, that is)
/dev/sda1 in/etc/fstab, plugged it into my laptop and coppied my music to it with Konqueror by sftp from my cable box.
Really... for us Mac users (and the rest of the unenlightened masses)... what the fuck does this even mean? This is easier then just plugging in to iTunes?
It sounds great and I was willing to pay more to be free of Apple's DRM, regardless of how unintrusive you might think it is.
Just uh.. FYI... there ain't no Apple DRM if you don't buy from Apple's music store.
Your other comments are opinion, thusly subject to your own needs, but you really should at least understand the complete DRM situation in regard to Apple and iTunes before spouting what sound like unknowledgeable drivel.
Then perhaps you should do the human race a favor and do yourself in. The rest of us will keep on trying to exist without your help.
What the hell type of comment is that? Wicked is a relative term (same as good, bad or ugly). Until we have something else that we can relate humans too, we're the best there is. Frankly, how do you know we're not the peace-loving hippies of the universe compared to other species of similar nature? You don't. Period.
I can hear the thought already? Gee... just look at X society of the past that was all fruit and berries with no *whatever_I_Object_To_In_The_Current_Human_Conditi on*. You know.. read further and you'll find that you'll probably find what you don't like in almost every single society known to man, just in a different name or form.
What's that? The gentle simians or dolphins live in peace and harmony. Bull. Read up on higher-intelligence (and even some lower intelligence) animals and you'll find that the higher the intelligence rating, the more likely they are to be a: competitive, and b: with that competitive spirit, start bashing others on the skull for sport or for prestige.
Or maybe you're just an idiot?
Seriously, did you really, I mean -- REALLY -- think that Real hacked music would work on your iPod forever, especially after Apple went out of their way to tell the public that they were most likely going to stop it in the real soon future when it first came out?
Don't be an ass just to make your little "anti-corporate" stance.. there's plenty of other things to poke at then this.
Just out of curiosity, why are you so adamant on managing your music all by yourself manually?
I run iTunes on a mac, not a pc, so I don't know how it organizes music on the PC, but, from my viewpoint here, you import your music into iTunes, it organizes it into folders (which are easily accessible and well named, usually by artist then album if it has that information) and off you go. Add tags, whatever. When you want to listen to something, you go into your music player (iTunes) and you look for what you want by music hierarchy, not by computer hierarchy. (genre, artist, playlist, whatever... browse mode is great for that). Instead you would rather go hunting through directories to listen to music? To me, the folder scheme provides just one (rather static) view of your music... as opposed to looking at it through the meta-data view.
I'm not ridiculing your needs here, but just don't understand why you wouldn't want to go with the computer automated method of organization (which, at least to me, seems to be what computers are here for!) If nothing else, the music's all nicely organized and put into folders for you, ready to be accessed from outside iTunes just as easily as if you had set up your own structure.
Seriously, do you believe that having Ogg support's going to make a damn bit of difference to anyone? What do you think, if doing a marketing study, the percentage of people who are going to say Ogg support is a requirement (versus a nice to have, or not necessary) would be? No, before you flame me, I don't have proof either way, but let's take a long look with some common sense.
When looking at the overall market, I would suspect that outside of techie circles, Ogg doesn't have much of a following (let alone many people even knowing it exists or what it is). Frankly, how many people do you know who say they just downloaded this great MP3 off of iTunes. Who cares if it's an AAC or MP3 or Ogg or whatever? Does it play on my iPod? Can I burn it to a disc to play in my car? Yes. Format be damned then.
How many people do you think run into the problem of having to go around (for legit purposes) Apple's / Microsoft DRM scheme? Most people download a song, maybe burn it to CD, or, most likely, transfer it to their iPod (or other device, if not an iPod / iTunes user ). If there was a real problem, there would be a great call to action in the media. Look what happened to the DiVix standard set forth by Circuit City. That was a badly implemented DRM scheme that failed in the marketplace. No need for the geeks of the world to unite on that one!
There are always exceptions to the rules, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who have problems with Apple's or Window's DRM scheme, or perhaps would prefer a higher bitrate, or whatever..., but really... let's look objectively at least. Just because you have a problem with a DRM scheme (either philosophically or otherwise) or quality of the encoding through high-end earphones or whatever, doesn't mean that many people (like myself) don't enjoy and never have a problem with it. If they didn't, the iTunes / iPod combination wouldn't be so successful.
It may take awhile, but the free market does ultimately decide wether a product will sell or not, no matter how much marketing you throw behind the product. If the world wanted Ogg support, it would be there.
And what's wrong with REALbasic? Any development app is going to allow a developer to create poor code, and lord knows, as a developer, I've had my share of bugs in my applications but just because RB allows a user to produce code quicker, easier (and yes, more sloppily) doesn't necessarily mean that it always creates poor code.
These are just the ones off the top of my head... and btw, if you haven't crashed Adobe Photoshop, inDesign, Apple Mail, and other "Professionally" created applications (you know, made in those real dev environments) then you're just not using your Mac enough! Bugs happen.. it just so happens that RB allows more people to get in the game.
Dude... it's a f***ing music PLAYER, not a music recorder... all you people who whine that it doesn't do some specific recording, etc... go out and buy a device meant to record music with. It's not intentionally crippled, it's just not the main purpose of the iPod... Especially as a musician, I imagine sound quality matters to you, in which case, you'd probably be best off buying a DAT deck or something and a decent microphone.
And while I'm on my rant here... why exactly would you say it's "intentionally crippled"? You imply that the Ipod has this amazing recording capability, but some evil, twisted bastard at Apple, while twisting his mustache in a maniacal manner, decided to cripple this amazing feature because... well... you know they have to protect their sales of Apple-branded tape-recorders. How about the player is meant to play music easily... not have 50 features which 1% of the people will use while confusing the rest of the users.
get a grip you freakin' idiot....
Information may wish to be free.... but use of that information does not want to be free.
Consider the argument that software code should all be free. Why? The arguments usually stand that anyone can write code, and, for the most part, the code isn't going to be all that different, so why I should I hide my code? Simple reason. Not because the code for a particular algorithm is all that different from someone else's, or how you implemented a GUI is particularly such a huge trade secret. The real "trade secret" is how it's all assembled and implemented.
Sure, the design to a combustion engine is "open source", but I can bet the implementations of a particular engine is patented. Why? Because someone spent resources (money, time, energy) on developing a particular implementation of various "open source" information. Those resources need to come from somewhere, so, thusly the engine price reflects that research and design cost (in addition to materials), and someone from a competing company can't just swipe your hard-worked implementation for free and sell it themselves.
Applied to software, and information in general, there's no difference. The english language contains some tens of thousands of words. Everyone has access to them, however, the author who writes a best-selling book is allowed to charge (and people are willing to pay) for that book because of the implementation of those words. If anyone could just copy his implementation, resell or give it away for free, where's his incentive to write more books? Good will towards others? No. He needs to eat, and he also may want to buy a new car one day. Free information can go screw, I want to give my kids shoes to wear.
I write software for commercial use. I usually open-source various components of a piece of software. If someone wants to copy what I've done, they're still going to have to devote resources to pulling all those various "free" pieces together. Just like I did. So is my software free (in both cases)? No, absolutely not. I spent time and energy (up front, as an investment) and now I want to have that investment pay off, so that I too can eat.
As to the model of "giving software away" and charging for service and support. To me, that's just about as close to extortion as you can get. Frankly, when I evaluate software, I want software that works as close to out of the box as possible. If it needs customization, fine. But, after that, go away. I don't want a whole room of IT folk (and their salary, and their associated overheads) to maintain my equipment and software. I am more than happy to pay for a piece of software that doesn't require a legion of IT people to "support" it.
Get with the real human nature. Competition and scarcity of information, and goods and services to create wealth is a underpinning of our entire way of life back to the caves. Understand people and their attitudes and how they operate. Perhaps you would only "eat what you need" when it comes to using free goods and services, thusly not abusing the system. But, for every one of you, there are probably 5 others who won't, generally "stealing" free ideas and using them to advance themselves, regardless of licenses and what slashdot has to say. This is why copywrite and patents exist to protect the original creators of implementations and ideas. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Really, it is. And few will easily just put aside their own needs and desires just because the EULA says GPL. If there's money to be made, someone's going to take that shot.
I own a small business with 49 employees and we make commercialy avaialable, off the shelf software for account managment in a specific industry. Why oh why would I want to have someone on my payroll developing software that I'm just going to give away for free? Our software is our competitive advantage. True, we could get bug fixes, more eyes on the code, blah blah blah... but at the end of the day, if a customer of mine can go and download my software, compile it themselves, and just say screw off to me and my licensing costs, what's my motivation?
I know, someone's going to come up with... service it, charge for maintenance, support, etc. BULLSH*T! We make software that the whole point is that it's easy to administer, that my customers aren't going to need a legion of "support" IT folks, and their associated costs, and that customization is easy out of the box without spending a fortune. Again, where's my incentive to have my people giving away our source code? I pay my coders and designers a lot of money and respect to ensure that we can have the best product out there. That money doesn't come from some hippy commune called GPL. It's comes from paying customers who buy high-quality and low-support needing software from us.
From a buyer side of things, personally, I think the "write code, give it away for free, charge for support" business model is practically extortion. Our design strategy is to try and make software as easy to use, easy to administer and easy to setup as possible so that our clients don't have to spend extra time and money on training or more IT staff. Am I hearing right, that essentially the best business model for free software is to come up with applications that are confusing to use and require IT hand-holding to run and manage? If that's the case, I believe there's a lot of bad coders out there who don't really spend the time to make excellent applications.
Just because the app runs and does it's job doesn't mean it's finished and ready to go. Finish it, polish it up, make it good looking and easy to use, with clear documentation. That's the hardest part of writing software, and frankly, I won't purchase ( or use, or sell ) software that doesn't have that last crucial 10% done (which pretty much cuts out about 90% of the free stuff I've seen and played with). I'll pay for the 10%, because it enables myself and my staff to operate more efficiently, effectively and ultimately for less costs, and makes the actual cost of the software irrelevant.
Free software may work for large businesses in the server room, but frankly, for the small business person trying to make a living, the last thing I'm doing is giving away our blood sweat and tears!
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to the other reply you received, yes, you can load OS 9 on it, but only in "Classic" mode... in other words, you can't boot off of OS 9 (at least I don't think so), but you can always use 9 within OSX... that part kinda sucks when you realize just how much quicker OS 9 can be (until you come to a crashing halt trying to run too many apps within OS 9 native, that is)
Really... for us Mac users (and the rest of the unenlightened masses)... what the fuck does this even mean? This is easier then just plugging in to iTunes?
It sounds great and I was willing to pay more to be free of Apple's DRM, regardless of how unintrusive you might think it is. Just uh.. FYI... there ain't no Apple DRM if you don't buy from Apple's music store.
Your other comments are opinion, thusly subject to your own needs, but you really should at least understand the complete DRM situation in regard to Apple and iTunes before spouting what sound like unknowledgeable drivel.
What the hell type of comment is that? Wicked is a relative term (same as good, bad or ugly). Until we have something else that we can relate humans too, we're the best there is. Frankly, how do you know we're not the peace-loving hippies of the universe compared to other species of similar nature ? You don't. Period.
I can hear the thought already? Gee... just look at X society of the past that was all fruit and berries with no *whatever_I_Object_To_In_The_Current_Human_Conditi on*. You know.. read further and you'll find that you'll probably find what you don't like in almost every single society known to man, just in a different name or form.
What's that? The gentle simians or dolphins live in peace and harmony. Bull. Read up on higher-intelligence (and even some lower intelligence) animals and you'll find that the higher the intelligence rating, the more likely they are to be a: competitive, and b: with that competitive spirit, start bashing others on the skull for sport or for prestige.
Or maybe you're just an idiot? Seriously, did you really, I mean -- REALLY -- think that Real hacked music would work on your iPod forever, especially after Apple went out of their way to tell the public that they were most likely going to stop it in the real soon future when it first came out? Don't be an ass just to make your little "anti-corporate" stance.. there's plenty of other things to poke at then this.
I run iTunes on a mac, not a pc, so I don't know how it organizes music on the PC, but, from my viewpoint here, you import your music into iTunes, it organizes it into folders (which are easily accessible and well named, usually by artist then album if it has that information) and off you go. Add tags, whatever. When you want to listen to something, you go into your music player (iTunes) and you look for what you want by music hierarchy, not by computer hierarchy. (genre, artist, playlist, whatever... browse mode is great for that). Instead you would rather go hunting through directories to listen to music? To me, the folder scheme provides just one (rather static) view of your music... as opposed to looking at it through the meta-data view.
I'm not ridiculing your needs here, but just don't understand why you wouldn't want to go with the computer automated method of organization (which, at least to me, seems to be what computers are here for!) If nothing else, the music's all nicely organized and put into folders for you, ready to be accessed from outside iTunes just as easily as if you had set up your own structure.
When looking at the overall market, I would suspect that outside of techie circles, Ogg doesn't have much of a following (let alone many people even knowing it exists or what it is). Frankly, how many people do you know who say they just downloaded this great MP3 off of iTunes. Who cares if it's an AAC or MP3 or Ogg or whatever? Does it play on my iPod? Can I burn it to a disc to play in my car? Yes. Format be damned then.
How many people do you think run into the problem of having to go around (for legit purposes) Apple's / Microsoft DRM scheme? Most people download a song, maybe burn it to CD, or, most likely, transfer it to their iPod (or other device, if not an iPod / iTunes user ). If there was a real problem, there would be a great call to action in the media. Look what happened to the DiVix standard set forth by Circuit City. That was a badly implemented DRM scheme that failed in the marketplace. No need for the geeks of the world to unite on that one!
There are always exceptions to the rules, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who have problems with Apple's or Window's DRM scheme, or perhaps would prefer a higher bitrate, or whatever..., but really... let's look objectively at least. Just because you have a problem with a DRM scheme (either philosophically or otherwise) or quality of the encoding through high-end earphones or whatever, doesn't mean that many people (like myself) don't enjoy and never have a problem with it. If they didn't, the iTunes / iPod combination wouldn't be so successful.
It may take awhile, but the free market does ultimately decide wether a product will sell or not, no matter how much marketing you throw behind the product. If the world wanted Ogg support, it would be there.
Dude, seriously... lighten up. You'll live longer and not be such a bore.
Look at the top business apps on Apple.com's own download sections...
Task Time 3.0
Redlien Account Executive
Studiometery
These are just the ones off the top of my head... and btw, if you haven't crashed Adobe Photoshop, inDesign, Apple Mail, and other "Professionally" created applications (you know, made in those real dev environments) then you're just not using your Mac enough! Bugs happen.. it just so happens that RB allows more people to get in the game.
Dude... it's a f***ing music PLAYER, not a music recorder... all you people who whine that it doesn't do some specific recording, etc... go out and buy a device meant to record music with. It's not intentionally crippled, it's just not the main purpose of the iPod... Especially as a musician, I imagine sound quality matters to you, in which case, you'd probably be best off buying a DAT deck or something and a decent microphone. And while I'm on my rant here... why exactly would you say it's "intentionally crippled"? You imply that the Ipod has this amazing recording capability, but some evil, twisted bastard at Apple, while twisting his mustache in a maniacal manner, decided to cripple this amazing feature because... well... you know they have to protect their sales of Apple-branded tape-recorders. How about the player is meant to play music easily... not have 50 features which 1% of the people will use while confusing the rest of the users. get a grip you freakin' idiot....
Information may wish to be free.... but use of that information does not want to be free.
Consider the argument that software code should all be free. Why? The arguments usually stand that anyone can write code, and, for the most part, the code isn't going to be all that different, so why I should I hide my code? Simple reason. Not because the code for a particular algorithm is all that different from someone else's, or how you implemented a GUI is particularly such a huge trade secret. The real "trade secret" is how it's all assembled and implemented.
Sure, the design to a combustion engine is "open source", but I can bet the implementations of a particular engine is patented. Why? Because someone spent resources (money, time, energy) on developing a particular implementation of various "open source" information. Those resources need to come from somewhere, so, thusly the engine price reflects that research and design cost (in addition to materials), and someone from a competing company can't just swipe your hard-worked implementation for free and sell it themselves.
Applied to software, and information in general, there's no difference. The english language contains some tens of thousands of words. Everyone has access to them, however, the author who writes a best-selling book is allowed to charge (and people are willing to pay) for that book because of the implementation of those words. If anyone could just copy his implementation, resell or give it away for free, where's his incentive to write more books? Good will towards others? No. He needs to eat, and he also may want to buy a new car one day. Free information can go screw, I want to give my kids shoes to wear.
I write software for commercial use. I usually open-source various components of a piece of software. If someone wants to copy what I've done, they're still going to have to devote resources to pulling all those various "free" pieces together. Just like I did. So is my software free (in both cases)? No, absolutely not. I spent time and energy (up front, as an investment) and now I want to have that investment pay off, so that I too can eat.
As to the model of "giving software away" and charging for service and support. To me, that's just about as close to extortion as you can get. Frankly, when I evaluate software, I want software that works as close to out of the box as possible. If it needs customization, fine. But, after that, go away. I don't want a whole room of IT folk (and their salary, and their associated overheads) to maintain my equipment and software. I am more than happy to pay for a piece of software that doesn't require a legion of IT people to "support" it.
Get with the real human nature. Competition and scarcity of information, and goods and services to create wealth is a underpinning of our entire way of life back to the caves. Understand people and their attitudes and how they operate. Perhaps you would only "eat what you need" when it comes to using free goods and services, thusly not abusing the system. But, for every one of you, there are probably 5 others who won't, generally "stealing" free ideas and using them to advance themselves, regardless of licenses and what slashdot has to say. This is why copywrite and patents exist to protect the original creators of implementations and ideas. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Really, it is. And few will easily just put aside their own needs and desires just because the EULA says GPL. If there's money to be made, someone's going to take that shot.
I own a small business with 49 employees and we make commercialy avaialable, off the shelf software for account managment in a specific industry. Why oh why would I want to have someone on my payroll developing software that I'm just going to give away for free? Our software is our competitive advantage. True, we could get bug fixes, more eyes on the code, blah blah blah... but at the end of the day, if a customer of mine can go and download my software, compile it themselves, and just say screw off to me and my licensing costs, what's my motivation?
I know, someone's going to come up with... service it, charge for maintenance, support, etc. BULLSH*T! We make software that the whole point is that it's easy to administer, that my customers aren't going to need a legion of "support" IT folks, and their associated costs, and that customization is easy out of the box without spending a fortune. Again, where's my incentive to have my people giving away our source code? I pay my coders and designers a lot of money and respect to ensure that we can have the best product out there. That money doesn't come from some hippy commune called GPL. It's comes from paying customers who buy high-quality and low-support needing software from us.
From a buyer side of things, personally, I think the "write code, give it away for free, charge for support" business model is practically extortion. Our design strategy is to try and make software as easy to use, easy to administer and easy to setup as possible so that our clients don't have to spend extra time and money on training or more IT staff. Am I hearing right, that essentially the best business model for free software is to come up with applications that are confusing to use and require IT hand-holding to run and manage? If that's the case, I believe there's a lot of bad coders out there who don't really spend the time to make excellent applications.
Just because the app runs and does it's job doesn't mean it's finished and ready to go. Finish it, polish it up, make it good looking and easy to use, with clear documentation. That's the hardest part of writing software, and frankly, I won't purchase ( or use, or sell ) software that doesn't have that last crucial 10% done (which pretty much cuts out about 90% of the free stuff I've seen and played with). I'll pay for the 10%, because it enables myself and my staff to operate more efficiently, effectively and ultimately for less costs, and makes the actual cost of the software irrelevant.
Free software may work for large businesses in the server room, but frankly, for the small business person trying to make a living, the last thing I'm doing is giving away our blood sweat and tears!
It's those bastard photino birds going at it again...