Wow. This patent is something. They bascially outline a restrictive collection of elements to the patent (like a seperate media player, like a "player piano"), "automatic" control of the media player device, a computer controlled UI, and a database system used to filter results much the way a standard MP3/WMA/gg directory structure would look (I think filesystems count as databases). Then, they bust out with language like:
One skilled in the art will recognize that it is not essential to have the computer system separate from the media playing device. It is conceivable to have the computer system physically incorporated in part or in whole into the media playing device.
It is noted that the embodiment of the invention discusses the use of a standard known computer, where in fact all components of the computer can be replaced with any new advancing technologies, like holographics or voice activated systems and still not depart from the intent of the invention of allowing easier user access to the underlying media data base information.
The preferred embodiment of the invention discusses the control of only a single media playing device, like a player piano. However, one skilled in the art would easily understand how to simultaneously control several media playing devices with the same control system in view of this disclosure. For example, the coordination of the control of a player piano along with a music video is contemplated.
Although this embodiment focuses upon the application of the software to control a player piano or video player, one skilled in the art will realize that this software interface could be used on any media playing device where a user needs to select what media item is to be played from a vast media data base. For example, it is contemplated to operate an electric guitar, a computer controlled multimedia system, a pipe organ, a television, a movie video player, or a computer screen.
Wow. So the player doesn't even have to be outside of the computer. So, iTunes, Zinf (Freeamp), Winamp, Windows Media Player, XMMS, Amarok, RhythmBox, GStreamer, well, just about every media player infringes. Even the holographic, voice-activated system that controls 73 copies of Winamp over the net infringes. Heck, if I use an interface to control playback of something on my computer screen, it infringes (assuming a filesystem counts as a database, which it should). I'm sure several million software writers would be interested to know about this.
After reading the whole patent, I'm not really sure what, exactly, if anything, they are patenting. I know it has to do with media, and playback, and maybe something about automatic, but beyond that, I'm lost. Is it on a computer? How about an iPod? Does a stereo count? Is it over the internet? Are the interface and the player seperate, or not? What is a player? Is it a screen, a TV, a Playstation, a pair of speakers, or none (or all) of those?
I though patents were for implementations, not abstract, all-encompassing ideas...
In other news, 5 year-old Sally Jones was sued by Steven Olson of St. Paul, MN, after being observed in her backyard swinging in a way such that she infringed on his patent. He is claiming damages of over $1 million.
iTunes doesn't control the iPod either, it just transfers the media to it.
But you've got me on one thing. I just visited iTunes.com (I don't actually own an iPod, they don't play Ogg), and noticed that iTunes software CAN control an external player:
Stream Music Wirelessly to Your Home Stereo. With iTunes and an AirPort Express Base Station, you can stream music wirelessly from your Mac or PC to your home stereo or powered speakers.
This might be a problem...I don't think anyone could argue the iPod infringes. Unless there is some feature I don't know about, you don't control the playing of media on the iPod from the computer. The controls for the iPod are on the iPod...part of the patent is that the computer interface controls the seperate media player.
I'm posting a bit late, but I read the entire patent. I'm not getting this - it seems like a stretch. They basically focus on the idea of a computer interface controlling a seperate "media player" type device, insofar as that involves making the device play certain music (or media) while being controlled from the computer. In the summary section, they say:
It is a feature of the invention to provide a computer user interface. The interface is for providing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accesses or selected piece of media.
It is another feature of the invention to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music categories.
A further feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display music selections that are related only to a selected composer, like Duke Ellington or Gershwin. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music composer.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected artist, like Dave Contois, or your own personal recordings. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music artist.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected song or music piece, like Alexander's Rag Time Band or Andante & Rondo Capriciosso, Op. 14. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music piece.
A feature of the invention is also to provide a computer system that can access others media recording data bases from other sources like internet or world wide web.
It goes on and on like this. But this is the kicker:
The invention resides not in any one of these features per se, but rather in the particular combination of all of them herein disclosed and claimed and it is distinguished from the prior art in this particular combination of all of its structures for the functions specified.
(Emphasis mine)
Now, that annoys me, because they basically admit that there is tons of prior art for this stuff, and what makes their patent special is that it combines it all. Which would be fine, for example in the case of a "player piano" as they describe. But the iPod/iTunes system hardly describes a computer controlling a media player device to playback media. I would argue the controls for the iPod are , on the iPod itself. All iTunes does it supply music for download and transfer those songs, which are not then played automatically as they so many times describe, but rather are played when selected, and only after the player is disconnected from the computer, i.e. not controlled by the computer.
The ITMS certainly uses their method of selecting media (just like every other media player on the planet), but does not do so to select which songs to automatically play on an attached media device - merely to decide which songs to buy, or in the case of the iTunes software, which songs to transfer. Buying, transferring and playing are different. The patent is for playing.
Personally, I think software patents are ridiculous, but if they want to sue for infringement, it better at least be a match. They only mention the internet (or a remote database) tangentially in their patent, and don't even provide an example. I'm say Apple can take them to court and win.
Who is Dooku in league with? Who is this General Grevious guy, anyway? Why does the Trade Fedreation even WANT to kidnap the Senator?
All of it matters...it's part of the plot. If all you want to get out of the movie is "Yeah, this good guy killed this bad guy over here because he kinapped this other good guy, who we only think is good but is actually bad" then fine...you're right. It doesn't matter. But if you want something more out of it...a story, a plot, well, then yeah, I'd kind of like to know why the Trade Federation has both Dooku and Grevious on board, and what the relationship is there. But I can't even ASK that question unless I know that the Trade Federation owns the ship. And I won't be as surprised when Palpatine tells Vader to kill the heads of the Trade Federation later, who are supposed to be his allies (or at least they thought so).
Holy insightful post! I never thought of it before, but you're right...
This mechanic was at work in Spirited Away - totally weird, but as you begin to accept the premise, you become involved in the story. If they keep trying to justify the premise, then the story fades to the background.
Well, "eventually" hasn't rolled around yet. In the long run, Linux won't destroy MS, but it might destroy Windows. Think in terms of 30 years - a lot can happen in 30 years. =)
Let's be perfectly honest: Windows needs a rewrite. Until MS rewrites Windows so every user doesn't have to run anti-spyware and anti-virus on every machine to patch up holes in security, Unix and it's kin will gain market share. "Destroy" might be a string term, but MS isn't immune to free market forces.
Well, now that OS X is coming to x86, I don't see a reason something like Crossover Office couldn't be written for OS X, which would allow Windows copies of Office to run on Macs. Not much MS can do about that.
Indeed. But that is beside my point, which was Free Software has not failed or even lost ground, it is gaining ground. For comapnies to even begin to understand free software, they must first understand open source software.
It bears noting that RMS has no problem with selling software, either. So your second statement is correct: he objects to closed source companies, but not to companies that make profit from software in some way (Red Hat, Cygnus before aquisition, etc.)
Actually, his ideology is all about Free Software. I don't need to do any research, I'm a big fan of RMS's ideas, and have been for years. Sure, he's inflexible on some points - I don't have to love the man to respect his ideas.
Speaking of research, the Wikipedia entry on RMS says:
For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman single-handedly duplicated the efforts of the Symbolics programmers to prevent them from gaining a monopoly on the Lab's computers. By that time, however, he was the last of his generation of hackers at the Lab. He was asked to sign non-disclosure agreements and perform other actions he considered betrayals of his principles, but chose instead to share his work with others in what he regarded as a classical spirit of scientific collaboration and openness.
Stallman argues that software users should have freedom -- in particular, the freedom to "share with their neighbor" and to be able to study and make changes to the software that they use. He has repeatedly said that attempts by proprietary software vendors to prohibit these acts are "antisocial" and "unethical". The phrase "software wants to be free" is commonly attributed to him; however, no evidence can be found to confirm this. He argues that the primary goal of freedom is to benefit users and society rather than to improve software. Consequently, in January 1984, he quit his job at MIT to work full time on the GNU project, which he had announced in September 1983. He did not complete a Ph.D. but has been awarded four honorary doctoral degrees (see below).
In 1985, Stallman published the GNU Manifesto, which outlined his motivation for creating a free operating system called GNU, which would be compatible with Unix. The name GNU is a recursive acronym for GNU's Not Unix. Soon after, he incorporated the non-profit Free Software Foundation (FSF) to employ free software programmers and provide a legal infrastructure for the free software community.
So, I'm still not understanding the part where RMS's ideology isn't about Free Software. It has everything to do with Free Software.
Oh, and if you want to see a new meaning for the term "inflexible", try reading a Miscrosft or Blizaard EULA sometime - then you can understand the type of thing RMS saw coming, and worked to avoid. Which he did - which again makes me wonder why you think his ideology failed.
Actually, I have no interest in running pirated UMD images. By the time you copy the iso to a Memeory Stick that holds anywhere from 180 megs to 1.8 GB, you should've just spent the $40 for the game.
No, I'm excited for PSP hacks so I can run emulators, home made games, and maybe internet applications.
This is not the same as the console world where the only point in hacking the system is to pirate stuff. People weren't big on emulators for XBox, PS2 and Gamecube because you could just get an emulator on your computer or MythTV and play that way.
The PSP makes all the difference because it's portable. There is not great way to do emulation-on-the-go right now (Game Park excluded), so the killer apps for PSP ARE the emulators and homebrew scene.
I wouldn't call "Free Software" a failed ideology, considering Sun just open sourced Solaris, Microsoft is hiring open source software developers to understand open source, and public awareness of Free Software and Linux in general has only increased since Stallman began his work.
But let's not get confused: this is an OS that simply doesn't target mainstream desktop. It lacks any kind of credible driver support, and that is a necessary (but not sufficient) element for desktop users. Apple gets around this with OS X by only selling OS X with their hardware, but OpenSolaris doesn't have that advantage. We need to wait a while and let the community build up the driver library for it before recommending it as general purpose replacement for Linux.
It is VERY promising, and bodes well for open source in general, but we need to see how the community forms around it first. Oh, and the source code hasn't actually been released yet, so right now, you can get a free (beer) copy, so long as you register every installation with Sun. =( We need to at least wait until buildable sources are out there to start working with it in a serious way.
Well, then Red Hat is taking all the steps you would like! They're slowly (but surely) spinning off Fedora Core into its own foundation, ever more differentiated from Red Hat the company.
Good for them, I say. I have the opposite opinion to yours, which is I actually *like* having a few corporate desktop-centric distros out there to balance out the huge collection of Free distros. Anyway, give them a couple of years. I expect Fedora will eventually be quite similar to Debian at some point - not nearly as tied up in corporate image as it becomes more the product of a non-profit foundation.
I second this. My experiences with OS X, while I acknowledge it is an impressive system overall, were kind of disappointing.
My wife was about to buy a new computer and I shunned the idea of Windows. I run all Linux on all my computers, and so she bought a Powerbook.
In addition to her scanner kind of working, kind of not depending on the weather, her 801.11g net connection is flakey (the rest of my computers have no problem - her's sometimes sees the network, sometimes not: all from a location 15 feet from the AP), and for God's sake, why can't I friggin MAXIMIZE a window under OS X??? Her 12" Powerbook has little enough screen real estate, and OS X burns 35% because you can't maximize a window to the size of the screen.
Beautiful desktop. Nice idea with the dock. But window management is a certifiable nightmare (no better than Windows, maybe worse). As far as I can tell, there is STILL no notion of multiple desktops. Oh, and the OS demands that it shut down the 802.11 connection when the lid is closed (or if it has been idling for 5 minutes), rain or shine, plugged in or not. I'm trying to find a setting somewhere that prevents this, but I've failed so far.
Which leads me to my point: Linux is pretty kick ass right now, because if I need to change a setting, I know where to go, and I KNOW I can change it. I can customize my desktop. I can have multiple desktops, or not. I can maximize windows, or not. And amazingly, Linux actually has far more robust driver support than OS X. Anyway, Apple has a good base, but they need to rework some of the basics, like screen real estate. People pay a LOT of money for bigger screens - it's sort of obnoxious to waste it as much as they do.
Hopefully someone will reply and point out the "Alllow Customization in OS X" checkbox, and I'll feel like a dumbass, but at least I'll be able to fix my wife's laptop.
Err, the last time it bloomed was in 2001, and the news item on./ even said "only a few times in it's 40 year life span". How that equates to "most every every year" is beyond me, but there ya go.
Everything is made of very small things. I mean, everything. So what's the reasoning behind why very small things are bad?
Nobody has been protesting the 90nm process for chip fab, but I'd think 90nm qualifies as "very small". The fact that it's small doesn't change that it's just aluminum (or copper) and silocon - the size is independent of the material used.
I mean, even you said "It could be fine, or it could not, depending on the material." Well, yeah. Radioactive material == bad. Cotton == not so bad. How does size change this? OK, I'll put the question bluntly:
What materials when manufactured in big items and are fine, become bad when they are manufactured in small items?
I think RHEL does the kind of thing you're asking for.
I think of the Linux world as split in two. There are distros that are fundamentally CD based - like Fedora core, RHEL, Xandros, SuSe, etc. The CD based distribution system lends itself to the kind of thing you're talking about: patchlevels, service packs, batch upgrades - it provides known checkpoints for your OS.
Then there are distros that are internet based - they use central repositories to manage software, and though they may come on a CD, it's really just a snapshot. Debian and Gentoo come to mind in this category. The idea of a central repository is antithetical to your notion of checkpoints and patchlevels. Everything is a moving target, even in Debian stable, testing and unstable.
All that said, I don't do a lot of server-level verify-my-whole-machine-with-md5 with any of my Linux boxes. I upgrade packages when I need to, either for new hardware or new features, and things generally work really well, and maybe on occasion some ebuild will break something and I have to go put out the fire. Of course, I use masked packages all over the place, so I expect that now and then (couple times a year). Maybe RHEL/CentOS would be more akin to your experiences with AIX and Solaris.
Well, that depends on your package architecture. In a package architecture that uses dependencies, you're necessarily going to have to touch system libraries and binaries during install - I wouldn't want someone hijacking a setuid root install process to bootstrap an attack on the system because some newbie user decided to click "OK" in a browser window, or better, an email.
OTOH, if you're using static binaries, who cares? You're not going to be touching those system level files, and if the user wants to push some programs to ~, go ahead. That's when kernel-space vs. userspace checking comes in, as well as where the setuid and execute permissions take over.
You really need protection at install and at runtime, particularly when install is a system-level task (as it is with practically ANY package management system).
The fact that I didn't *know* that virii wasn't the correct plural form aside, I found this article very informative. It seems virii (or even viri) may at some point become accepted, GP's post notwithstanding.
When I'm on the other side of the argument (like when it comes to the pronunciation of words like "forte") I get very annoyed, so I understand where you're coming from. (BTW, it should be simply pronounced "fort" when referring to a person's area of expertise or strength, though so many people have screwed it up over the past 50 years, the dictionaries are actually recognizing "fort-ay" as a secondary pronunciation, as it is used in music, for example.)
Limewire is simply a client for the gnutella network. Same story with Kazaa for the FastTrack network. The article doesn't seem to distringuish between a network, and an interface (client) to that network.
This doesn't mean their statistics are invalid, simply that they haven't grasped a fundamental distinction between a network and a client. It does make me question the credibility of the statistics.
On topic, I'm still waiting for a legal site that offers DRM-less lossless (or Ogg, since that's the format I want to convert to) music. I'll pay them happily. I just want it all to work under Linux, for a bit cheaper than simply buying all the CDs and ripping them costs me in money and time. Oh, and I want to have permanent access to the music, without any of my fair use priveleges infringed upon. =) I use Magnatune, but something slightly more mainstream would be nice, as well.
You are simply incorrect. Copyright (in particular) is an institution created for the benefit of the public, not for the protection of the copyright holder. The fact that it is mishandled in today's laws does NOT mean that it is a form of censorship - it simply means we have strayed a bit from its original intent. This is reinforced in such notable documents as the Constitution.
Communism, on the other hand, requires censorship at the state level, because it presumes a single "truth", which the populous must be made to see. This requires a stifling of opposing viewpoints, a practice some would dub as "censorship."
Communism *is* akin to open source, which seems to work quite well with programs and other intellectual property. Not quite as well with bread, land, and cars.
In fact, it's kind of nice. Our free market capitalism has allowed us to finally realize some of the ideals in software development that communists so fervently hoped they could realize in societies as a whole. But to say that Capitalism causes more censorship than communism, well, just look at the USA (or Europe) vs. China. You couldn't even HAVE this conversation on the internet in China.
There are a lot of attractions to Linux. It's free. And it's Free. And when I run Linux, I can run it on a PPC box, or a AMD64 box, or an Itanium box, or an x86 box, or a SPARC box, or an Alpha box. You get the picture - when I started using Linux full time, I freed myself from a particular architecture. Suddenly, I had the power to run an operating system I knew and understood on practically any hardware made, from a Sharp Zaurus to a PS2 to a AMD 64 X2 4800+. This feature, this portability, springs from the fact that it IS free software, and is a technicolor demonstration of the power of free software beyond the philosophical realm.
So, to say the attraction of Linux is that it is the only viable alternative on x86 is simply false, insofar that it excludes any other attraction.
And to answer your question: I run Linux on everything. My highest end AMD 64 box playing Doom3, all the way down to my PDA, my old clunky Pentium, my MythTV, my PS2 that I use as network attached storage, and my Pentium M laptop. When Windows or OS X can do that, free of charge, then we can talk about other attractions of Linux (like a lack of electronic registration (heh, WinXP), a huge collection of free software, resistance to virii/spyware, rapid update and development cycles, vast number of distributions that one can choose from to cater to one's needs, LiveCDs for rescue and testing, strongest internet-based support community ever, ability to run enterprise level servers in your home, stability...the list goes on.)
This doesn't actually make a lot of sense. Most F/OSS software developers will continue to want to develop for a F/OSS OS - Mac OS X isn't. Sure, you'll want to support it, but I don't think people are going to be running away from Linux to make it their primary platform. Remember, there are just as many barriers between you and Mac OS X as there were before. I.e. You still have to buy Mac branded hardware to run the OS. I think Linux is here to stay as the F/OSS developers platform of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
One skilled in the art will recognize that it is not essential to have the computer system separate from the media playing device. It is conceivable to have the computer system physically incorporated in part or in whole into the media playing device.
It is noted that the embodiment of the invention discusses the use of a standard known computer, where in fact all components of the computer can be replaced with any new advancing technologies, like holographics or voice activated systems and still not depart from the intent of the invention of allowing easier user access to the underlying media data base information.
The preferred embodiment of the invention discusses the control of only a single media playing device, like a player piano. However, one skilled in the art would easily understand how to simultaneously control several media playing devices with the same control system in view of this disclosure. For example, the coordination of the control of a player piano along with a music video is contemplated.
Although this embodiment focuses upon the application of the software to control a player piano or video player, one skilled in the art will realize that this software interface could be used on any media playing device where a user needs to select what media item is to be played from a vast media data base. For example, it is contemplated to operate an electric guitar, a computer controlled multimedia system, a pipe organ, a television, a movie video player, or a computer screen.
Wow. So the player doesn't even have to be outside of the computer. So, iTunes, Zinf (Freeamp), Winamp, Windows Media Player, XMMS, Amarok, RhythmBox, GStreamer, well, just about every media player infringes. Even the holographic, voice-activated system that controls 73 copies of Winamp over the net infringes. Heck, if I use an interface to control playback of something on my computer screen, it infringes (assuming a filesystem counts as a database, which it should). I'm sure several million software writers would be interested to know about this. After reading the whole patent, I'm not really sure what, exactly, if anything, they are patenting. I know it has to do with media, and playback, and maybe something about automatic, but beyond that, I'm lost. Is it on a computer? How about an iPod? Does a stereo count? Is it over the internet? Are the interface and the player seperate, or not? What is a player? Is it a screen, a TV, a Playstation, a pair of speakers, or none (or all) of those?
I though patents were for implementations, not abstract, all-encompassing ideas...
In other news, 5 year-old Sally Jones was sued by Steven Olson of St. Paul, MN, after being observed in her backyard swinging in a way such that she infringed on his patent. He is claiming damages of over $1 million.
But you've got me on one thing. I just visited iTunes.com (I don't actually own an iPod, they don't play Ogg), and noticed that iTunes software CAN control an external player:
Stream Music Wirelessly to Your Home Stereo. With iTunes and an AirPort Express Base Station, you can stream music wirelessly from your Mac or PC to your home stereo or powered speakers.
This might be a problem...I don't think anyone could argue the iPod infringes. Unless there is some feature I don't know about, you don't control the playing of media on the iPod from the computer. The controls for the iPod are on the iPod...part of the patent is that the computer interface controls the seperate media player.
It is a feature of the invention to provide a computer user interface. The interface is for providing a user access to media pieces stored in a media database. The interface is also for controlling a media playing device, like a player piano or movie playing video device, that is coupled to the computer to play the accesses or selected piece of media.
It is another feature of the invention to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that relates to a selected category, like jazz or classical. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music categories.
A further feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display music selections that are related only to a selected composer, like Duke Ellington or Gershwin. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music composer.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected artist, like Dave Contois, or your own personal recordings. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music pieces related to the selected music artist.
Another feature of the invention is to provide a computer interface that allows a user to display only music that is related to a selected song or music piece, like Alexander's Rag Time Band or Andante & Rondo Capriciosso, Op. 14. Where the user is then able to direct the media playing device to automatically play the selected music piece.
A feature of the invention is also to provide a computer system that can access others media recording data bases from other sources like internet or world wide web.
It goes on and on like this. But this is the kicker:
The invention resides not in any one of these features per se, but rather in the particular combination of all of them herein disclosed and claimed and it is distinguished from the prior art in this particular combination of all of its structures for the functions specified.
(Emphasis mine)
Now, that annoys me, because they basically admit that there is tons of prior art for this stuff, and what makes their patent special is that it combines it all. Which would be fine, for example in the case of a "player piano" as they describe. But the iPod/iTunes system hardly describes a computer controlling a media player device to playback media. I would argue the controls for the iPod are , on the iPod itself. All iTunes does it supply music for download and transfer those songs, which are not then played automatically as they so many times describe, but rather are played when selected, and only after the player is disconnected from the computer, i.e. not controlled by the computer.
The ITMS certainly uses their method of selecting media (just like every other media player on the planet), but does not do so to select which songs to automatically play on an attached media device - merely to decide which songs to buy, or in the case of the iTunes software, which songs to transfer. Buying, transferring and playing are different. The patent is for playing.
Personally, I think software patents are ridiculous, but if they want to sue for infringement, it better at least be a match. They only mention the internet (or a remote database) tangentially in their patent, and don't even provide an example. I'm say Apple can take them to court and win.
Sure it matters.
Who is Dooku in league with? Who is this General Grevious guy, anyway? Why does the Trade Fedreation even WANT to kidnap the Senator?
All of it matters...it's part of the plot. If all you want to get out of the movie is "Yeah, this good guy killed this bad guy over here because he kinapped this other good guy, who we only think is good but is actually bad" then fine...you're right. It doesn't matter. But if you want something more out of it...a story, a plot, well, then yeah, I'd kind of like to know why the Trade Federation has both Dooku and Grevious on board, and what the relationship is there. But I can't even ASK that question unless I know that the Trade Federation owns the ship. And I won't be as surprised when Palpatine tells Vader to kill the heads of the Trade Federation later, who are supposed to be his allies (or at least they thought so).
Holy insightful post! I never thought of it before, but you're right...
This mechanic was at work in Spirited Away - totally weird, but as you begin to accept the premise, you become involved in the story. If they keep trying to justify the premise, then the story fades to the background.
Well, "eventually" hasn't rolled around yet. In the long run, Linux won't destroy MS, but it might destroy Windows. Think in terms of 30 years - a lot can happen in 30 years. =)
Let's be perfectly honest: Windows needs a rewrite. Until MS rewrites Windows so every user doesn't have to run anti-spyware and anti-virus on every machine to patch up holes in security, Unix and it's kin will gain market share. "Destroy" might be a string term, but MS isn't immune to free market forces.
Well, now that OS X is coming to x86, I don't see a reason something like Crossover Office couldn't be written for OS X, which would allow Windows copies of Office to run on Macs. Not much MS can do about that.
Indeed. But that is beside my point, which was Free Software has not failed or even lost ground, it is gaining ground. For comapnies to even begin to understand free software, they must first understand open source software.
It bears noting that RMS has no problem with selling software, either. So your second statement is correct: he objects to closed source companies, but not to companies that make profit from software in some way (Red Hat, Cygnus before aquisition, etc.)
Speaking of research, the Wikipedia entry on RMS says:
For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman single-handedly duplicated the efforts of the Symbolics programmers to prevent them from gaining a monopoly on the Lab's computers. By that time, however, he was the last of his generation of hackers at the Lab. He was asked to sign non-disclosure agreements and perform other actions he considered betrayals of his principles, but chose instead to share his work with others in what he regarded as a classical spirit of scientific collaboration and openness.
Stallman argues that software users should have freedom -- in particular, the freedom to "share with their neighbor" and to be able to study and make changes to the software that they use. He has repeatedly said that attempts by proprietary software vendors to prohibit these acts are "antisocial" and "unethical". The phrase "software wants to be free" is commonly attributed to him; however, no evidence can be found to confirm this. He argues that the primary goal of freedom is to benefit users and society rather than to improve software. Consequently, in January 1984, he quit his job at MIT to work full time on the GNU project, which he had announced in September 1983. He did not complete a Ph.D. but has been awarded four honorary doctoral degrees (see below).
In 1985, Stallman published the GNU Manifesto, which outlined his motivation for creating a free operating system called GNU, which would be compatible with Unix. The name GNU is a recursive acronym for GNU's Not Unix. Soon after, he incorporated the non-profit Free Software Foundation (FSF) to employ free software programmers and provide a legal infrastructure for the free software community.
So, I'm still not understanding the part where RMS's ideology isn't about Free Software. It has everything to do with Free Software.
Oh, and if you want to see a new meaning for the term "inflexible", try reading a Miscrosft or Blizaard EULA sometime - then you can understand the type of thing RMS saw coming, and worked to avoid. Which he did - which again makes me wonder why you think his ideology failed.
Actually, I have no interest in running pirated UMD images. By the time you copy the iso to a Memeory Stick that holds anywhere from 180 megs to 1.8 GB, you should've just spent the $40 for the game.
No, I'm excited for PSP hacks so I can run emulators, home made games, and maybe internet applications.
This is not the same as the console world where the only point in hacking the system is to pirate stuff. People weren't big on emulators for XBox, PS2 and Gamecube because you could just get an emulator on your computer or MythTV and play that way.
The PSP makes all the difference because it's portable. There is not great way to do emulation-on-the-go right now (Game Park excluded), so the killer apps for PSP ARE the emulators and homebrew scene.
Damn it, I had to bite.
I wouldn't call "Free Software" a failed ideology, considering Sun just open sourced Solaris, Microsoft is hiring open source software developers to understand open source, and public awareness of Free Software and Linux in general has only increased since Stallman began his work.
So, I guess, no, you don't win. =)
OpenSolaris is a big deal.
I'm very pleased it is being released.
But let's not get confused: this is an OS that simply doesn't target mainstream desktop. It lacks any kind of credible driver support, and that is a necessary (but not sufficient) element for desktop users. Apple gets around this with OS X by only selling OS X with their hardware, but OpenSolaris doesn't have that advantage. We need to wait a while and let the community build up the driver library for it before recommending it as general purpose replacement for Linux.
It is VERY promising, and bodes well for open source in general, but we need to see how the community forms around it first. Oh, and the source code hasn't actually been released yet, so right now, you can get a free (beer) copy, so long as you register every installation with Sun. =( We need to at least wait until buildable sources are out there to start working with it in a serious way.
Well, then Red Hat is taking all the steps you would like! They're slowly (but surely) spinning off Fedora Core into its own foundation, ever more differentiated from Red Hat the company.
Good for them, I say. I have the opposite opinion to yours, which is I actually *like* having a few corporate desktop-centric distros out there to balance out the huge collection of Free distros. Anyway, give them a couple of years. I expect Fedora will eventually be quite similar to Debian at some point - not nearly as tied up in corporate image as it becomes more the product of a non-profit foundation.
I second this. My experiences with OS X, while I acknowledge it is an impressive system overall, were kind of disappointing.
My wife was about to buy a new computer and I shunned the idea of Windows. I run all Linux on all my computers, and so she bought a Powerbook.
In addition to her scanner kind of working, kind of not depending on the weather, her 801.11g net connection is flakey (the rest of my computers have no problem - her's sometimes sees the network, sometimes not: all from a location 15 feet from the AP), and for God's sake, why can't I friggin MAXIMIZE a window under OS X??? Her 12" Powerbook has little enough screen real estate, and OS X burns 35% because you can't maximize a window to the size of the screen.
Beautiful desktop. Nice idea with the dock. But window management is a certifiable nightmare (no better than Windows, maybe worse). As far as I can tell, there is STILL no notion of multiple desktops. Oh, and the OS demands that it shut down the 802.11 connection when the lid is closed (or if it has been idling for 5 minutes), rain or shine, plugged in or not. I'm trying to find a setting somewhere that prevents this, but I've failed so far.
Which leads me to my point: Linux is pretty kick ass right now, because if I need to change a setting, I know where to go, and I KNOW I can change it. I can customize my desktop. I can have multiple desktops, or not. I can maximize windows, or not. And amazingly, Linux actually has far more robust driver support than OS X. Anyway, Apple has a good base, but they need to rework some of the basics, like screen real estate. People pay a LOT of money for bigger screens - it's sort of obnoxious to waste it as much as they do.
Hopefully someone will reply and point out the "Alllow Customization in OS X" checkbox, and I'll feel like a dumbass, but at least I'll be able to fix my wife's laptop.
OK, well, sounds like you know better than I. TFA said last time was in 2001, hence my comment. =/ As you say, local news sucks. =)
Err, the last time it bloomed was in 2001, and the news item on ./ even said "only a few times in it's 40 year life span". How that equates to "most every every year" is beyond me, but there ya go.
I'm not sure I understand.
Everything is made of very small things. I mean, everything. So what's the reasoning behind why very small things are bad?
Nobody has been protesting the 90nm process for chip fab, but I'd think 90nm qualifies as "very small". The fact that it's small doesn't change that it's just aluminum (or copper) and silocon - the size is independent of the material used.
I mean, even you said "It could be fine, or it could not, depending on the material." Well, yeah. Radioactive material == bad. Cotton == not so bad. How does size change this? OK, I'll put the question bluntly:
What materials when manufactured in big items and are fine, become bad when they are manufactured in small items?
I'm not really getting you on this one.
I think RHEL does the kind of thing you're asking for.
I think of the Linux world as split in two. There are distros that are fundamentally CD based - like Fedora core, RHEL, Xandros, SuSe, etc. The CD based distribution system lends itself to the kind of thing you're talking about: patchlevels, service packs, batch upgrades - it provides known checkpoints for your OS.
Then there are distros that are internet based - they use central repositories to manage software, and though they may come on a CD, it's really just a snapshot. Debian and Gentoo come to mind in this category. The idea of a central repository is antithetical to your notion of checkpoints and patchlevels. Everything is a moving target, even in Debian stable, testing and unstable.
All that said, I don't do a lot of server-level verify-my-whole-machine-with-md5 with any of my Linux boxes. I upgrade packages when I need to, either for new hardware or new features, and things generally work really well, and maybe on occasion some ebuild will break something and I have to go put out the fire. Of course, I use masked packages all over the place, so I expect that now and then (couple times a year). Maybe RHEL/CentOS would be more akin to your experiences with AIX and Solaris.
Wow. That was the most insightful thing I think I've ever read on Slashdot.
This is an important point, and you made it clearly and concisely. Thanks.
OTOH, if you're using static binaries, who cares? You're not going to be touching those system level files, and if the user wants to push some programs to ~, go ahead. That's when kernel-space vs. userspace checking comes in, as well as where the setuid and execute permissions take over.
You really need protection at install and at runtime, particularly when install is a system-level task (as it is with practically ANY package management system).
That said, I really do disagree with the original post; I think package management systems have gotten to be very sophisticated, and they implement the Right Way to handle installations. The easy way isn't always the Right Way, as both Windows and OS X have shown. Sure, OS X's method may be simplified for the end user, but to quote a manifesto I believe to be brilliant: "Usability simply does not equal low learning curve, and hiding system details from the user, as the Official Truth seems to be these days."
The fact that I didn't *know* that virii wasn't the correct plural form aside, I found this article very informative. It seems virii (or even viri) may at some point become accepted, GP's post notwithstanding.
When I'm on the other side of the argument (like when it comes to the pronunciation of words like "forte") I get very annoyed, so I understand where you're coming from. (BTW, it should be simply pronounced "fort" when referring to a person's area of expertise or strength, though so many people have screwed it up over the past 50 years, the dictionaries are actually recognizing "fort-ay" as a secondary pronunciation, as it is used in music, for example.)
I might be confused, but...
Limewire is simply a client for the gnutella network. Same story with Kazaa for the FastTrack network. The article doesn't seem to distringuish between a network, and an interface (client) to that network.
This doesn't mean their statistics are invalid, simply that they haven't grasped a fundamental distinction between a network and a client. It does make me question the credibility of the statistics.
On topic, I'm still waiting for a legal site that offers DRM-less lossless (or Ogg, since that's the format I want to convert to) music. I'll pay them happily. I just want it all to work under Linux, for a bit cheaper than simply buying all the CDs and ripping them costs me in money and time. Oh, and I want to have permanent access to the music, without any of my fair use priveleges infringed upon. =) I use Magnatune, but something slightly more mainstream would be nice, as well.
You are simply incorrect. Copyright (in particular) is an institution created for the benefit of the public, not for the protection of the copyright holder. The fact that it is mishandled in today's laws does NOT mean that it is a form of censorship - it simply means we have strayed a bit from its original intent. This is reinforced in such notable documents as the Constitution.
Communism, on the other hand, requires censorship at the state level, because it presumes a single "truth", which the populous must be made to see. This requires a stifling of opposing viewpoints, a practice some would dub as "censorship."
Communism *is* akin to open source, which seems to work quite well with programs and other intellectual property. Not quite as well with bread, land, and cars.
In fact, it's kind of nice. Our free market capitalism has allowed us to finally realize some of the ideals in software development that communists so fervently hoped they could realize in societies as a whole. But to say that Capitalism causes more censorship than communism, well, just look at the USA (or Europe) vs. China. You couldn't even HAVE this conversation on the internet in China.
There are a lot of attractions to Linux. It's free. And it's Free. And when I run Linux, I can run it on a PPC box, or a AMD64 box, or an Itanium box, or an x86 box, or a SPARC box, or an Alpha box. You get the picture - when I started using Linux full time, I freed myself from a particular architecture. Suddenly, I had the power to run an operating system I knew and understood on practically any hardware made, from a Sharp Zaurus to a PS2 to a AMD 64 X2 4800+. This feature, this portability, springs from the fact that it IS free software, and is a technicolor demonstration of the power of free software beyond the philosophical realm.
So, to say the attraction of Linux is that it is the only viable alternative on x86 is simply false, insofar that it excludes any other attraction.
And to answer your question: I run Linux on everything. My highest end AMD 64 box playing Doom3, all the way down to my PDA, my old clunky Pentium, my MythTV, my PS2 that I use as network attached storage, and my Pentium M laptop. When Windows or OS X can do that, free of charge, then we can talk about other attractions of Linux (like a lack of electronic registration (heh, WinXP), a huge collection of free software, resistance to virii/spyware, rapid update and development cycles, vast number of distributions that one can choose from to cater to one's needs, LiveCDs for rescue and testing, strongest internet-based support community ever, ability to run enterprise level servers in your home, stability...the list goes on.)
This doesn't actually make a lot of sense. Most F/OSS software developers will continue to want to develop for a F/OSS OS - Mac OS X isn't. Sure, you'll want to support it, but I don't think people are going to be running away from Linux to make it their primary platform. Remember, there are just as many barriers between you and Mac OS X as there were before. I.e. You still have to buy Mac branded hardware to run the OS. I think Linux is here to stay as the F/OSS developers platform of choice.