isnt a smartphone not just a small pc with a radio stack?
Personal computers will always exist and if this article proves anything it proves that PCs are consuming other markets than just surfing the net or downloading porn. Just because they are expanding into other markets that were analogue doesn't mean they are going to disappear.
I guess your right, I'm about that age.... I dont buy albums and dont download songs..
I just download discographies. you can love me or hate me (or both)
but this is a post I made on the whole university defying the RIAA over on the 'gg' site...
"Oh really, why don't you explain to us how this artist will make money by distributing his product for free."
merchandising, gigs... you know -- what they've done for hundreds of years before the mafiaa came on the scene?
Keep in mind that most artists make NOTHING from their record sales... (and the ones that do like Madonna and Metallica dont deserve to imho)
You can say all you like about the promoting etc that they do but in all honesty I'd rather give my money to 30 good quality local bands than 2 international bands where most of it goes to the labels... so what if I might never hear about Madonna and Metallica.... if I dont know of them would I miss them?
The whole business model NEEDS to change. A hundred or so years ago people paid bands for what value they thought they were worth, right now 10% of the bands live superstar lifes while another 30-40% make a meger wage minus deductions and 'services' done by the record industry. The other 50% are the ones you see playing down your pub, or your friends bands that come round to jam.... or the band that will have one good hit and then get forgotten about for the rest of their career.
I realise that many of you guys are musicians, I realise that you'd all like to make SHIT loads of money (we all would)... but what are the real chances of that? zero to nil. Wouldn't you prefer to be guaranteed a half decent amount of money if the chances of making it big in your country were much much higher?
At the end of the day.... you are just doing a job like everyone else..... what makes you so special?
The truth is that most real bands start making music because its fun, they love doing it... because of that, even if you aren't willing to charge the price the market asks for, eventually someone else will. The same applies to sports... look at the big bucks your superstars are making, and then go down your local and see the majority of players playing for very little if not free.
Then again, maybe I'm the only one that finds it sad when the many small clubs/bands (look at the Scottish soccer league as a good example) go bankrupt because the larger few (Rangers and Celtic) extort their fans and buy up all the players whether they need them or not. And I'm not even a football fan:-|
hmmmm well I haven't bought any music since the days of napster... however I do buy 2-3x the merchandise at gigs that I use to. I really doubt I'm in the minority... and I hope the large record labels die because of it.
Maybe Sony would start making decent hardware again....
dont worry.... once they outlaw the analog in on soundcards vinyl records will become by definition a great anti piracy device that will give the power back to the RIAA...
cant you see this is an effort to restrict your usage even further (its harder to make vinyl records than press a cd / copy a file)/sarcasm
you know its funny.... I use the/sarcasm tag because I'm not being serious... not because if they thought they could get away with it they wouldn't give it a go.
I was thinking about getting a ps3 once it came down in price... but after shafting us euros so hard initially (software emulation) and now taking it out completely (dont think it will ever come back btw) I dont think I'll bother now especially when all the original hype is about features they are now cutting out of the initial console. If I wanted a 360 I'd buy a 360 at the price of a 360. I'm certainly not going to buy a shafted ps3 at the price of a real ps3 with the equivalent SUPPORTED feature set of the 360.
So I'm saying IF they remove more features.... but hey they lost my money when the ps3 launched in euroland and my thoughts on the $:value ratio was already piss poor then. Now that the PS3 has essentially become the Atari Jaguar or 3DO of our time then I don't think we'll be seeing many spectacular PS3 only games and a shit load of 360 half assed back ports. The majority of the games will always be made for the most popular lowest denominator and that is the 360 and dare I say it.. the Wii!
Sony need to desperately pull a fantastic (read halo 3 popularity) 1st party game out their ass like YESTERDAY otherwise it will be the last Playstation Sony ever makes (they are already talking about selling their share of cell)
if they keep gimping the PS3 due to cost there wont be much left of the console to take advantage of. At the end of the day the games publishers will make the games for the least equipped version of the console.
lol is that not what you call 'reverse engineering' ? when you read someones code.... describe it to someone else... and they recode what you just described?
"and then the OS after him much to RMS disgust" << this is more what I meant about Stallman
Although quazi officially the OS is called GNU/Linux I'd like to see how many people actually call it that outside RMS most avid supporters. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't call it GNU/Linux but accepting the fact most people are lazy and Linux is simply more catchy.
If you've had a look through the Windows 2k source code then you'll realise that a good portion of it is BSD licensed.
oh and just to catch up to modern times regarding Darwin...
"Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of FreeBSD 5 (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system), and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.[1]
Some of the benefits of this choice of kernel are the Mach-O binary format, which allows a single executable file (including the kernel itself) to support multiple CPU architectures, and the mature support for symmetric multiprocessing in Mach. The hybrid kernel design compromises between the flexibility of a microkernel and the performance of a monolithic kernel."
"OSX was loosly based on NeXT. It's kernel is Darwin which is based on NetBSD."
I wouldnt have said loosly but I agree that they are not the same.. Is that why OSX has only now gained the true UNIX certification rather than always conforming?
Saying OSX is loosly based on Next is like saying Windows 2000 is loosly based on Windows 98... I'd say that the comparison between 2k and XP would be more apt taking Rhapsody, Blue Box and Yellow Box into account.
talking about pulling stuff out of your ass.... I'm going to quote wikipedia here and say:
"Mach is an operating system microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University to support operating system research, primarily distributed and parallel computation. It is one of the earliest examples of a microkernel, and still the standard by which similar projects are measured.
The project at Carnegie Mellon ran from 1985 to 1994, ending with Mach 3.0. A number of other efforts have continued Mach research, including the University of Utah's Mach 4. Mach was developed as a replacement for the kernel in the BSD version of Unix, so no new operating system would have to be designed around it. Today further experimental research on Mach appears ended, although Mach and its derivatives are in use in a number of commercial operating systems, such as NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and most notably Mac OS X (using the XNU kernel). The Mach VM system was also adopted by the BSD developers at CSRG, and appears in modern BSD-derived UNIX systems, such as FreeBSD. Neither Mac OS X nor FreeBSD maintain the microkernel structure pioneered in Mach, although Mac OS X continues to offer microkernel Inter-Process Communication and control primitives for use directly by applications.
Mach is the logical successor to Carnegie Mellon's Accent kernel. The lead developer on the Mach project, Richard Rashid, has been working at Microsoft since 1991 in various top-level positions revolving around the Microsoft Research division. Another of the original Mach developers, Avie Tevanian, was formerly head of software at NeXT, then Chief Software Technology Officer at Apple Computer until March 2006.[1]"
really? well I'm not a code jockey but I tainted myself reading the 2k source code and found a large amount of the utils across the board were licensed under BSD... but that's just my mileage
Slashdot Mirror
ack, yeah I did :-O apologies...
ahh well
So why werent people saying that when the mac virus came out that you needed admin rights to install?
this sounds like a bad ass case of pot, kettle, black.
your fax machine is probably more powerful than a PC 15 years ago.
isnt a smartphone not just a small pc with a radio stack?
Personal computers will always exist and if this article proves anything it proves that PCs are consuming other markets than just surfing the net or downloading porn. Just because they are expanding into other markets that were analogue doesn't mean they are going to disappear.
A TV with a user interface is pretty much a PC.
"Blizzard wrote a Windows client for WoW that is ported to Linux with Wine for free"
So you didnt know that WoW was written on linux and working in beta before they moved it to windows then?
That is illegal too if you ask the RIAA, at least in their eyes.
I guess your right, I'm about that age.... I dont buy albums and dont download songs..
:-|
I just download discographies. you can love me or hate me (or both)
but this is a post I made on the whole university defying the RIAA over on the 'gg' site...
"Oh really, why don't you explain to us how this artist will make money by distributing his product for free."
merchandising, gigs... you know -- what they've done for hundreds of years before the mafiaa came on the scene?
Keep in mind that most artists make NOTHING from their record sales... (and the ones that do like Madonna and Metallica dont deserve to imho)
You can say all you like about the promoting etc that they do but in all honesty I'd rather give my money to 30 good quality local bands than 2 international bands where most of it goes to the labels... so what if I might never hear about Madonna and Metallica.... if I dont know of them would I miss them?
The whole business model NEEDS to change. A hundred or so years ago people paid bands for what value they thought they were worth, right now 10% of the bands live superstar lifes while another 30-40% make a meger wage minus deductions and 'services' done by the record industry. The other 50% are the ones you see playing down your pub, or your friends bands that come round to jam.... or the band that will have one good hit and then get forgotten about for the rest of their career.
I realise that many of you guys are musicians, I realise that you'd all like to make SHIT loads of money (we all would)... but what are the real chances of that? zero to nil. Wouldn't you prefer to be guaranteed a half decent amount of money if the chances of making it big in your country were much much higher?
At the end of the day.... you are just doing a job like everyone else..... what makes you so special?
The truth is that most real bands start making music because its fun, they love doing it... because of that, even if you aren't willing to charge the price the market asks for, eventually someone else will. The same applies to sports... look at the big bucks your superstars are making, and then go down your local and see the majority of players playing for very little if not free.
Then again, maybe I'm the only one that finds it sad when the many small clubs/bands (look at the Scottish soccer league as a good example) go bankrupt because the larger few (Rangers and Celtic) extort their fans and buy up all the players whether they need them or not. And I'm not even a football fan
hmmmm well I haven't bought any music since the days of napster... however I do buy 2-3x the merchandise at gigs that I use to. I really doubt I'm in the minority... and I hope the large record labels die because of it.
Maybe Sony would start making decent hardware again....
old record player... --> analogue hole, --> personal computer ?
NO DRM ?
dont worry.... once they outlaw the analog in on soundcards vinyl records will become by definition a great anti piracy device that will give the power back to the RIAA...
/sarcasm
/sarcasm tag because I'm not being serious... not because if they thought they could get away with it they wouldn't give it a go.
cant you see this is an effort to restrict your usage even further (its harder to make vinyl records than press a cd / copy a file)
you know its funny.... I use the
Dank... I said IF they gimp it anymore.
I was thinking about getting a ps3 once it came down in price... but after shafting us euros so hard initially (software emulation) and now taking it out completely (dont think it will ever come back btw) I dont think I'll bother now especially when all the original hype is about features they are now cutting out of the initial console. If I wanted a 360 I'd buy a 360 at the price of a 360. I'm certainly not going to buy a shafted ps3 at the price of a real ps3 with the equivalent SUPPORTED feature set of the 360.
So I'm saying IF they remove more features.... but hey they lost my money when the ps3 launched in euroland and my thoughts on the $:value ratio was already piss poor then. Now that the PS3 has essentially become the Atari Jaguar or 3DO of our time then I don't think we'll be seeing many spectacular PS3 only games and a shit load of 360 half assed back ports. The majority of the games will always be made for the most popular lowest denominator and that is the 360 and dare I say it.. the Wii!
Sony need to desperately pull a fantastic (read halo 3 popularity) 1st party game out their ass like YESTERDAY otherwise it will be the last Playstation Sony ever makes (they are already talking about selling their share of cell)
if they keep gimping the PS3 due to cost there wont be much left of the console to take advantage of. At the end of the day the games publishers will make the games for the least equipped version of the console.
"EA Calls for Single Games Publisher for Consoles"
There... fixed that bullshit for yah.
The quicker EA falls apart the happier I'll be.
naw... I think its simpler than that -- nationalism to the extreme.
In America you get taught 'American History'
In the United Kingdom you get taught 'History'
says it all really to me...
lol is that not what you call 'reverse engineering' ? when you read someones code.... describe it to someone else... and they recode what you just described?
I might be missing something here but which part of Darwin is based on NetBSD?
If CMU developed Accent and made Mach 0 - 4...
Apple took Mach 3/XNU and added bits of FreeBSD to make Darwin
where does NetBSD come into it?
"and then the OS after him much to RMS disgust" << this is more what I meant about Stallman
Although quazi officially the OS is called GNU/Linux I'd like to see how many people actually call it that outside RMS most avid supporters. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't call it GNU/Linux but accepting the fact most people are lazy and Linux is simply more catchy.
If you've had a look through the Windows 2k source code then you'll realise that a good portion of it is BSD licensed.
oh and just to catch up to modern times regarding Darwin...
"Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of FreeBSD 5 (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system), and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.[1]
Some of the benefits of this choice of kernel are the Mach-O binary format, which allows a single executable file (including the kernel itself) to support multiple CPU architectures, and the mature support for symmetric multiprocessing in Mach. The hybrid kernel design compromises between the flexibility of a microkernel and the performance of a monolithic kernel."
"OSX was loosly based on NeXT. It's kernel is Darwin which is based on NetBSD."
:D /OT
I wouldnt have said loosly but I agree that they are not the same.. Is that why OSX has only now gained the true UNIX certification rather than always conforming?
Saying OSX is loosly based on Next is like saying Windows 2000 is loosly based on Windows 98... I'd say that the comparison between 2k and XP would be more apt taking Rhapsody, Blue Box and Yellow Box into account.
talking about pulling stuff out of your ass.... I'm going to quote wikipedia here and say:
"Mach is an operating system microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University to support operating system research, primarily distributed and parallel computation. It is one of the earliest examples of a microkernel, and still the standard by which similar projects are measured.
The project at Carnegie Mellon ran from 1985 to 1994, ending with Mach 3.0. A number of other efforts have continued Mach research, including the University of Utah's Mach 4. Mach was developed as a replacement for the kernel in the BSD version of Unix, so no new operating system would have to be designed around it. Today further experimental research on Mach appears ended, although Mach and its derivatives are in use in a number of commercial operating systems, such as NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and most notably Mac OS X (using the XNU kernel). The Mach VM system was also adopted by the BSD developers at CSRG, and appears in modern BSD-derived UNIX systems, such as FreeBSD. Neither Mac OS X nor FreeBSD maintain the microkernel structure pioneered in Mach, although Mac OS X continues to offer microkernel Inter-Process Communication and control primitives for use directly by applications.
Mach is the logical successor to Carnegie Mellon's Accent kernel. The lead developer on the Mach project, Richard Rashid, has been working at Microsoft since 1991 in various top-level positions revolving around the Microsoft Research division. Another of the original Mach developers, Avie Tevanian, was formerly head of software at NeXT, then Chief Software Technology Officer at Apple Computer until March 2006.[1]"
I'll just grab my coat and leave now
long live rEFIt :D - one of the best EFI tools on the net for dualbooting.
really? well I'm not a code jockey but I tainted myself reading the 2k source code and found a large amount of the utils across the board were licensed under BSD... but that's just my mileage
errrr did you just pull that out of your arse?
the linux kernel was called so by those that supported Linus Torvalds
Torvalds never named Linux after himself, his supporters named the kernel and then the OS after him much to RMS disgust.
Osx was based on NeXT... Next was a variation of one of the Unixes (A BSD of some variety I think?)
So you could say OSx has more connection to Windows than it ever could to Linux (since so many Windows programs are under the BSD license.
of course they don't.... they just have links to copyright works... a lot like google.
case closed!
and that being the case.... sitting on the patent for xx years .. SURELY this will be kicked out like the FAT/JPEG/GIF patents?
if they think you have a valid claim against multiple violators can they force you to move against all of them?
regardless of all the X based window systems... would this IP patent troll sue MS when we know they have execs on-board?