It looks as if it's trying to do the right thing judging by the font size, but only the upper left corner of the screen has a console, and the rest has garbage.
I'm willing to accept that I am the only person in the world with a Radeon 8500LE who prefers high-res text consoles to any xterm, but, I'm not able to appreciate that an even-numbered kernel might be released with a bug of this nature.
Why does it have to be an either-or choice anyway?
Buy Photoshop *AND* use Gimp for free.
Just because I have some high-quality ketchup in my fridge at home doesn't mean I don't accept the little packet I get with my fries at McDonalds, you know.
I'm a big fan of Photoshop, and also a big fan of Gimp. I don't see this as strange, any more than I see it as strange that a person might have a car AND a bicycle. Or that I might have a $800 bike and still have a freebie beach cruiser too, or that I keep my late model Volvo but I also keep my aircooled VW. Just because the Volvo is a better, more reliable, more expensive, etc. car, doesn't mean I shouldn't keep the VW, does it?
I get tired of people making these pointless arguments. You can either have Gimp for free, and not buy Photoshop, or you can have Gimp for free AND buy Photoshop.
For whom is this a problem, and why?
By the way, the few graphics folks I've worked closely with, have indeed used every feature of the Photoshop software, and have expressed that they did reach it's limitations. I don't mean anything personal by that, but the way you said that you don't use every feature of PS makes it sound as if it's got everything everybody could want, ever, which is not the case.
What's really important here, is that all that LEGAL and freely downloadable stuff is, presumably (hopefully!) ALSO *copyright*.
So it's protected by the same copyright laws as all the RIAA material. Which means an attack on the distribution network (P2P) itself actually is an assault on the rights of these independent artists.
The entertainment industry has largely succeeded into making people believe that they somehow obligated because they have enjoyed some entertainment product. So the industry manages to put people into the mindset that for any creative work that is copyrighted, they should feel guilty for listening to it. They've succeeded pretty well -- people are already saying things like "because a work is copyrighted, then it's automatically a *crime* to distribute it."
Sometimes that's true, sometimes it is NOT true.
The entertainment industry bastards would like to make it so you have two choices: Have your copyrights and distribute your work through us, or distribute your work but surrender your copyrights.
I see the attack on P2P as part of a larger game with much higher stakes. They don't want the small fish to stop trading pop music: They want to make it impossible for independent artists to keep control of their creative work. Or rather, you can keep control of it, as long as that means nobody will ever hear it.
>There is alot of free AND LEGAL music on the >internet.
One problem is, all that free and legal music on the internet is protected by the same copyright law as all the titles that the RIAA wants to go after people for.
So I just laugh whenever I see someone explaining why it's illegal to copy or transport "copyrighted" works simply by virtue of the fact that they are "copyrighted."
Clearly there are copyrighted works which are legal to distribute, and clearly there are copyrighted works which are not.
Solution? I don't have one. I don't really think we need one. I'm afraid any solution is just going to put MORE power into the hands of the large players in the entertainment industry, and will end up making it even HARDER for independent artists, maybe even going as far as to make it legally impossible for someone to keep a copyright while allowing free distribution at the same time.
I assume you realize that unless you explicitly surrender your work to the public domain, in writing, that you DO have copyright?
Do you understand that you can currently "publish freely" without necessarily foregoing the protections given by copyright?
Unfortunately this grey area is part of the problem in the whole P2P question.
How to stop distribution of works where the author does NOT want such distribution, while still protecting the rights of the people who DO want free, uninhibited distribution, but without surrendering copyright?
Yep, I'm an idiot. The smart ones are making money hand over fist marketing things like DVD's and CD's. Idiots like me don't even know those things exist until someone comes around complaining about the price. When someone complains about the price of an item, it tells me they're buying it anyway. Meanwhile I'm ignorant of the price, which ought to tell you something.
So I didn't spend my money on this crap, someone else did, and that makes ME the idiot? Fine with me.
run fbset 1280x1024-75 (or other modes with similar result.)
The screen is 3/4 filled with garbage. The upper left of the screen contains a working 80x25 console with the correct size font -- it appears to be doing the right thing for the upper left quadrant.
It seems strange to me that it's been in this state through *8* rounds of beta testing.
>Matrix Reloaded movie on DVD for $14.99, or you >can buy the soundtrack for $11.99. Anyone but me >see a problem with this?
What problem? The soundtrack CD and the motion picture DVD are two completely separate products. I don't doubt they had totally separate product management teams, and it would be surprising if the business groups even appeared on the same org chart. There are different production and distribution considerations for a soundtrack as for a video. There is usually material on the soundtrack that is not on the DVD, and vice versa. The demand curves are different.
Do the prices add up from the consumer's point of view? Maybe not, if the consumer believes as you do, that the soundtrack CD is somehow just a subset of what's on the DVD.
I'm not trying to justify anything, just maybe hoping to dispel the notion that the prices are shocking in some way. This is more a picture of the overhead of distribution of an entertainment product, than a representation of the production costs of the product.
I think the Matrix folks are also hoping that people are fanatics enough that they buy *both*, together with anything else that has their trademarks and gets shoved under their noses. I don't know if the Matrix franchise is that popular, but I can think of plenty of other products that should have no problems, such as the Remains of the Day action figures and the Remains of the Day lunch box.
As a copyright holder myself, I must say your proposal steps on MY toes.
See, I want to reserve the right to distribute my music.
I do not want to have to make a choice between distribution and copyright.
Your scheme would put an unreasonable burden on the artist. Some system would have to be put in place so that a copyright holder must take some action in order to specifically allow his work to be distributed or consumed.
That just plain won't work, and such a plan is a dreadful violation of my rights as an artist. Today I enjoy both the right to copyright my work while at the same time allowing that work to be freely distributed, without it costing me anything. Your proposal would certainly have costs associated with it, if it were even manageable at all.
I hope you don't get your way. It would be the end of legality for distribution schemes like the one the Linux kernel uses.
>When I was in college, I had literally nothing >they could take from me
When I was in college, being called as a defendant in court would have caused me to fail a term for attendance reasons alone. That would have cost my financial support for the following term, which would have ruined my acadmeic career.
When you're in college, there IS something that can EASILY be taken from you, and that is the opportunity to continue going to college.
If only it were so black and white. If you were correct, it would not be possible for something like sourceforge to exist. It is only illegal to upload copyrighted works if the owner of those rights has not given permission.
Just because someone owns a copyright, does not automatically make it illegal to copy or distribute that work, but it does put the control of that decision in the hands of the holder of the copyright.
My music is copyright, but I'd consider it perfectly ok for it to be distributed however and by whomever would be interested. When the RIAA folks swing their fist, they hit my nose: I do not want to be forced to take some action just to make it OK to distribute my works. If the media folks get their way, it will be that much harder for the person whose work isn't worth much to anyone besides himself. God forbid if I had to pay a fee or register with the State or something, just to make it okay for people to maybe listen to my music. The RIAA would like it that way -- to redefine copyright in a way that everything not expressly permitted is forbidden and severely punishable.
I bought the first IOMega Zip drive, a SCSI model. Never experienced the click-of-death.
While I was waiting for the price of the media to come down like floppies did, CDR took over anyway, and lapped ZIP a few times. I'm not going to spend $8 or $10 each on a 100MB media now that I have 8cm CDR and CDRW. It's that simple.
Now with CF, I don't even expect to use a floppy again, ever.
The reason for lack of support is not because people lack skills or time. In most cases, it's because they simply don't have the data required to write such a driver.
The thing that bothers me is when things are *supposedly* supported but they don't work. Right now my beef is with the Radeon Framebuffer console. For the most part, it works fine on 2.4.22. It's utterly broken on every 2.6 kernel so far. I'm surprised a bug like this could get through a single cycle, much less EIGHT beta releases. I do not fault anyone for not writing drivers when it's impossible to do so, but I do have a problem when they take a working driver and break it, and don't even bother to test it.
As to space, Everything I really need to do on linux, I can do in 1 or 2 gb anyway.
So far all the 2.6 kernels have had fully broken support for the radeonfb console. It seems to work fine otherwise, but I am not interested if it means I must have 80x25 consoles.
I didn't notice anything about this in the changelog.
Things need to get a LOT worse before people start to notice and decide they need to work to make it get better.
If GWB LOSES the 2004 election, people will see this as a return towards some equilibrium state, and they will decide things are getting better on their own. (Complacency works.)
So go ahead and rig the election. Hell, go ahead and put an ACTUAL fascist dictator in the Whitehouse. Lame semiliterate and uncharismatic people like Bush are NOT going to incite average reasonable people to take matters into their own hands and lay down their lives, kill their brothers, or destroy the machinery of the State in order to engender change.
Bush is just dumb. He's not evil enough to be a catalyst for change, and he's not powerful enough to worry about long term consequences. Unless you happen to have enlisted in the military or live in a country with a Muslim government and oil reserves.
Well, in the past it might just get a "yeah right" sort of response. But a very important state has just successfully recalled and replaced their governor, so I'd say the cat's out of the bag. People who never would have thought of such a thing before, have seen a demonstration of the possibility of political reform via the system.
So I'd say yes, if people in Georgia got interested, it could happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried the patch, and it does not help at all.
It looks as if it's trying to do the right thing
judging by the font size, but only the upper left corner of the screen has a console, and the rest has garbage.
I'm willing to accept that I am the only person in the world with a Radeon 8500LE who prefers high-res text consoles to any xterm, but, I'm not able to appreciate that an even-numbered kernel might be released with a bug of this nature.
Why does it have to be an either-or choice anyway?
Buy Photoshop *AND* use Gimp for free.
Just because I have some high-quality ketchup in my fridge at home doesn't mean I don't accept the little packet I get with my fries at McDonalds, you know.
I'm a big fan of Photoshop, and also a big fan of Gimp. I don't see this as strange, any more than I see it as strange that a person might have a car AND a bicycle. Or that I might have a $800 bike and still have a freebie beach cruiser too,
or that I keep my late model Volvo but I also keep my aircooled VW. Just because the Volvo is a better, more reliable, more expensive, etc. car, doesn't mean I shouldn't keep the VW, does it?
I get tired of people making these pointless arguments. You can either have Gimp for free, and not buy Photoshop, or you can have Gimp for free AND buy Photoshop.
For whom is this a problem, and why?
By the way,
the few graphics folks I've worked closely with, have indeed used every feature of the Photoshop software, and have expressed that they did reach it's limitations. I don't mean anything personal by that, but the way you said that you don't use every feature of PS makes it sound as if it's got everything everybody could want, ever, which is not the case.
>If you asked a corporate buyer which graphics
>program to use, would they pick Photoshop or
>Gimp?
Which one will do the standard color separations required by my ad execs or my printing contractor?
For which one can I hire interns from the local art school?
Which one has my graphics organization been using for the past decade?
>we unfortunately have to take your daughter to
>court
They aren't saying any such thing. A 12 year old has no independent status that would allow the motion to get through the first step of process.
You CANNOT sue a 12 year old unemancipated minor.
Maybe you can hold their parents responsible for their damages in some cases, but then, that's taking your complaint to a whole new level.
What's really important here, is that all that LEGAL and freely downloadable stuff is, presumably (hopefully!) ALSO *copyright*.
So it's protected by the same copyright laws as all the RIAA material. Which means an attack on the distribution network (P2P) itself actually is an assault on the rights of these independent artists.
The entertainment industry has largely succeeded into making people believe that they somehow obligated because they have enjoyed some entertainment product. So the industry manages to put people into the mindset that for any creative work that is copyrighted, they should feel guilty for listening to it. They've succeeded pretty well -- people are already saying things like "because a work is copyrighted, then it's automatically a *crime* to distribute it."
Sometimes that's true, sometimes it is NOT true.
The entertainment industry bastards would like to make it so you have two choices: Have your copyrights and distribute your work through us, or distribute your work but surrender your copyrights.
I see the attack on P2P as part of a larger game with much higher stakes. They don't want the small fish to stop trading pop music: They want to make it impossible for independent artists to keep control of their creative work. Or rather, you can keep control of it, as long as that means nobody will ever hear it.
I used to be an avid record collector, right up until a big fire destroyed everything.
:-)
Among lots of other things, I had a nice comedy collection. I had the Watergate record, but I'm pretty sure that was all from Burns & Schreiber.
Weren't they on at least one of the Johnny Carson records too?
Now, if you can come up with Pendulum Records' "Reverend Mule and Dr. Arrowhead", I'll be simply amazed
>There is alot of free AND LEGAL music on the
>internet.
One problem is, all that free and legal music on the internet is protected by the same copyright law as all the titles that the RIAA wants to go after people for.
So I just laugh whenever I see someone explaining why it's illegal to copy or transport "copyrighted" works simply by virtue of the fact that they are "copyrighted."
Clearly there are copyrighted works which are legal to distribute, and clearly there are copyrighted works which are not.
Solution? I don't have one. I don't really think we need one. I'm afraid any solution is just going to put MORE power into the hands of the large players in the entertainment industry, and will end up making it even HARDER for independent artists, maybe even going as far as to make it legally impossible for someone to keep a copyright while allowing free distribution at the same time.
I assume you realize that unless you explicitly surrender your work to the public domain, in writing, that you DO have copyright?
Do you understand that you can currently "publish freely" without necessarily foregoing the protections given by copyright?
Unfortunately this grey area is part of the problem in the whole P2P question.
How to stop distribution of works where the author does NOT want such distribution, while still protecting the rights of the people who DO want free, uninhibited distribution, but without surrendering copyright?
Yep, I'm an idiot. The smart ones are making money hand over fist marketing things like DVD's and CD's. Idiots like me don't even know those things exist until someone comes around complaining about the price. When someone complains about the price of an item, it tells me they're buying it anyway. Meanwhile I'm ignorant of the price, which ought to tell you something.
So I didn't spend my money on this crap, someone else did, and that makes ME the idiot? Fine with me.
I don't really know about the Matrix in particular, but usually sountrack albums are a different mix, sometimes even with different arrangements.
>Broken how?
Build Radeon support into the kernel.
Boot with an ATI Radeon 8500LE installed.
lspci reports it as
01:05.0 VGA compatible controller ATI Technologies Inc Radeon R200 QL [Radeon 8500 LE]
run fbset 1280x1024-75 (or other modes with similar result.)
The screen is 3/4 filled with garbage. The upper left of the screen contains a working 80x25 console with the correct size font -- it appears to be doing the right thing for the upper left quadrant.
It seems strange to me that it's been in this state through *8* rounds of beta testing.
2.5 is a development kernel.
2.6 is a beta test for an upcoming production release.
>Matrix Reloaded movie on DVD for $14.99, or you
>can buy the soundtrack for $11.99. Anyone but me
>see a problem with this?
What problem? The soundtrack CD and the motion picture DVD are two completely separate products. I don't doubt they had totally separate product management teams, and it would be surprising if the business groups even appeared on the same org chart. There are different production and distribution considerations for a soundtrack as for a video. There is usually material on the soundtrack that is not on the DVD, and vice versa. The demand curves are different.
Do the prices add up from the consumer's point of view? Maybe not, if the consumer believes as you do, that the soundtrack CD is somehow just a subset of what's on the DVD.
I'm not trying to justify anything, just maybe hoping to dispel the notion that the prices are shocking in some way. This is more a picture of the overhead of distribution of an entertainment product, than a representation of the production costs of the product.
I think the Matrix folks are also hoping that people are fanatics enough that they buy *both*, together with anything else that has their trademarks and gets shoved under their noses. I don't know if the Matrix franchise is that popular, but I can think of plenty of other products that should have no problems, such as the Remains of the Day action figures and the Remains of the Day lunch box.
Vesa fb doesn't give me the modes I use, I don't believe it supports anything faster than 60Hz, and it's very, very slow.
The driver *WORKS* *FINE* on 2.4.22. Why break it for 2.6?
As a copyright holder myself, I must say your proposal steps on MY toes.
See, I want to reserve the right to distribute my music.
I do not want to have to make a choice between distribution and copyright.
Your scheme would put an unreasonable burden on the artist. Some system would have to be put in place so that a copyright holder must take some action in order to specifically allow his work to be distributed or consumed.
That just plain won't work, and such a plan is a dreadful violation of my rights as an artist. Today I enjoy both the right to copyright my work while at the same time allowing that work to be freely distributed, without it costing me anything. Your proposal would certainly have costs associated with it, if it were even manageable at all.
I hope you don't get your way. It would be the end of legality for distribution schemes like the one the Linux kernel uses.
>When I was in college, I had literally nothing
>they could take from me
When I was in college, being called as a defendant in court would have caused me to fail a term for attendance reasons alone. That would have cost my financial support for the following term, which would have ruined my acadmeic career.
When you're in college, there IS something that can EASILY be taken from you, and that is the opportunity to continue going to college.
>It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs.
If only it were so black and white. If you were correct, it would not be possible for something like sourceforge to exist. It is only illegal to upload copyrighted works if the owner of those rights has not given permission.
Just because someone owns a copyright, does not automatically make it illegal to copy or distribute that work, but it does put the control of that decision in the hands of the holder of the copyright.
My music is copyright, but I'd consider it perfectly ok for it to be distributed however and by whomever would be interested. When the RIAA folks swing their fist, they hit my nose: I do not want to be forced to take some action just to make it OK to distribute my works. If the media folks get their way, it will be that much harder for the person whose work isn't worth much to anyone besides himself. God forbid if I had to pay a fee or register with the State or something, just to make it okay for people to maybe listen to my music. The RIAA would like it that way -- to redefine copyright in a way that everything not expressly permitted is forbidden and severely punishable.
[automatically download a home dir]
Not FTP, but I use a combination of scp and cvs for this all the time. Not automated, but not hard.
[Zip]
I bought the first IOMega Zip drive, a SCSI model.
Never experienced the click-of-death.
While I was waiting for the price of the media to come down like floppies did, CDR took over anyway,
and lapped ZIP a few times. I'm not going to spend $8 or $10 each on a 100MB media now that I have 8cm CDR and CDRW. It's that simple.
Now with CF, I don't even expect to use a floppy again, ever.
Compact Flash is starting to fill the product space for ALL legacy removable media.
>floppy drives are still around...
Haven't got one on either of my 2 laptops.
On the other hand, one of these has a nice "SD" compact flash writer, with no linux support anticipated.
The reason for lack of support is not because people lack skills or time. In most cases, it's because they simply don't have the data required to write such a driver.
The thing that bothers me is when things are *supposedly* supported but they don't work. Right now my beef is with the Radeon Framebuffer console. For the most part, it works fine on 2.4.22. It's utterly broken on every 2.6 kernel so far. I'm surprised a bug like this could get through a single cycle, much less EIGHT beta releases. I do not fault anyone for not writing drivers when it's impossible to do so, but I do have a problem when they take a working driver and break it, and don't even bother to test it.
As to space, Everything I really need to do on linux, I can do in 1 or 2 gb anyway.
So far all the 2.6 kernels have had fully broken support for the radeonfb console. It seems to work fine otherwise, but I am not interested if it means I must have 80x25 consoles.
I didn't notice anything about this in the changelog.
Things need to get a LOT worse before people start to notice and decide they need to work to make it get better.
If GWB LOSES the 2004 election, people will see this as a return towards some equilibrium state, and they will decide things are getting better on their own. (Complacency works.)
So go ahead and rig the election. Hell, go ahead and put an ACTUAL fascist dictator in the Whitehouse. Lame semiliterate and uncharismatic people like Bush are NOT going to incite average reasonable people to take matters into their own hands and lay down their lives, kill their brothers, or destroy the machinery of the State in order to engender change.
Bush is just dumb. He's not evil enough to be a catalyst for change, and he's not powerful enough to worry about long term consequences. Unless you happen to have enlisted in the military or live in a country with a Muslim government and oil reserves.
Well, in the past it might just get a "yeah right" sort of response. But a very important state has just successfully recalled and replaced their governor, so I'd say the cat's out of the bag. People who never would have thought of such a thing before, have seen a demonstration of the possibility of political reform via the system.
So I'd say yes, if people in Georgia got interested, it could happen.