They really made an effort to make everything fit together, strip out as much of the confusing stuff as possible (installer questions, non-GNOME apps, tasksel,...). You just pop in the CD, answer a few questions, and a long time later (it takes rather long to install), you get a fully operational, polished desktop system.
I think you're confusing what I mean by polish with something more substantial. Ubuntu is terrifically functional and well put together, yes. When I hear that they're going to "focus on polish", it says to me that they're going to work on tightening some things up that most geeks would deem "irrelevant". You know, fill in the smallest of cracks to give the whole think a sheen.
This is actually a Firefox bug, not an issue with Gnome (or Ubuntu). Firefox has all it's own text rendering code and doesn't use pango.
Whatever it is, I don't experience this problem with either Fedora or SuSE.
Agreed, although I prefer to not have the framebuffer at all.
Well, I'm sure it's a matter of preference and priorities. Of course, if you're setting up a server, for example, who cares about splash screens, right? But if I'm setting up a desktop for normal users (or even myself), my ideal would be to have something between Fedora/SuSE and Apple. I like Apple for the fact that it goes straight to a splash screen when it powers on, and pretty much keeps the same splash until it's loaded. However, I do like seeing a meaningful but simple progress bar with the option of seeing more detail at any time by pressing a key.
I understand that it isn't all as simple as that (can't control the BIOS), and as I said, it doesn't matter for any practical purposes, but I do think ubuntu could do better.
Legal reasons prevent both of those being installed by default.
I'll buy that for the Nvidia driver, but the Exchange connecter was supposed to have been released under GPL, right? What's the issue there?
Anyway, again, I could be wrong about those particular issues, but my overall point was that I find Breezy to be very reliable and functional (that's been my experience anyhow), and I have practically no real problems, so it makes sense to me that Dapper would be a "let's tighten everything up," release.
I'm not talking about the themes, though I guess it's possible that the themes could be polished a bit too. I guess I am talking a bit about visual stuff, like the fonts are somehow bad in Ubuntu. I'm and really sure how to explain, but they don't look right. When browing in Firefox, when I select text, the kerning changes. Don't know why, but all the text just shifts around.
It seems to me, also, that the new bootup splash screen could use a little work. It'd be nice to tighten up the grub>boot splash>Xorg loading so that it appears to be a single, nice looking loadup.
Default package selection could maybe be improved too. For example, can't it automatically install the nvidia-glx when it detects an Nvidia card? I'm also unsure why Evolution is installed by default but not the Exchange connector.
I'm sure this is all debatable, and maybe I'm on the wrong side of the argument on these particulars, and they aren't a big deal anyhow. But little things add up to give users an impression of the system, and I think Ubuntu could still work on some of these "little things".
Dapper's goals: Substantial polish and integration
Glad to hear it. I love Ubuntu. In my experience, it's the easiest and most reliable Linux distro to setup and maintain. Apt is great, and Synaptic makes it easy. A lot of things are just done the right way.
However, being a new distro, it's lacked a little polish here and there. Nothing big, but just the sort of thing where, if I were to set my parents up on a Linux machine, I'd be more confident in the presentation that SuSE or Fedora provide. I'd be really confident that Ubuntu would work correctly, and it might be my choice of distros for that reason, but I'd be more confident that Fedora would *look* like a professionally-created OS.
So I think polish is a good place to focus right now.
Speaking of the look of Ubuntu, why do we always get screenshots in these things? Right now, Dapper looks like Breezy. Which looks like... Gnome with a brown theme.
Amazing how many things stay the same. I remember reading the same headlines for XP, W2K, and NT.
And it was true then, too. I worked for a business for a few years who stuck with NT 4 when XP came out. Why? Because there was no reason to upgrade. For the last decade, Microsoft has been its own biggest competitor. For what most people do, Windows NT and Office 97 is entirely sufficient.
For the record, I think the company finally upgraded to Server 2003, but only because support ran out. The big reason most people need to update office is that Word 97's.doc format is incompatible with Word 2003's.doc format, so you run into problems communicating between the two.
Yes, this is news. Microsoft is, yet again, releasing new software where the big difference for the consumer is a new skin and fresh incompatibilities, and a famous pro-Microsoft "research" group is advising that it's not worth upgrading. If not news, it's worthy of note.
My point was, it runs on Darwin already. Your "real people' and non-geek users, you aren't going to dive into nitty-gritty details enough to care whether the OS is Linux or Darwin.
So what's the point of bringing it to Linux? What does Linux give you that Darwin doesn't?
But all the distros I've tried so far have had hardware issues that I consider pretty fundamental to a desktop. RedHat - getting nvidia graphics installed to run Doom3. SuSE - intermittent sound and wifi issues. Ubuntu - screen resolution issues, sound issues, unremembered wifi config. (Knoppix is next, fingers crossed.)
Notice that all of these issues are with individual components, by which I mean that they're just driver issues. In another way of looking at it, it's not a Dell or a SuSE issue so much as it's an NVidia issue. We'd have much much better 3D support in Linux if nvidia would just open-source their drivers. Same with wifi, sound, and whatever else you're having trouble with. As yourself, are they supporting Linux, and if not, are they at least providing the community with enough to run the hardware well?
Until nvidia, ati, and the like start doing a better job about this, there is only so much SuSE and Dell can do. (Granted, they can do quite a bit, like including Nvidia's binary driver, but what can they do if nvidia's driver is messed up?)
I don't know, but it seems like Redhat or Novell might be willing to make some sort of deal that included helping Dell support machines with their OS installed, if Dell paid some license fee.
I'd bet the real issue is that there isn't enough demand, or at least Dell is calculating that they aren't seeing enough demand to warrant making deals with Redhat/Novell/whoever.
Either way, I'm not sure why this prevents them from dumping a Linux version on there, and inserting a disclaimer that they won't support software problems. What support do they offer on those "N" machines anyway? I wonder if it's some back-room Microsoft dealings that prevent it.
On the $499 model, blue tooth and airport functionality are $99 additions.
Which isn't exactly obscene, considering bluetooth/wifi adapters could easily run you around $40 a piece, and it's $99 for both.
I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list.
Not necessarily, but it is nice. It's like any other feature. Some people might be fine with a big computer, no floppy drive, only a CD reader, no USB, no Firewire, and a 10 GB hard drive. If those people buy a mini, they'll be spending lots of money for things they don't really need. Regardless, when you compare the mini to a comparable machine running Windows, they're comparably priced.
When you get away from the Mini and start looking at Power Macs, they no longer have the size advantage, they're just nice looking towers that cost a lot and, again, run pretty OS slower than a similar priced PC runs Windows.
First, you're ignoring the nice in-between machine, which is the iMac. The current iMacs are pretty great, and not badly priced. Yes, they have a built-in monitor, and if you don't like that, then you won't like the iMac. Still, I'm sure that if you compare comparable machines on the Windows side, and you'll find the iMac is well-priced (if you can find a comparable machine).
Additionally, PowerMacs are not just "towers". They aren't built like home PC towers. They're built like workstations, and that's where you need to compare them. What's the price/performance ratio of a PowerMac to a Dell Precision workstation? I don't know, but I'm sure it depends a bit on the task.
Nothing's wrong with it per say, but when you add on the price of a keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc... and do a price to performance comparison, it still doesn't stand up to the average PC at the same price point.
Yeah, but add form-factor into the equation. Seriously. You can get a PC for cheaper, and one that will out-preform a mini... in a big-ol' ATX case. But compare mini to ultra-small form-factor PCs, and I think you'll find the mini is suddenly much more competitive.
So it's true, Apple doesn't compete in the big-ol-ugly ultra-cheap market. They don't sell machines with under 512MB of RAM these days. More and more, their machines have DVD+-RW, bluetooth, and WiFi built in. They all have Firewire and USB2. They've never used those el-cheapo Intel video chipsets, and only the iBook still uses VGA. Now they're starting to include cameras and remotes with their systems.
The truth is, when you compare the whole package-- price, performance, quality, features, and form-factor-- Apple hardware is generally a good deal.
The licensing agreement could also require...similar price points...as well as requiring certain hardware elements...
This would allow people interested in OS X but unwilling to buy an Apple machine to get into OS X
What moron is "unwilling to buy an Apple machine" but is perfectly willing to buy an identically priced Dell with the same exact specs? It's not like either company builds their own parts anyway, so at that point, I'd like to know what Apple gains by doing this, or what the consumer gains, other than the occasional whacko who won't buy a perfectly good machine with the features he wants because it has an Apple logo.
For christ's sake, if you go buy a Dell sticker, stick it on the Apple machine, and sell it to the moron who is "unwilling" to buy from Apple, and you'll have the same result, except that Apple would lose quality-control over their own products by doing it your way.
So? Why the heck did you buy them then, knowing Linux can't access them? That's like buying a cassette tape when you know you don't have a cassette player.
Jesus, you're dense. The question he asked was, how do I future-proof my data? He wants to buy music, but doesn't want to need to worry about losing it all in 5 years if, for whatever reason, iTMS music isn't being supported on the system he's using. So it's not like buying a cassette when you don't have a cassette player. It's not "like" anything, because traditional media doesn't have this DRM problem, which is artificial.
But if we must use your example: Let's say instead that I bought an album years ago on cassette, but my last cassette player just died and no one is selling cassette players anymore. However, there is a free device that will allow me to convert the cassette to CD. Now, I have no intention of distributing copies-- I just want to be able to listen to the cassette again. There are laws that say that I can change media (which is all the device does) but this particular device (which is the only one that allows me exercise my fair use rights) is technically illegal for no good reason except that someone is afraid it will lead to distribution. If I convert my tapes, are you really going to freak out about this?
Yeah, because installing secretive, privacy-invading software on your computer is sure to stimulate CD sales.
Not only that, but does anyone think that this diminishes the music's presence on P2P networks? Ok, so let's say I'm Joe Stupid, and I go home with my new Sony CD and try to rip it. Doesn't work, so I can't put the file up on P2P. That's Sony's plan, right?
And that might work, if we were all stupid (or just technologically ignorant). However, all it really takes is 1 guy who can figure out how to rip it. I P2P sharer rips it, and suddenly it's available for download. And people who were going to download it will download it anyhow, and they'll share it, and the network will become populated, same as before.
The only difference I can really imagine, now, is that some of Sony's customers won't want to buy Sony CDs because of the restrictive DRM (and damage to the user's home PC). Therefore, some people who might have purchased CDs will now find downloads to be a far more appealing, since they don't damage your computer.
Something is wrong when business seeks to improve sales by offering a worse product.
Sometimes it's a cohesive work of art. Sometimes. Usually it's not. Think about it this way: does it seem weird that radio stations just play one song from an album? No. But it would seem weird if television stations just showed one scene of a movie, or book stores sold single chapters of books. That's because there's a difference.
Yeah, SURE, he "sat on his research" for 30 years.
joking-- but to this day, AFAIK, there's still controversy over this. There have been accusations against each that they stole something from the other, and nobody really knows. Having read the writings of each, however, I can honestly say that they're both brilliant in any event.
To be clear, the reason for the "cough, cough, wink wink" is not really so much about piracy (though jokingly so), but, to my understanding, it's illegal to break DRM even for fair use (DMCA). So, if you want to play iTunes AACs on Linux, for example, it requires an illegal action (again, AFAIK).
Like RedHat with Fedora, Novell looks for Community backup with their OpenSuse.org project.
Right, damn those Novell people, open sourcing all the good bits from the companies they've acquired. They're just doing it because they want the community to help them! Let's not fall for it though-- we should all refuse to use YaST or the Evolution connector! If I make it so I can't connect to my e-mail, that'll show'um!
They're making the life of all those shuttleworths' out there extremely easy.
Yeah, because... it all plays into Shuttleworth's plan for world domination?
Damn it, Shuttleworth doesn't want Novell bringing more money into Linux development. Ubuntu is so good, we should just tell all the other developers, contributors, and people spending money on Linux to shove it!
You buy it in whatever format is easiest, and then pirate. Apple sends an e-mail every time you download from iTMS, right? Forward that e-mail to the respective record company (and Apple, too, if you like), and explain that you will be downloading a DRM-free version. Make up a form letter explaining why you're doing that, explaining that you think it falls under "fair use" or whatever, complaining that it should be offered DRM-free in the first place, and daring them to sue you. Attach that form-letter to every e-mail, and do this for every album you buy with any kind of DRM.
IANAL, and don't recommend this on any legal grounds, nor have I done it myself a single time. However, if one were going to be civilly disobedient, it seems like a good way to get started. If enough people started doing it, maybe it'd have an effect. Of course, that effect might be populating the RIAA's list of "who to sue".
You can lose authorizations if you have to re-install your OS, and forget to (or are unable to) de-authorize, or you lose your computer or something like that.
Actually, it's smart enough that if you wipe the OS and re-authorize, it's smart enough to see that it's the same computer. Therefore, not only will it *not* use up another authorization, but you can also de-authorize a machine even after it's been wiped. Therefore, you can authorize any 5 computers at a time, deauthorize whenever you want, and there's no problem unless you lose/sell your computer and no longer have access to it. In such a case, Apple will reset your authorizations to 0, but will only do this once a year.
iPod, iTune, iTunes Music Store, and MP3 is your best bet - period!
That's my answer, too (sort of). Look, if you really want to do everything on the up-and-up, and you want your media to be completely portable, don't use any online store that uses DRM - period! Also, keep to a platform independent format (no wma). This will allow you to use whatever player you want, on whatever OS, and you won't lose your music.
However, there isn't a long list of reputable online stores with large libraries and no DRM. The best (completely legit) store is probably iTMS, but without any kind of hack, that means you're limited to playing DRM'd AAC on OSX or Windows. That's pretty good coverage, but not quite ideal. However, at least you know that there are lots of people in the same boat, so if the store were to fold unexpectedly, someone would come up with a way to keep those files. There'd be too much demand for it, so *someone* would do it.
Already, there's JHymn. No, it doesn't work with iTunes 6 yet, but it probably will before long. It happens-- whenever Apple changes the DRM, it takes a little while for the Hymn guy to update the DRM stripping process. You're then left with a DRM free open standard (AAC). So, uhm.. huh, yeah... you know-- if Apple goes out of business, *cough*, you can strip the DRM then and still have access to your files... *wink wink*.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're confusing what I mean by polish with something more substantial. Ubuntu is terrifically functional and well put together, yes. When I hear that they're going to "focus on polish", it says to me that they're going to work on tightening some things up that most geeks would deem "irrelevant". You know, fill in the smallest of cracks to give the whole think a sheen.
Whatever it is, I don't experience this problem with either Fedora or SuSE.
Agreed, although I prefer to not have the framebuffer at all.
Well, I'm sure it's a matter of preference and priorities. Of course, if you're setting up a server, for example, who cares about splash screens, right? But if I'm setting up a desktop for normal users (or even myself), my ideal would be to have something between Fedora/SuSE and Apple. I like Apple for the fact that it goes straight to a splash screen when it powers on, and pretty much keeps the same splash until it's loaded. However, I do like seeing a meaningful but simple progress bar with the option of seeing more detail at any time by pressing a key.
I understand that it isn't all as simple as that (can't control the BIOS), and as I said, it doesn't matter for any practical purposes, but I do think ubuntu could do better.
Legal reasons prevent both of those being installed by default.
I'll buy that for the Nvidia driver, but the Exchange connecter was supposed to have been released under GPL, right? What's the issue there?
Anyway, again, I could be wrong about those particular issues, but my overall point was that I find Breezy to be very reliable and functional (that's been my experience anyhow), and I have practically no real problems, so it makes sense to me that Dapper would be a "let's tighten everything up," release.
It seems to me, also, that the new bootup splash screen could use a little work. It'd be nice to tighten up the grub>boot splash>Xorg loading so that it appears to be a single, nice looking loadup.
Default package selection could maybe be improved too. For example, can't it automatically install the nvidia-glx when it detects an Nvidia card? I'm also unsure why Evolution is installed by default but not the Exchange connector.
I'm sure this is all debatable, and maybe I'm on the wrong side of the argument on these particulars, and they aren't a big deal anyhow. But little things add up to give users an impression of the system, and I think Ubuntu could still work on some of these "little things".
Why does an installer need a "killer feature"? Isn't it enough that it's an easy/efficient/effective means of getting the system installed?
Glad to hear it. I love Ubuntu. In my experience, it's the easiest and most reliable Linux distro to setup and maintain. Apt is great, and Synaptic makes it easy. A lot of things are just done the right way.
However, being a new distro, it's lacked a little polish here and there. Nothing big, but just the sort of thing where, if I were to set my parents up on a Linux machine, I'd be more confident in the presentation that SuSE or Fedora provide. I'd be really confident that Ubuntu would work correctly, and it might be my choice of distros for that reason, but I'd be more confident that Fedora would *look* like a professionally-created OS.
So I think polish is a good place to focus right now.
Speaking of the look of Ubuntu, why do we always get screenshots in these things? Right now, Dapper looks like Breezy. Which looks like... Gnome with a brown theme.
And it was true then, too. I worked for a business for a few years who stuck with NT 4 when XP came out. Why? Because there was no reason to upgrade. For the last decade, Microsoft has been its own biggest competitor. For what most people do, Windows NT and Office 97 is entirely sufficient.
For the record, I think the company finally upgraded to Server 2003, but only because support ran out. The big reason most people need to update office is that Word 97's .doc format is incompatible with Word 2003's .doc format, so you run into problems communicating between the two.
Yes, this is news. Microsoft is, yet again, releasing new software where the big difference for the consumer is a new skin and fresh incompatibilities, and a famous pro-Microsoft "research" group is advising that it's not worth upgrading. If not news, it's worthy of note.
So what's the point of bringing it to Linux? What does Linux give you that Darwin doesn't?
Notice that all of these issues are with individual components, by which I mean that they're just driver issues. In another way of looking at it, it's not a Dell or a SuSE issue so much as it's an NVidia issue. We'd have much much better 3D support in Linux if nvidia would just open-source their drivers. Same with wifi, sound, and whatever else you're having trouble with. As yourself, are they supporting Linux, and if not, are they at least providing the community with enough to run the hardware well?
Until nvidia, ati, and the like start doing a better job about this, there is only so much SuSE and Dell can do. (Granted, they can do quite a bit, like including Nvidia's binary driver, but what can they do if nvidia's driver is messed up?)
I'd bet the real issue is that there isn't enough demand, or at least Dell is calculating that they aren't seeing enough demand to warrant making deals with Redhat/Novell/whoever.
Either way, I'm not sure why this prevents them from dumping a Linux version on there, and inserting a disclaimer that they won't support software problems. What support do they offer on those "N" machines anyway? I wonder if it's some back-room Microsoft dealings that prevent it.
Which isn't exactly obscene, considering bluetooth/wifi adapters could easily run you around $40 a piece, and it's $99 for both.
I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list.
Not necessarily, but it is nice. It's like any other feature. Some people might be fine with a big computer, no floppy drive, only a CD reader, no USB, no Firewire, and a 10 GB hard drive. If those people buy a mini, they'll be spending lots of money for things they don't really need. Regardless, when you compare the mini to a comparable machine running Windows, they're comparably priced.
When you get away from the Mini and start looking at Power Macs, they no longer have the size advantage, they're just nice looking towers that cost a lot and, again, run pretty OS slower than a similar priced PC runs Windows.
First, you're ignoring the nice in-between machine, which is the iMac. The current iMacs are pretty great, and not badly priced. Yes, they have a built-in monitor, and if you don't like that, then you won't like the iMac. Still, I'm sure that if you compare comparable machines on the Windows side, and you'll find the iMac is well-priced (if you can find a comparable machine).
Additionally, PowerMacs are not just "towers". They aren't built like home PC towers. They're built like workstations, and that's where you need to compare them. What's the price/performance ratio of a PowerMac to a Dell Precision workstation? I don't know, but I'm sure it depends a bit on the task.
Yeah, but add form-factor into the equation. Seriously. You can get a PC for cheaper, and one that will out-preform a mini... in a big-ol' ATX case. But compare mini to ultra-small form-factor PCs, and I think you'll find the mini is suddenly much more competitive.
So it's true, Apple doesn't compete in the big-ol-ugly ultra-cheap market. They don't sell machines with under 512MB of RAM these days. More and more, their machines have DVD+-RW, bluetooth, and WiFi built in. They all have Firewire and USB2. They've never used those el-cheapo Intel video chipsets, and only the iBook still uses VGA. Now they're starting to include cameras and remotes with their systems.
The truth is, when you compare the whole package-- price, performance, quality, features, and form-factor-- Apple hardware is generally a good deal.
This would allow people interested in OS X but unwilling to buy an Apple machine to get into OS X
What moron is "unwilling to buy an Apple machine" but is perfectly willing to buy an identically priced Dell with the same exact specs? It's not like either company builds their own parts anyway, so at that point, I'd like to know what Apple gains by doing this, or what the consumer gains, other than the occasional whacko who won't buy a perfectly good machine with the features he wants because it has an Apple logo.
For christ's sake, if you go buy a Dell sticker, stick it on the Apple machine, and sell it to the moron who is "unwilling" to buy from Apple, and you'll have the same result, except that Apple would lose quality-control over their own products by doing it your way.
Or a better question: Wouldn't it be better if someone made a FOSS alternative?
Which means, if you don't like it, make your own damn kernel!
Jesus, you're dense. The question he asked was, how do I future-proof my data? He wants to buy music, but doesn't want to need to worry about losing it all in 5 years if, for whatever reason, iTMS music isn't being supported on the system he's using. So it's not like buying a cassette when you don't have a cassette player. It's not "like" anything, because traditional media doesn't have this DRM problem, which is artificial.
But if we must use your example: Let's say instead that I bought an album years ago on cassette, but my last cassette player just died and no one is selling cassette players anymore. However, there is a free device that will allow me to convert the cassette to CD. Now, I have no intention of distributing copies-- I just want to be able to listen to the cassette again. There are laws that say that I can change media (which is all the device does) but this particular device (which is the only one that allows me exercise my fair use rights) is technically illegal for no good reason except that someone is afraid it will lead to distribution. If I convert my tapes, are you really going to freak out about this?
Not only that, but does anyone think that this diminishes the music's presence on P2P networks? Ok, so let's say I'm Joe Stupid, and I go home with my new Sony CD and try to rip it. Doesn't work, so I can't put the file up on P2P. That's Sony's plan, right?
And that might work, if we were all stupid (or just technologically ignorant). However, all it really takes is 1 guy who can figure out how to rip it. I P2P sharer rips it, and suddenly it's available for download. And people who were going to download it will download it anyhow, and they'll share it, and the network will become populated, same as before.
The only difference I can really imagine, now, is that some of Sony's customers won't want to buy Sony CDs because of the restrictive DRM (and damage to the user's home PC). Therefore, some people who might have purchased CDs will now find downloads to be a far more appealing, since they don't damage your computer.
Something is wrong when business seeks to improve sales by offering a worse product.
Sometimes it's a cohesive work of art. Sometimes. Usually it's not. Think about it this way: does it seem weird that radio stations just play one song from an album? No. But it would seem weird if television stations just showed one scene of a movie, or book stores sold single chapters of books. That's because there's a difference.
joking-- but to this day, AFAIK, there's still controversy over this. There have been accusations against each that they stole something from the other, and nobody really knows. Having read the writings of each, however, I can honestly say that they're both brilliant in any event.
To be clear, the reason for the "cough, cough, wink wink" is not really so much about piracy (though jokingly so), but, to my understanding, it's illegal to break DRM even for fair use (DMCA). So, if you want to play iTunes AACs on Linux, for example, it requires an illegal action (again, AFAIK).
Right, damn those Novell people, open sourcing all the good bits from the companies they've acquired. They're just doing it because they want the community to help them! Let's not fall for it though-- we should all refuse to use YaST or the Evolution connector! If I make it so I can't connect to my e-mail, that'll show'um!
They're making the life of all those shuttleworths' out there extremely easy.
Yeah, because... it all plays into Shuttleworth's plan for world domination?
Damn it, Shuttleworth doesn't want Novell bringing more money into Linux development. Ubuntu is so good, we should just tell all the other developers, contributors, and people spending money on Linux to shove it!
Perhaps. I only use iTunes on my Macs.
IANAL, and don't recommend this on any legal grounds, nor have I done it myself a single time. However, if one were going to be civilly disobedient, it seems like a good way to get started. If enough people started doing it, maybe it'd have an effect. Of course, that effect might be populating the RIAA's list of "who to sue".
Actually, it's smart enough that if you wipe the OS and re-authorize, it's smart enough to see that it's the same computer. Therefore, not only will it *not* use up another authorization, but you can also de-authorize a machine even after it's been wiped. Therefore, you can authorize any 5 computers at a time, deauthorize whenever you want, and there's no problem unless you lose/sell your computer and no longer have access to it. In such a case, Apple will reset your authorizations to 0, but will only do this once a year.
That's my answer, too (sort of). Look, if you really want to do everything on the up-and-up, and you want your media to be completely portable, don't use any online store that uses DRM - period! Also, keep to a platform independent format (no wma). This will allow you to use whatever player you want, on whatever OS, and you won't lose your music.
However, there isn't a long list of reputable online stores with large libraries and no DRM. The best (completely legit) store is probably iTMS, but without any kind of hack, that means you're limited to playing DRM'd AAC on OSX or Windows. That's pretty good coverage, but not quite ideal. However, at least you know that there are lots of people in the same boat, so if the store were to fold unexpectedly, someone would come up with a way to keep those files. There'd be too much demand for it, so *someone* would do it.
Already, there's JHymn. No, it doesn't work with iTunes 6 yet, but it probably will before long. It happens-- whenever Apple changes the DRM, it takes a little while for the Hymn guy to update the DRM stripping process. You're then left with a DRM free open standard (AAC). So, uhm.. huh, yeah... you know-- if Apple goes out of business, *cough*, you can strip the DRM then and still have access to your files... *wink wink*.