Sony has the rival format Super Audio CD which claims to "produce nothing less than a quantum leap in music resolution." Yeah, right, but at least it is available now.
However, Sony's argument for this format does not excite me:
What are the benefits of SACD? In addition to exceptional sound quality through the DSD system, the SACD format can accommodate more than four times the information of the current CD format. With this extra capacity, a standard Super Audio CD will provide space for 2-channel stereo data, as well as an area for up to 6-track multi-channel data, storage capacity for text and images, disc variations, copyright protection and much more.
I read this a "copyright protection and maybe something else if we can think of it, perhaps". It does not seem like a compelling argument, and it certainly does not seem like we need two different formats for this.
Well said. I would add that MS Office has never spent "almost an hour to render the document and print it" for a ten page (!) document. Come on - people may talk of the paperless office but this sort of thing makes it unusable for me.
Applixware does not seem to be an alternative if my 100 page thesis takes ten hours and 100 GB swap space to print.
Hm, re-re-re-reading the paragraph, it is no longer clear to me if the author talks about his disappointment with Office or Applixware.
How does Applixware Office compare with Microsoft Office 2000? It depends on your criteria. Although MS Office 2000 is slicker, much of its slickness is in babbling paperclips and drag-and-drop. Many of my disappointments [whith what? grammar suggests Office (last noun used) but the article talks of his disappointments with Applix more than Office] would disappear if I were to have chosen a newer computer with more memory, processor speed and disk space. Applix has many neat features that are IMHO better than Microsoft, and its ability to work well on an obsolete system is a real plus.
In any case it seems like his "Pentium 150 with 64 megs of RAM" was an insufficient system for either application.
Many of my disappointments [with Microsoft Office] would disappear if I were to have chosen a newer computer with more memory, processor speed and disk space.
So all this article is really saying is that you can run unix on lower spec machines than what is required for Windows and Office 2000.
Duh! I think we already knew this. It would have been more interesting if the review had compared the features (and cost) on suitably specified machines.
It is good to see that Sony have finally delivered on what they have been talking about for so long. This year-old techweb story give a very good background to the project, and discusses some of the more interesting design decisions, including the Aperios Real-Time OS.
How could this type of post get "Rob and friends" in trouble?[...]/. is not responsible or liable [for postings].
Actually, as the publishers they presumably are liable. Compare it to newspaper editors who routinely gets sued.
It is (in most cases) the publication of material that is illegal. I can write all the treaties I want at home denouncing [insert ethnic group here] as sub-human and advocating that they should be treated as pack-animals, if I so desire. That is legal in most free countries: I'm entitled to my opinions, no matter how offensive. The problem arises when the material gets published - that's when the offence occurs. I may think like a racist (for example), but I can not advocate it in public. No can you (or "Rob and friends") even if you use my words.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer - don't take anything I say serious.
Hm, I don't think I was "ragging on" four but I apologise if it sounded that way.
Instead, I was trying to suggest that Napster had a little PR problem on their hands, and that the way to get out of it was to come open about what happened.
As for/. being important or not: I guess the results speak for themselves. Obviously four thought it was important enough to make him contribute.
The serious issue (if there is one) in this sprawling sub-thread is how to handle PR in the internet age. Obviously nobody are going to comment this deep in a thread, but I think companies have to re-evaluate their PR strategies. If nothing else then they now have to repond much faster to get their message accross (how long before a/. thread goes inactive and none of the posters read it anymore? A day? Six hours? One?).
I guess I'm advocating an Open Source approach to PR: get all the facts out in the open, fast. By all means annotate them and make sure your version of the story gets across. But don't hide or insult your customers by assuming that they can not think for themselves or that they are unable to handle the truth.
This whole story seems to be an example of PR going bad. Apparently everybody are friends now - or at least have a common understanding - but it does not appear like that to the outside world. That's a PR issue. It's not about who is "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", but about your company is percieved by your customers. And that is Napster's problem, as I see it. I suggested a way to handle it. Maybe it is not the best way, but it does try to tackle the problem instead of just hiding. And in any case it suggests an approach to PR rather then just a haphazard, ad hoc, inconsistent response.
Is whether or not it is illegal to utilize "public services" with non-approved access methods.
Often, it is illegal. It obviously depends on which country you are in, and many other things. I doubt a legal precedent has been set, but some "real world" examples:
In the UK at least, just because my front door is wide open that does not give you any right to enter my house. Only if I invite you can you enter. It seems to me that this is a close example of a "public net service" as you discuss it. My door is open, but I only invite you if you use my client.
Anything I plug into a socket in my house has to be approved. I can not use any telephone that I have knocked together. Nor any electical equipment. They must all be approved by some authority. Until recently it was technically illegal for people in the UK to change their own lightbulbs - you were supposed to call a qualified electrician (sp?) for that. (Somebody please remind my: why am I satying in this stupid country?;-))
There are lots of monopolies: "last mile" telephones, gas, water,...
Anyhow, as with most things on the web, I suspect the law is at best unclear. I do feel, however, that the "open door" precedent is valid in this context so I would suggest that it is valid to restrict the clients. (It might be technically hard - or impossible - but that is another matter.)
The whole thing has been a massive misunderstanding. (i am the gnap author)
First of all: that you for posting and contributing to this thread on/..
However, it would be so much more useful if you would help us to clear up the "misunderstanding". Obviously a lot of us were sufficiently concerned to (a) start this thread and (b) contribute to it.
It does not help that you have removed the original letter. That does not sound like a misunderstanding to paranoid/. readers like myself (:-)). It sounds like you were bullied into submission. And we don't like that, so this thread will continue and I suspect that Napster has lost whatever goodwill they had within this community at least.
If Napster is really serious that this is a misunderstanding then they should make public the whole story, unedited. This includes original e-mails, IRC logs, etc. Add whatever comments you and they think are appropriate. Then, perhaps, we will all forgive them and be friends ever after (or something)....
At the moment it looks like they are using strong-arm techniques against an Open Source movement. That approach is going to win them few friends.
And to top it all off, the RIAA this week slapped an MP3 search engine called Napster with a lawsuit, claiming that Napster contributes to piracy by letting users swap file libraries with each other. Never mind the fact that many of the songs that people are swapping might be legal.
In the UK the rule seems to be that (simplifying somewhat) you pay employees salaries and contractors hourly.
I guess it depends on what you want. Simplifying again: Mercenaries who are there for the money, the money, and only the money, or employees who come in to work for the money, the social environment and the interesting challenges that you provide.
Don't get me wrong! There is nothing wrong with contractors. I was one, once, and I am employing contractors at this very moment. Very useful and probably, in many cases, a more honest approach to work.
I guess I'm trying to say more or less the same as this insightful post (hint to moderators!) who suggests that you need to look carefully at why you, as the employer, want to change the way the renumeration is calculated. It sounds to me like you are trying to some some other problem. Are the employees not putting in the hours? The commitment? Not delivering quality? Then the problem is likely to be you, the manager, rather than the way you calculate the money. Look carefully at your working environment, and check the three points I mentioned above:
Money
Social environment
Interesting challenges
Of these it sounds like you have the first one sorted out: your employees do not seem to have a problem with the amount of money, just with the way you want to calculate it.
The second point includes you, the manager, and the environment at large. How are you to work with/for? Is there a good working environment? Are people rewarded and recognised fairly and openly according to well-known expectations? Are you running a sweat-shop? You have to ask yourself these difficult questions.
The last one is hopefully self-explanatory. It is very hard to get people to be enthusiastic about mind-numbing work.
I hope some of these thoughts help. Good luck to you and to your employees!! (Sounds like you are going to need it.)
It's a nice article and good for Linux and Open Source in general, but I do take objection to some of the statements.
Linux has also had success with embedded systems, and has virtually driven Windows CE from the field.
Both Linux and Windows CE are small on embedded systems, but of the two I would suggest that CE is the more widely used. It is certainly true of most devices that readers of the Fool will come into daily contact with, e.g. the handheld PDA (Palm, CE, no linux?) and the cell-phone (Symbion, CE, no linux?)
If you remember FUD from yesterday, Linux is un-FUDable. As long as the users have the source code, development will continue.
The implication would be that there are no Open Source projects that have "died out" for lack of continued development. This is just plain silly. Open Source project will continue as long as people are interested in the effects, but the network effect that he describes is important here. If another alternative is available and better, then the development will stop or never start. Would GIMP have started if Photoshop was free (or even dirt cheap) and available on many platforms?
But, again, it is a good article and great PR for Linux and Open Source.
Re:GPL *is* appropriate for software docs.
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
I'd also be happier if the OPL were certified Open Source.
I agree in principle, but if you are talking about the effort at http://www.opensource.org/, then, again, they are only talking about programs, not documentation, and they use terminology specific to programs and not applicable to documents.
I would like to see their certification program extended to documents, but that does not seem to be a priority for them now.
Re:GPL *is* appropriate for software docs.
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 2
I don't see any problem with the docs for GPL software being under the GPL.
You might not have a problem, but it may not be a legal licence. Remember it talks about "running" the program and distributing "object code or executable form".
The FSF's lawyers have checked the GPL for programs, but not, AFAIK, for documentation. If you are going through the pain of putting a licence agreement together, at least get somebody with legal training to check that it is appropriate for what you want to use it for.
Note also, that the FSF does not use the GPL for their own documents.
Re:The Oreilly DocBook book is online
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 4
Again, for the nth time and quoting from the article mentioned in the original post:
Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not price
RMS further elaborates that the reason why you need free (in the sense of available as source and available for modification) documentation for free (in the same sense) software, is such that you can update the documentation when you modify the software! This seems to be an important point.
So, if I make a better perl (and the world beats a path to my door...) it is kind of unfortunate that I cannot update the most popular O'Reilly books whith my enhancements. (Perl might be a bad example as the available documentation is quite good, but replace it with something else you know where the developer's docs are not sufficient. (sendmail?))
Seriously: read the whole article. RMS is making some good points in there (and I'm not normally a fan).
The GPL is not really appropriate for documents (see below). View the OpenContent licence for a more appropriate document.
The OpenContent Content Database (I love that name!) lists the few documents that are known to have been released under the licence.
From the OpenContent FAQ:
Why do we need the OPL?
Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone.
Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.
The AltGr+4 key should work: . You might need an update from your vendor for fonts+xwindows. Microsoft people need the latest font patches from microsoft.
Many browsers accept € (). Select 'HTML formatted' from the submit box, and pray that/. does not fubar your submission again...
Slashdot Mirror
Is this going to be another formats war?
Sony has the rival format Super Audio CD which claims to "produce nothing less than a quantum leap in music resolution." Yeah, right, but at least it is available now.
However, Sony's argument for this format does not excite me:
I read this a "copyright protection and maybe something else if we can think of it, perhaps". It does not seem like a compelling argument, and it certainly does not seem like we need two different formats for this.
Any chance that Audio DVD will silently die now?
Why? Possibly to obsolete your old equipment so you have to pay the manufacturers $$$ for new stuff???
Well said. I would add that MS Office has never spent "almost an hour to render the document and print it" for a ten page (!) document. Come on - people may talk of the paperless office but this sort of thing makes it unusable for me.
Applixware does not seem to be an alternative if my 100 page thesis takes ten hours and 100 GB swap space to print.
And you thought Microsoft products were bloated.
Hm, re-re-re-reading the paragraph, it is no longer clear to me if the author talks about his disappointment with Office or Applixware.
In any case it seems like his "Pentium 150 with 64 megs of RAM" was an insufficient system for either application.
Does office suites have to be that heavy?
So all this article is really saying is that you can run unix on lower spec machines than what is required for Windows and Office 2000.
Duh! I think we already knew this. It would have been more interesting if the review had compared the features (and cost) on suitably specified machines.
Sounds great, but does anybody have any idea as to how much they will cost?
There does not seem to be any info on their website and I can't think of a similar product to give me a price guide.
Probably human "pets" will be next. As they are harder to build, you'll have to do with Webbie Tookay (get it?) for now. Not the same thing, I know.
The dog uses the Aperios real-time operating system. More information is available on the Sony site.
I thought it was particularly interesting that it is IPv6 ready. Not many people can claim that for their pets! :-)
Actually, as the publishers they presumably are liable. Compare it to newspaper editors who routinely gets sued.
It is (in most cases) the publication of material that is illegal. I can write all the treaties I want at home denouncing [insert ethnic group here] as sub-human and advocating that they should be treated as pack-animals, if I so desire. That is legal in most free countries: I'm entitled to my opinions, no matter how offensive. The problem arises when the material gets published - that's when the offence occurs. I may think like a racist (for example), but I can not advocate it in public. No can you (or "Rob and friends") even if you use my words.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer - don't take anything I say serious.
Hm, I don't think I was "ragging on" four but I apologise if it sounded that way.
Instead, I was trying to suggest that Napster had a little PR problem on their hands, and that the way to get out of it was to come open about what happened.
As for /. being important or not: I guess the results speak for themselves. Obviously four thought it was important enough to make him contribute.
The serious issue (if there is one) in this sprawling sub-thread is how to handle PR in the internet age. Obviously nobody are going to comment this deep in a thread, but I think companies have to re-evaluate their PR strategies. If nothing else then they now have to repond much faster to get their message accross (how long before a /. thread goes inactive and none of the posters read it anymore? A day? Six hours? One?).
I guess I'm advocating an Open Source approach to PR: get all the facts out in the open, fast. By all means annotate them and make sure your version of the story gets across. But don't hide or insult your customers by assuming that they can not think for themselves or that they are unable to handle the truth.
This whole story seems to be an example of PR going bad. Apparently everybody are friends now - or at least have a common understanding - but it does not appear like that to the outside world. That's a PR issue. It's not about who is "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", but about your company is percieved by your customers. And that is Napster's problem, as I see it. I suggested a way to handle it. Maybe it is not the best way, but it does try to tackle the problem instead of just hiding. And in any case it suggests an approach to PR rather then just a haphazard, ad hoc, inconsistent response.
Often, it is illegal. It obviously depends on which country you are in, and many other things. I doubt a legal precedent has been set, but some "real world" examples:
Anyhow, as with most things on the web, I suspect the law is at best unclear. I do feel, however, that the "open door" precedent is valid in this context so I would suggest that it is valid to restrict the clients. (It might be technically hard - or impossible - but that is another matter.)
Oops - I wanted to write:
First of all: that you for posting and contributing to this thread on /..
However, it would be so much more useful if you would help us to clear up the "misunderstanding". Obviously a lot of us were sufficiently concerned to (a) start this thread and (b) contribute to it.
It does not help that you have removed the original letter. That does not sound like a misunderstanding to paranoid /. readers like myself (:-)). It sounds like you were bullied into submission. And we don't like that, so this thread will continue and I suspect that Napster has lost whatever goodwill they had within this community at least.
If Napster is really serious that this is a misunderstanding then they should make public the whole story, unedited. This includes original e-mails, IRC logs, etc. Add whatever comments you and they think are appropriate. Then, perhaps, we will all forgive them and be friends ever after (or something)....
At the moment it looks like they are using strong-arm techniques against an Open Source movement. That approach is going to win them few friends.
According to this Salon article lovingly preserved by Yahoo news service, they have indeed started to try and do just that:
In the UK the rule seems to be that (simplifying somewhat) you pay employees salaries and contractors hourly.
I guess it depends on what you want. Simplifying again: Mercenaries who are there for the money, the money, and only the money, or employees who come in to work for the money, the social environment and the interesting challenges that you provide.
Don't get me wrong! There is nothing wrong with contractors. I was one, once, and I am employing contractors at this very moment. Very useful and probably, in many cases, a more honest approach to work.
I guess I'm trying to say more or less the same as this insightful post (hint to moderators!) who suggests that you need to look carefully at why you, as the employer, want to change the way the renumeration is calculated. It sounds to me like you are trying to some some other problem. Are the employees not putting in the hours? The commitment? Not delivering quality? Then the problem is likely to be you, the manager, rather than the way you calculate the money. Look carefully at your working environment, and check the three points I mentioned above:
Of these it sounds like you have the first one sorted out: your employees do not seem to have a problem with the amount of money, just with the way you want to calculate it.
The second point includes you, the manager, and the environment at large. How are you to work with/for? Is there a good working environment? Are people rewarded and recognised fairly and openly according to well-known expectations? Are you running a sweat-shop? You have to ask yourself these difficult questions.
The last one is hopefully self-explanatory. It is very hard to get people to be enthusiastic about mind-numbing work.
I hope some of these thoughts help. Good luck to you and to your employees!! (Sounds like you are going to need it.)
It's a nice article and good for Linux and Open Source in general, but I do take objection to some of the statements.
Both Linux and Windows CE are small on embedded systems, but of the two I would suggest that CE is the more widely used. It is certainly true of most devices that readers of the Fool will come into daily contact with, e.g. the handheld PDA (Palm, CE, no linux?) and the cell-phone (Symbion, CE, no linux?)
The implication would be that there are no Open Source projects that have "died out" for lack of continued development. This is just plain silly. Open Source project will continue as long as people are interested in the effects, but the network effect that he describes is important here. If another alternative is available and better, then the development will stop or never start. Would GIMP have started if Photoshop was free (or even dirt cheap) and available on many platforms?
But, again, it is a good article and great PR for Linux and Open Source.
I agree in principle, but if you are talking about the effort at http://www.opensource.org/, then, again, they are only talking about programs, not documentation, and they use terminology specific to programs and not applicable to documents.
I would like to see their certification program extended to documents, but that does not seem to be a priority for them now.
You might not have a problem, but it may not be a legal licence. Remember it talks about "running" the program and distributing "object code or executable form".
The FSF's lawyers have checked the GPL for programs, but not, AFAIK, for documentation. If you are going through the pain of putting a licence agreement together, at least get somebody with legal training to check that it is appropriate for what you want to use it for.
Note also, that the FSF does not use the GPL for their own documents.
Thanks for that info, that's very useful.
Will somebody please moderate this post up?
Here are the hyperlinks:
Again, for the nth time and quoting from the article mentioned in the original post:
RMS further elaborates that the reason why you need free (in the sense of available as source and available for modification) documentation for free (in the same sense) software, is such that you can update the documentation when you modify the software! This seems to be an important point.
So, if I make a better perl (and the world beats a path to my door...) it is kind of unfortunate that I cannot update the most popular O'Reilly books whith my enhancements. (Perl might be a bad example as the available documentation is quite good, but replace it with something else you know where the developer's docs are not sufficient. (sendmail?))
Seriously: read the whole article. RMS is making some good points in there (and I'm not normally a fan).
The GPL is not appropriate for documents. See this thread for more comments and alternative licences.
The GPL is not really appropriate for documents (see below). View the OpenContent licence for a more appropriate document.
The OpenContent Content Database (I love that name!) lists the few documents that are known to have been released under the licence.
From the OpenContent FAQ:
Grrr, I hate /. software! The last line should have started:
Many browsers accept € (€).
Whatever you do: don't use 'preview' in submissions with & in them.
The AltGr+4 key should work: . You might need an update from your vendor for fonts+xwindows. Microsoft people need the latest font patches from microsoft.
Many browsers accept € (). Select 'HTML formatted' from the submit box, and pray that /. does not fubar your submission again...