Some ISP's will filter content. The consumer will either accept it, or use a different ISP. The market ultimately dictates policy in these matters.
Do you really believe the free market is at work in the telecom industry? In most places in the US people have zero, one, or two options for broadband network access and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. As a result, we don't have the many competitors required for the free market, we have a cartel, with most major players having been convicted of undermining the free market at one point or another. New players cannot enter because legal restrictions on the use of the last mile, public right of ways, licensed to only one cable and one phone operator. New players are also disadvantaged because while the government ate the costs of the initial telecoms, subsidizing them to the tune of billions, they won't do the same for anyone else, thus making it a very unfair playing field. Finally, peering agreements are great and all, but the free market cannot act though dozens of intermediaries and if filtering is being done by a network operator that has a peering agreement with someone who has a peering agreement with someone who has a peering agreement with someone you're doing business with, your dislike of the practice will never filter back to them through free market feedback and so nothing will get better.
Before you can expect the invisible hand of the market to act, you have to make sure that market meets the minimum criteria to qualify as a capitalist, free market, and the telecom industry is not even close.
Just to be clear, what Comcast has been caught at is not content-filtering. They have been breaking connections based on the *type of the connection*, not the content contained therein.
Actually, we don't know the criteria they are using. We know they're breaking bit torrent connections, but it is unclear if it is all bit torrent, or just a subset. Do they take into account the source and destination of the connection? Do they take into account other characteristics?
I should really now the answer to these questions and I'll ask some people who should know. Up until very recently I worked for the company that supplies Comcast with some of their traffic shaping tools which they are probably using to do this. They have the capability to shape based upon more than just protocol (including deep packet inspection), I just don't know if they are doing so right now.
These terms are not interoperable, and shouldn't be treated as such.
True, but I think you're still oversimplifying. There are really three types of filtering/shaping:
based upon content - this is a censorship issue and should be banned for common carriers like Comcast.
based upon traffic type - his is a valid way to prioritize data provided it is done honestly and preference is not given to a data type that is no different from another, except who is using it (ie, slowing down VoIP traffic using the protocol of a competitor, but not VoIP using the protocol Comcast themselves use).
based upon source and/or destination - this invariably leads to price gouging and differential pricing which is an antitrust issue and should again be banned for common carriers.
I think you aare using DRM as a synonym for the term TPM, or Trusted Platform Module.
Considering the specific DRM being discussed was Fairplay, which in no way relies upon a TPM, no I don't think so. A Trusted Platform Module is an encrption chip that conforms to a specific published specification (the TPM spec). It is a general purpose encryption chip that could be used for DRM, among other encryption uses. It was publicized because everyone was afraid such chips would be used to implement DRM schemes, but such fears never really materialized, with TPM chips not being widely deployed enough. About the only thing I know that uses it and is in widespread use is Vista's Bitlocker technology for encrypting your hard drive and a few security projects on Linux, no DRM at all.
OTOH, the term probably doesn't have an actual definition.
Google for "DRM definition" and you get:
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices. It may also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. To some extent, DRM overlaps with copy protection, but DRM is usually applied to creative media (music, films, etc.) whereas copy protection typically refers to software.
Yes, I RTFA and it's fundamental conclusions are wrong. I look at the ads, I see in the stores that Joe Q. Public buys at that the cheapest computers come pre-loaded with Windows.
Perhaps you're confusing "Linux may be poised to take more of the low-end market" with "Linux has taken over the low end market." This article was about the coming increase of Linux offerings at major retailers, with several new Linux pre-installs coming to major retail outlets. It specifically mentions the eeePC, slated to hit shelves in q1 of 2008. You're dismissing that because you don't see ads for it yet, or it on shelves yet?
Take a look at Staples, Office Depot, Office Max. All the outlets have low-cost computers and all of them already come with Windows.
I don't think you have a good handle on the low-end PC market. The big retailers are Wal-mart and Costco. Wal-mart is selling a Linux pre-install machine for the low-end, although only on their Website so far. They've been shopping for a larger supplier to bring a similar offering to their brick and mortar stores. Compare this to the situation in 2006, and you see increasing availability of pre-installed Linux machines on the low end. It isn't a very large phenomenon, but it seems to be growing, which is the point.
You pointed to the OLPC; how many of those are being purchased by JQP?
Who cares? Each one is a sale, regardless of if it goes to an American consumer, an American school, or a charity in Thailand.
Yeah, the OLPC? Intel and Microsoft have a competing unit as well.
Umm, if you're talking about the Classmate, the project pretty much tanked with two sales of any size, one of which (Brazil I think) was using Linux.
I read the TFA, I just also happened to read a few other things that made me see the article for what it is - a wish to see 2008 as the "year of Linux because it's cheaper!"
No one in their right mind thinks Linux will grab more than a tiny percentage of the desktop market in 2008, and there mostly on the very low-end. This isn't about 2008, it is about overall trends and what they potentially indicate for the next decade. The article certainly was overly optimistic at times, but the premise was sound and supported and you have done nothing to even address the points, only attacking strawmen.
Few of these venues provide and/or promote machines with Linux pre-installed.
If you RTFA you'd note one of the major points was that several pre-installed Linux machines from several vendors are making their way to mainstream venues. Note, the vendors you list are well and good, but you're missing Wal-mart and Costco both of which sell considerably more computers than several of the retailers you mention.
The average consumer has a very vague idea of what an Operating system is.
This is very true and often overlooked. The market is all about pre-installed OS's.
The fact that PCs are cheap and that Linux is "free" doesn't really give Linux as big an advantage as many think. Price isn't as important as exposure.
Another point of the article was that as prices come down and you look at lower portions of the market, the cost difference between a Windows pre-install and a Linux preinstall becomes more and more significant. If you're comparing a $1200 Linux box to a $1275 Windows box, many consumers are less likely to take a chance or go out of their way. When you're comparing a $250 Linux box to a $325 Windows box, the market is much more likely to be price sensitive and make a change based on price, if given the option. If the market continues in this direction, what is going to happen when users are considering a $100 Linux box or a $300 Windows box because the cost of running Windows includes not only the license, but also more hardware to accommodate its larger footprint for the same performance?
Then, in that same mall, try and find someplace selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. This is not an indication that Linux is about to take over any market.
The fact that you're starting to be able to find a Linux box on some of those shelves, however, is a sign that Linux might be starting a growth spurt on the low end. The weathervane, by the way, is not the mall, but Wal-mart... that is where the low end shoppers are.
Uh, why ? It's not like price discrimination is an uncommon market phenomenon...
In a fair and competitive market, this would never happen. Imagine if Ford after spending all the money on creating a car, then went back and artificially crippled the car in four different configurations. Since the cost is the same for each configuration, only one could compete on both features and price with other cars on the market. All the others would either be overpriced or under-featured compared to the competing model from Chevy. This kind of differential pricing and artificial crippling is the hallmark of a broken market, undermined by antitrust problems and should be a sign to the DoJ to step in and enforce our antitrust laws
A downside of the the same infiltration is that Linux will become an attractive target for malware. [Here is where we cue the endless debate if Linux is inherently easier to secure than Windows (personally, I believe it's true).]
I think most people misunderstand the security difference between Windows and Linux, or really anything else. Based purely on technical merits, Windows wins some and loses some on security. Based upon the end result of security measures compared to risk, Windows loses by a mile. For the reason why and why this will probably continue for some time, you need to look deeper than the technical measures and deeper than the current malware ecosystem. You need to look at motivation.
Companies that sell Linux solutions, will lose customers to a competitor if security problems become a significant problem to their customers. This means they lose money, so they are motivated to do what it takes to deal with current threats. Developers of Linux are also users of Linux, so they are strongly motivated to work towards better security. The same goes for Apple's OS X and Sun's Solaris... both companies are financially motivated to make sure security is never a big issue. Some will use signing, some will use MAC some will use both or something else altogether.
MS is a monopoly and will be for the foreseeable future. If security is a problem for their users, it does very little to the bottom line. Basically, their users are trapped by tying and lock-in and very few can or will leave regardless of how bad security gets. Of those customers they might lose, most can be retained with the appearance of increased security and with marketing more cheaply than with real improvements. Because MS is not competing with anyone directly, they have no real financial incentive to make sure security is not a problem for users, so they don't.
If Linux grabs 15% of the desktop and becomes a more attractive target, Linux will adapt and become more secure to deal with the threat. If Linux grabs 50%, the same thing will happen, except Windows will adapt as well, or else it will die.
Windows is already in the $250 and up market. Meaning the ENTIRE market.
Let me guess, you didn't read the article whose premise you're claiming is wrong. Two points from the article: as computers become cheaper, Linux saves users a larger chunk on each purchase. There is now a market for machines at about $160 and getting cheaper with the OLPC project. Notice how your assertion does not affect either of these points?
Several clicks are too many. People want right-out-of-the-box or it's too technical.
I disagree. For business and corporate, a sysadmin loads all the software anyway. For home use, OpenOffice or other free alternatives more than suffice. No the barrier to home adoption is getting OEMs to pre-install it and ship it to brick and mortar stores and overcoming the barrier of random old software and software for niches. WINE runs MSOffice just fine, but it won't run all the old games, geneology program, crappy photo editor, and scuba diving air calculator, or basketweaving pattern maker. It also pukes out on IE only Web pages. For corporate the problem is entrenched, proprietary protocols (Exchange), Internal Web applications and Visual basic crap, and again, niche software.
WINE running office easily on Windows is great, but that is not what is holding up Linux adoption.
and you think that having a chunk of your music collection wrapped nicely in iTunes DRM doesn't help them sell you your next ipod?
How big of a chunk are we talking? The last study I saw showed somewhere between 1% and 1.5% of the music in an average user's iPod was purchased from any online store. The rest was free downloads, CD ripping, and P2P. When you buy from iTunes you get a reminder to immediately burn a CD formatted backup (no DRM). The average iPod has about 3500 songs on it. When you rip a CD, no DRM is added by default. This means that assuming all those sales are from the iTMS, the average user has to re-rip two or three CDs, not a big barrier to getting a different player. Apple knows these numbers better than the analysts. The lock-in value of the DRM for Apple is very, very small. That is probably why Apple has been pushing for DRM free downloads. The bad publicity they get from people talking about lock-in is probably more damaging than the tiny benefit Apple gets from the lock-in. More importantly, Apple doesn't need the DRM lock-in. They already have the brand recognition, the loyal user base, an enormous industry of third party add-ons and interfaces, and a really solid product that won the market before there was any lock-in. It also puts them at risk for antitrust lawsuits if their market share gets any bigger.
The value of DRM as a lock-in for iPod users is nothing compared to the value of all the car stereo and home theater makers who build products to work specifically with iPods. Apple doesn't need the DRM to help resale and they've demonstrated they don't want it by their efforts to get the industry to move away from it. If they did want it, they could wrap Ogg just as easily.
Sorry, but DRM probably played no role at al in Apple's opposition to Ogg as the standard format.
When Apple released disk drives for the Apple ][ that were incompatible with all other extant disk drives, and protected by patented techniques, was this DRM? When Apple saved it's Basic programs (in files with the.bas extension) in a form that were unreadable by other programs, was this DRM?
No and No, it was use of proprietary technology, which is something else entirely. DRM is about restricting content you own, intentionally, at the behest of a company that is selling/licensing that data to you.
EULAs can be considered a legal technique for controlling access under the control of the publisher and not of the end-user.
You mean like laws against assault with a deadly weapon can be considered a legal bulletproof vest? In short, I disagree. A license is a legal contract for use of something. It is not DRM, which is technologically restricting the user.
Yes, Apple does lots of things that are technically good. That isn't sufficient to justify their other actions.
"Good" is a moral judgement and is subjective. Apple does a lot that benefits myself and others. It in no way justifies any of their other actions and I never claimed it did. I simply claimed that Apple tries to eliminate DRM because that makes them more money, and anyone claiming their opposition to Ogg-Theora as the HTML5 standard was due to lack of DRM was wrong, both because DRM is against their interests and because Ogg-Theora is not any harder to add DRM to.
You can save your moral judgements, because I don't really care if you think Apple is Good or Evil in a particular respect or overall. It is subjective. Trying to argue either way is pointless and I don't know why both you and several other people insist on trying to construe my comments about Apple's motivations as some sort of endorsement of them in general or defense of their behaviors. Maybe Stalin had a lovely singing voice, that doesn't mean I think he was a good person and arguing that he is bad person is completely beside the point.
(Mind you, I prefer a recent KDE to a recent OSX desktop...I'm not an unbiased observer, I use both systems. Rather than unbiased I'm moderately experienced.
What does your experience with the various OS's have to do with Apple's motivation? I use OS X, Kununtu, and WinXP on a daily basis, does that somehow speak to whether or not Apple would rather use the MPEG standard than Ogg-Theora for HTML5? Nope, not at all. For all the talk about Apple Fanboys on here, I see a lot more bias towards people that seem to be Apple haters and take any factual discussion and try to turn it into an unrelated discussion of all the "evil" apple does. Please try to stay on topic and actually address what I write, not what you assume I feel about the morality of Apple, especially when I go out of my way to address Apple's motivations from a purely selfish, financial perspective.
Maybe I'm missing the entire point here, but why the heck does the next version of html 5 even need to define a standard format for video?
HTML5 is a very practical attempt to define additional elements and set a standard for all the things Web developers do today, but in a wide variety of ways that leads to incompatibility problems or just really complex code. I like it because when I built some XHTML for uses I needed I came up with many of the same basic tags, even using the same, fairly logical names as what they did.
I don't think anyone would argue that one common thing Web pages do today is provide streaming videos. I don't think anyone would deny that depending on the format used and the way it is embedded, different video behaves differently, not all video will play on all browsers and OS's, and it is really hard for browser and OS coders to create easy, standard ways to manipulate that video as a result. Would it be nice if the Firefox team made a way to make embedded videos fullscreen with a key press? Maybe add some translucent controls that will pop up over it when you move the mouse? Maybe allow you to right click on videos and add them to a fullscreen viewing queue that will all play end to end? Standardizing on a video format that can play everywhere is the first step to making that a reality.
Are they also going to recommend what browser I should use, what operating system I should run, or what brand of coffee I should drink?
No, they're recommending the exact opposite. By standardizing on the "img" tag for embedding images or on the Ogg-Theora format for streaming video they're insuring that any OS and any browser that conform to the standards will let you view streaming video. You theoretically won't have to worry if the browser on your smartphone supports Silverlight, or if Firefox on Linux supports MPEG in a QuickTime container, or if your game console supports Flash videos. So long as they support the standard, they'll all show streaming video, which is what standards are supposed to be about.
Now I'm not endorsing Ogg as that standard and I'm not convinced it will lead to better results than standardizing on H.261. I think ignoring the wrapper component, or choosing a wrapper that cannot support DRM, might lead to the standard being ignored. I'm not sure the big players in the industry will buy into Ogg-Theora. Still, standardizing on a wrapper format and specifying Ogg Theora at least as a preferred option, might well do a lot of good for end users.
I mean, seriously, I don't see what this even has to do with html.
Yeah, and implementers of the first version of HTML would not have seen what images had to do with it, since they were only supported as links and everyone was doing them differently. Times change. Browser don't generally run in a terminal anymore. A big use for Web pages these days is displaying video, and the new standard should reflect that and make it easy and uniform.
That is because, with hindsight, you where doing it wrong. Just rip all your CD's to FLAC, which is a lossless format.
Not everyone has all the disk space in the world or a dedicated file server. Some people just own one machine, likely a laptop, with pretty limited disk space and their CDs are their backup.
Then just transcode it for whatever device you want, from the "original" FLAC's. Admittedly, what is lacking (at last in Linux) is some easy software to do this, at least as far as I'm aware. (It's much worse on Mac OS X, because iTunes does not support FLAC).
Umm, how is it worse on OS X than Linux. You can use Mplayer, Cynthiune, Play, or any number of other free players that support FLAC, just the same as on Linux. Just because you're on OS X, doesn't mean you have to use iTunes. Alternatively, you could use ALC instead of FLAC, as it is a lossless format that is supported by iTunes; or you could use one of the FLAC plug-ins for iTunes.
Then, before you complain about the amount of space needed for FLAC files as compared to OGG or MP3: the FLAC encoder will compress most albums (even classical music) down to somewhere between 33-50% of their original size. That means about 200-300 MB for the average (1 hour) album. A 500 GB harddisk these days sets you back slightly less than $100. It will fit about 2000 full albums (you do the math).
Not good enough, especially if, like I said above, you just have a laptop with a 40 gig drive or something.
A computer won't help kids. A computer only helps administrators, and typists.
Go actually read about the OLPC or try the demo VM. It isn't a regular computer, it is computer designed from the ground up for educating children and letting them learn together. If this project was dropping Windows PCs with Office, I'd agree it is foolish. That is NOT what is happening.
Paper and pens were far far more useful than computers.
The OLPC is like an infinite supply of paper and pen, and a complete set of encyclopedias, a communications system that auto-discovers and promotes group communications, and a music studio, as well as a general purpose computer and video game system.
Educations works.
And yet educational programs that use technology don't?
...just don't get a piece of technology for a child who can't charge it.
Ignorance is bliss? It connects to solar panels and ships with a hand crank to charge it in regions where those are needed.
The whole point of real efforts to solve the problems is creating a sustainable way for people to get out of poverty. Agriculture is not going to work, unless we invest huge amounts of capital and I don't se it happening. The OLPC bootstraps them to sustainable content creation and info technology. These kids can probably make more money solving captchas than they could farming crops. Then they can buy their own food.
If that is all true, then why is the largest part of the itms still drm'ed? If the goal of Apple is to make it easy for the users, they'd have removed it eons ago.
Look, Apple needs the content from the music publishers. They are pushing to remove as much as possible, but they're rather have DRM'd content than no content at all. Apple cn only release music without DRM when the publishers agree and they have only so much influence.
No, the only goal that Apple has; is to make as much money as it can, and it doesn't care about DRM or open formats.
It's all about the bottom line and the shareholders.
What is wrong with people's reading comprehension today? As I said Apple wants to get rid of DRM because it makes them more money in the long term. That's the whole point. Apple makes more money without DRM, thus the argument that Apple is against Ogg formats because they want to add more DRM is flawed, assuming Apple is working to make the most money.
Don't drink the "Apple is good for you" Kool-Aid(tm)
Sigh. I argue that it is in Apple's best financial interests to get rid of DRM they are probably doing that, and people respond by claiming I'm blindly in favor of whatever Apple is doing or I think they're being altruistic, despite that is exactly the opposite of what I've said.
Apple's interests coincide with ours on the topic of DRM. DRM hinders users and thus hinders Apple's hardware sales. Thus, we can benefit from Apple's interest in their own bottom line as they work to get rid of DRM. That doesn't mean we should blindly support them. In fact Ogg as part of the HTML5 spec may be the best option. Apple's objection to it may not be in our best interests, but it isn't because of DRM for multiple reasons I originally stated.
Apple is in favor of THEIR property being controlled by DRM to the extent that is advantageous to them. They are against others being able to use DRM when it causes them either expense or risk of future expense.
Except Jobs has spoken out as saying DRM in general is a flawed concept and DRM is never really helping Apple's bottom line. Apple makes money selling bundles, mostly bundles including hardware. Apple sells music at near break-even. Their music business is to sell iPods and Macs and anything that makes people enjoy iPods more, means they sell more and make more money.
Read the recemt EULA's from Apple.
We're talking about DRM. You do know what DRM is right? t has nothing to do with Apple's licensing.
If all Apple was interested in was having content available for its hardware, then they wouldn't have had any objection to Real's Harmony downloads.
Did you even read my previous post? I wrote that if there was DRM, Apple wanted to control it. Real was trying to enforce DRM, using Apple's own authentication servers without permission, via an exploit in the system. No company in their right mind would tolerate that. It is one thing to allow content from another supplier, another is to tolerate a security hole and pay the bandwidth costs for another company to authenticate their DRM.
Steve Jobs came out against DRM only after Apple was approached through channels by EMI about non-DRM sales.
That is actually not true. Jobs spoke out against DRM, calling it doomed to failure and unworkable, before Apple even released the iPod.
Sure, none of the labels had any objection to Harmony, and Apple was blatantly manipulating DRM to maintain its monopoly on legal digital iPod downloads, but Apple never had any interest in DRM.
Apple's interest in DRM was in keeping the labels willing to supply content. Downloads have always been legal on the iPod, for other companies, Apple just has refused to support other DRM. Contrary to what most people think, Apple even licensed fairplay to several other manufacturers, mostly for cell phones. Their DRM was predominantly a counter to MS's attempt to monopolize music DRM in the first place.
After all, St. Jobs said so.
*Poof* there goes your credibility. My post was explaining why Apple's best financial interests were to get rid of DRM, and you try to portray it as if I was claiming they were being altruistic. You seem to be lacking reading comprehension. Why do I bother responding to ACs?
But I hope you weren't under the impression that Apple is actually against DRM in principle.
I think you're following a red herring here. Apple is opposed to DRM, from pure selfishness, but that applies as much to Vvideo as it does to audio. Apple implements DRM when they have to and removes it when they can, this is because their goal is to sell hardware. To sell hardware, you need content. If they can only get content with DRM, they'll try to use minimal DRM under their control because their goal is to make things as easy for users as possible, because then more people buy their hardware. If they can do away with it, well that is even easier for users and will sell even more hardware.
No, Apple's opposition to Vorbis as a standard has little to do with DRM, as they could always apply DRM encapsulation for it. Actually I suspect Apple is just heavily invested in the MPEG standard, which is not as open, but is DRM agnostic as well. Having developed a lot of technologies on top of the MPEG standard as well as both pro and consumer tools for creating it, Apple just sees no benefit to them for Vorbis, since licensing costs are not all that significant.
It has nothing to do with the price tag (free as in beer is not why foss is important in math and science), it has to do with reproducibility.
I disagree. Both are important factors. Being able to view all the source is important, but so is having the software available to the 80% of the planet that cannot currently afford it. This could lead to huge advances simply because it opens areas of research to thousands of brilliant mathematicians who make less in a year than the cost of Mathematica.
Blender is a UI for advanced users. It has very poor learnability, but I've heard it is a very good UI once you are used to it. I haven't seen any usability studies though, so it is just hearsay.
GIMP's no good for commercial artwork (Pantone swatches and CYMYK and whatnot)
I have used GIMP for commercial work for years and it has been the best tool on the market for certain uses, especially large automated batch jobs that are beyond Graphics Converter. More recently, Pixelmator may have taken the title away from them, but to call GIMP "no good" in a commercial environment is just wrong. It is used a lot in certain segments, although it can't compete with Photoshop for one off photo touch-ups and that sort of thing.
I can't comment on Inkscape.
Inkscape is pretty decent and a reasonable Illustrator replacement for many projects. The main drawbacks I have with it is for Visio type work it is not well suited, and support on the Mac (where realistically most pro graphic artists work) is very weak.
They're more "challenged" than a challenge to commercial programs.
I disagree. Most of them are focused on different parts of the market than commercial competitors, but all of this software is probably the best for some uses.
Those are all arguments against the tools you're using to make PDFs, not against the format. For example, InDesign and Framemaker both tag text frames automatically. Many tools don't bother, but PDFs for use as ebooks on ebook readers is not a common use.
No I'm not since I address reflow in the next paragraph.
It doesn't matter who's at fault -- the software or the format...
Yes it does because the previous argument was against the format and ignored that you can use software designed for different use of the format, like reading on ebooks.
Unfortunately, PDF does not allow an easy way of preserving content -- sans the presentation or with a different presentation -- across multiple devices.
And this is our fundamental disagreement. PDF is fine at preserving content, provided you're not viewing it with a viewer designed for showing print views, like Acrobat on a PC. You might as well argue HTML is unsuitable because IE's buttons are too hard to use on an ebook reader.
All of PDFs merits mean nothing in this case if they still can't be easily read on small devices.
PDFs can be, if you use a good PDF reader made for ebooks.
I don't know anything about.mobi, but I do also wish more content was available as HTML and not PDF.
HTML lacks support for annotation and is a broken standard. HTML renderers from MS don't follow standards and won't for the foreseeable future so it will depend upon which device you use, for if a given book is readable. HTML does not support DRM, so many publishers will not make their work available for it or will add proprietary encryption that will only work on a given brand. HTML cannot rely upon vector graphics for scalable images and diagrams because MS refuses to implement SVG.
PDF has none of these problems and is specifically protected from tampering by MS. Why don't you wish for better PDF readers on ebooks instead and we'll all be a lot better off?
Microsoft is also a developer tools company. They could make superior development tools for use with IE (believe me, it wouldn't be hard, the competition sucks) and then developers would want to use it because they'd actually like it for a change.
But then they'd have to spend money and compete with other tools. Why bother when they can have the same benefit for no upfront or ongoing cost?
Also, users would use it for the same reason they always have: because it comes pre installed.
That is a powerful incentive for regular users, but OEMs could include something else and many big companies would move to something they can control. MS makes more money with both forms of illegal tying, the bundle and the broken standards.
Simple reason. They cannot close the source of these drivers. Microsoft doesn't want open source anything, even when they claim they do. If the sources are open, they it will reveal some strange inner workings of XP. Open source drivers don't make money.
The drivers reveal more about the hardware than the OS. There are already OSS drivers for hardware on Windows XP, especially video drivers. I don't see how MS hiring someone to write OSS Windows drivers for the OLPC hardware would be a big deal for them.
Microsoft is a business. Keeping IE non-compliant with standards makes them money. If they complied with standards then all the Web pages and applications would soon do the same, which means there would be nothing stopping companies with Web apps from migrating to something cheaper than Windows and Office. MS's strategy is called "tying" and is illegal for companies with monopoly influence in a market, but MS still makes more money breaking the law and paying off politicians than it does complying with the law, so we're screwed. IE will never be compliant with the specs unless MS loses their monopoly influence.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really believe the free market is at work in the telecom industry? In most places in the US people have zero, one, or two options for broadband network access and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. As a result, we don't have the many competitors required for the free market, we have a cartel, with most major players having been convicted of undermining the free market at one point or another. New players cannot enter because legal restrictions on the use of the last mile, public right of ways, licensed to only one cable and one phone operator. New players are also disadvantaged because while the government ate the costs of the initial telecoms, subsidizing them to the tune of billions, they won't do the same for anyone else, thus making it a very unfair playing field. Finally, peering agreements are great and all, but the free market cannot act though dozens of intermediaries and if filtering is being done by a network operator that has a peering agreement with someone who has a peering agreement with someone who has a peering agreement with someone you're doing business with, your dislike of the practice will never filter back to them through free market feedback and so nothing will get better.
Before you can expect the invisible hand of the market to act, you have to make sure that market meets the minimum criteria to qualify as a capitalist, free market, and the telecom industry is not even close.
Actually, we don't know the criteria they are using. We know they're breaking bit torrent connections, but it is unclear if it is all bit torrent, or just a subset. Do they take into account the source and destination of the connection? Do they take into account other characteristics?
I should really now the answer to these questions and I'll ask some people who should know. Up until very recently I worked for the company that supplies Comcast with some of their traffic shaping tools which they are probably using to do this. They have the capability to shape based upon more than just protocol (including deep packet inspection), I just don't know if they are doing so right now.
These terms are not interoperable, and shouldn't be treated as such.True, but I think you're still oversimplifying. There are really three types of filtering/shaping:
Considering the specific DRM being discussed was Fairplay, which in no way relies upon a TPM, no I don't think so. A Trusted Platform Module is an encrption chip that conforms to a specific published specification (the TPM spec). It is a general purpose encryption chip that could be used for DRM, among other encryption uses. It was publicized because everyone was afraid such chips would be used to implement DRM schemes, but such fears never really materialized, with TPM chips not being widely deployed enough. About the only thing I know that uses it and is in widespread use is Vista's Bitlocker technology for encrypting your hard drive and a few security projects on Linux, no DRM at all.
OTOH, the term probably doesn't have an actual definition.Google for "DRM definition" and you get:
Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices. It may also refer to restrictions associated with specific instances of digital works or devices. To some extent, DRM overlaps with copy protection, but DRM is usually applied to creative media (music, films, etc.) whereas copy protection typically refers to software.Perhaps you're confusing "Linux may be poised to take more of the low-end market" with "Linux has taken over the low end market." This article was about the coming increase of Linux offerings at major retailers, with several new Linux pre-installs coming to major retail outlets. It specifically mentions the eeePC, slated to hit shelves in q1 of 2008. You're dismissing that because you don't see ads for it yet, or it on shelves yet?
Take a look at Staples, Office Depot, Office Max. All the outlets have low-cost computers and all of them already come with Windows.I don't think you have a good handle on the low-end PC market. The big retailers are Wal-mart and Costco. Wal-mart is selling a Linux pre-install machine for the low-end, although only on their Website so far. They've been shopping for a larger supplier to bring a similar offering to their brick and mortar stores. Compare this to the situation in 2006, and you see increasing availability of pre-installed Linux machines on the low end. It isn't a very large phenomenon, but it seems to be growing, which is the point.
You pointed to the OLPC; how many of those are being purchased by JQP?Who cares? Each one is a sale, regardless of if it goes to an American consumer, an American school, or a charity in Thailand.
Yeah, the OLPC? Intel and Microsoft have a competing unit as well.Umm, if you're talking about the Classmate, the project pretty much tanked with two sales of any size, one of which (Brazil I think) was using Linux.
I read the TFA, I just also happened to read a few other things that made me see the article for what it is - a wish to see 2008 as the "year of Linux because it's cheaper!"No one in their right mind thinks Linux will grab more than a tiny percentage of the desktop market in 2008, and there mostly on the very low-end. This isn't about 2008, it is about overall trends and what they potentially indicate for the next decade. The article certainly was overly optimistic at times, but the premise was sound and supported and you have done nothing to even address the points, only attacking strawmen.
If you RTFA you'd note one of the major points was that several pre-installed Linux machines from several vendors are making their way to mainstream venues. Note, the vendors you list are well and good, but you're missing Wal-mart and Costco both of which sell considerably more computers than several of the retailers you mention.
The average consumer has a very vague idea of what an Operating system is.This is very true and often overlooked. The market is all about pre-installed OS's.
The fact that PCs are cheap and that Linux is "free" doesn't really give Linux as big an advantage as many think. Price isn't as important as exposure.Another point of the article was that as prices come down and you look at lower portions of the market, the cost difference between a Windows pre-install and a Linux preinstall becomes more and more significant. If you're comparing a $1200 Linux box to a $1275 Windows box, many consumers are less likely to take a chance or go out of their way. When you're comparing a $250 Linux box to a $325 Windows box, the market is much more likely to be price sensitive and make a change based on price, if given the option. If the market continues in this direction, what is going to happen when users are considering a $100 Linux box or a $300 Windows box because the cost of running Windows includes not only the license, but also more hardware to accommodate its larger footprint for the same performance?
Then, in that same mall, try and find someplace selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. This is not an indication that Linux is about to take over any market.The fact that you're starting to be able to find a Linux box on some of those shelves, however, is a sign that Linux might be starting a growth spurt on the low end. The weathervane, by the way, is not the mall, but Wal-mart... that is where the low end shoppers are.
In a fair and competitive market, this would never happen. Imagine if Ford after spending all the money on creating a car, then went back and artificially crippled the car in four different configurations. Since the cost is the same for each configuration, only one could compete on both features and price with other cars on the market. All the others would either be overpriced or under-featured compared to the competing model from Chevy. This kind of differential pricing and artificial crippling is the hallmark of a broken market, undermined by antitrust problems and should be a sign to the DoJ to step in and enforce our antitrust laws
.I think most people misunderstand the security difference between Windows and Linux, or really anything else. Based purely on technical merits, Windows wins some and loses some on security. Based upon the end result of security measures compared to risk, Windows loses by a mile. For the reason why and why this will probably continue for some time, you need to look deeper than the technical measures and deeper than the current malware ecosystem. You need to look at motivation.
Companies that sell Linux solutions, will lose customers to a competitor if security problems become a significant problem to their customers. This means they lose money, so they are motivated to do what it takes to deal with current threats. Developers of Linux are also users of Linux, so they are strongly motivated to work towards better security. The same goes for Apple's OS X and Sun's Solaris... both companies are financially motivated to make sure security is never a big issue. Some will use signing, some will use MAC some will use both or something else altogether.
MS is a monopoly and will be for the foreseeable future. If security is a problem for their users, it does very little to the bottom line. Basically, their users are trapped by tying and lock-in and very few can or will leave regardless of how bad security gets. Of those customers they might lose, most can be retained with the appearance of increased security and with marketing more cheaply than with real improvements. Because MS is not competing with anyone directly, they have no real financial incentive to make sure security is not a problem for users, so they don't.
If Linux grabs 15% of the desktop and becomes a more attractive target, Linux will adapt and become more secure to deal with the threat. If Linux grabs 50%, the same thing will happen, except Windows will adapt as well, or else it will die.
Let me guess, you didn't read the article whose premise you're claiming is wrong. Two points from the article: as computers become cheaper, Linux saves users a larger chunk on each purchase. There is now a market for machines at about $160 and getting cheaper with the OLPC project. Notice how your assertion does not affect either of these points?
I disagree. For business and corporate, a sysadmin loads all the software anyway. For home use, OpenOffice or other free alternatives more than suffice. No the barrier to home adoption is getting OEMs to pre-install it and ship it to brick and mortar stores and overcoming the barrier of random old software and software for niches. WINE runs MSOffice just fine, but it won't run all the old games, geneology program, crappy photo editor, and scuba diving air calculator, or basketweaving pattern maker. It also pukes out on IE only Web pages. For corporate the problem is entrenched, proprietary protocols (Exchange), Internal Web applications and Visual basic crap, and again, niche software.
WINE running office easily on Windows is great, but that is not what is holding up Linux adoption.
How big of a chunk are we talking? The last study I saw showed somewhere between 1% and 1.5% of the music in an average user's iPod was purchased from any online store. The rest was free downloads, CD ripping, and P2P. When you buy from iTunes you get a reminder to immediately burn a CD formatted backup (no DRM). The average iPod has about 3500 songs on it. When you rip a CD, no DRM is added by default. This means that assuming all those sales are from the iTMS, the average user has to re-rip two or three CDs, not a big barrier to getting a different player. Apple knows these numbers better than the analysts. The lock-in value of the DRM for Apple is very, very small. That is probably why Apple has been pushing for DRM free downloads. The bad publicity they get from people talking about lock-in is probably more damaging than the tiny benefit Apple gets from the lock-in. More importantly, Apple doesn't need the DRM lock-in. They already have the brand recognition, the loyal user base, an enormous industry of third party add-ons and interfaces, and a really solid product that won the market before there was any lock-in. It also puts them at risk for antitrust lawsuits if their market share gets any bigger.
The value of DRM as a lock-in for iPod users is nothing compared to the value of all the car stereo and home theater makers who build products to work specifically with iPods. Apple doesn't need the DRM to help resale and they've demonstrated they don't want it by their efforts to get the industry to move away from it. If they did want it, they could wrap Ogg just as easily.
Sorry, but DRM probably played no role at al in Apple's opposition to Ogg as the standard format.
No and No, it was use of proprietary technology, which is something else entirely. DRM is about restricting content you own, intentionally, at the behest of a company that is selling/licensing that data to you.
EULAs can be considered a legal technique for controlling access under the control of the publisher and not of the end-user.You mean like laws against assault with a deadly weapon can be considered a legal bulletproof vest? In short, I disagree. A license is a legal contract for use of something. It is not DRM, which is technologically restricting the user.
Yes, Apple does lots of things that are technically good. That isn't sufficient to justify their other actions."Good" is a moral judgement and is subjective. Apple does a lot that benefits myself and others. It in no way justifies any of their other actions and I never claimed it did. I simply claimed that Apple tries to eliminate DRM because that makes them more money, and anyone claiming their opposition to Ogg-Theora as the HTML5 standard was due to lack of DRM was wrong, both because DRM is against their interests and because Ogg-Theora is not any harder to add DRM to.
You can save your moral judgements, because I don't really care if you think Apple is Good or Evil in a particular respect or overall. It is subjective. Trying to argue either way is pointless and I don't know why both you and several other people insist on trying to construe my comments about Apple's motivations as some sort of endorsement of them in general or defense of their behaviors. Maybe Stalin had a lovely singing voice, that doesn't mean I think he was a good person and arguing that he is bad person is completely beside the point.
(Mind you, I prefer a recent KDE to a recent OSX desktop...I'm not an unbiased observer, I use both systems. Rather than unbiased I'm moderately experienced.What does your experience with the various OS's have to do with Apple's motivation? I use OS X, Kununtu, and WinXP on a daily basis, does that somehow speak to whether or not Apple would rather use the MPEG standard than Ogg-Theora for HTML5? Nope, not at all. For all the talk about Apple Fanboys on here, I see a lot more bias towards people that seem to be Apple haters and take any factual discussion and try to turn it into an unrelated discussion of all the "evil" apple does. Please try to stay on topic and actually address what I write, not what you assume I feel about the morality of Apple, especially when I go out of my way to address Apple's motivations from a purely selfish, financial perspective.
HTML5 is a very practical attempt to define additional elements and set a standard for all the things Web developers do today, but in a wide variety of ways that leads to incompatibility problems or just really complex code. I like it because when I built some XHTML for uses I needed I came up with many of the same basic tags, even using the same, fairly logical names as what they did.
I don't think anyone would argue that one common thing Web pages do today is provide streaming videos. I don't think anyone would deny that depending on the format used and the way it is embedded, different video behaves differently, not all video will play on all browsers and OS's, and it is really hard for browser and OS coders to create easy, standard ways to manipulate that video as a result. Would it be nice if the Firefox team made a way to make embedded videos fullscreen with a key press? Maybe add some translucent controls that will pop up over it when you move the mouse? Maybe allow you to right click on videos and add them to a fullscreen viewing queue that will all play end to end? Standardizing on a video format that can play everywhere is the first step to making that a reality.
Are they also going to recommend what browser I should use, what operating system I should run, or what brand of coffee I should drink?No, they're recommending the exact opposite. By standardizing on the "img" tag for embedding images or on the Ogg-Theora format for streaming video they're insuring that any OS and any browser that conform to the standards will let you view streaming video. You theoretically won't have to worry if the browser on your smartphone supports Silverlight, or if Firefox on Linux supports MPEG in a QuickTime container, or if your game console supports Flash videos. So long as they support the standard, they'll all show streaming video, which is what standards are supposed to be about.
Now I'm not endorsing Ogg as that standard and I'm not convinced it will lead to better results than standardizing on H.261. I think ignoring the wrapper component, or choosing a wrapper that cannot support DRM, might lead to the standard being ignored. I'm not sure the big players in the industry will buy into Ogg-Theora. Still, standardizing on a wrapper format and specifying Ogg Theora at least as a preferred option, might well do a lot of good for end users.
I mean, seriously, I don't see what this even has to do with html.Yeah, and implementers of the first version of HTML would not have seen what images had to do with it, since they were only supported as links and everyone was doing them differently. Times change. Browser don't generally run in a terminal anymore. A big use for Web pages these days is displaying video, and the new standard should reflect that and make it easy and uniform.
Not everyone has all the disk space in the world or a dedicated file server. Some people just own one machine, likely a laptop, with pretty limited disk space and their CDs are their backup.
Then just transcode it for whatever device you want, from the "original" FLAC's. Admittedly, what is lacking (at last in Linux) is some easy software to do this, at least as far as I'm aware. (It's much worse on Mac OS X, because iTunes does not support FLAC).Umm, how is it worse on OS X than Linux. You can use Mplayer, Cynthiune, Play, or any number of other free players that support FLAC, just the same as on Linux. Just because you're on OS X, doesn't mean you have to use iTunes. Alternatively, you could use ALC instead of FLAC, as it is a lossless format that is supported by iTunes; or you could use one of the FLAC plug-ins for iTunes.
Then, before you complain about the amount of space needed for FLAC files as compared to OGG or MP3: the FLAC encoder will compress most albums (even classical music) down to somewhere between 33-50% of their original size. That means about 200-300 MB for the average (1 hour) album. A 500 GB harddisk these days sets you back slightly less than $100. It will fit about 2000 full albums (you do the math).Not good enough, especially if, like I said above, you just have a laptop with a 40 gig drive or something.
Go actually read about the OLPC or try the demo VM. It isn't a regular computer, it is computer designed from the ground up for educating children and letting them learn together. If this project was dropping Windows PCs with Office, I'd agree it is foolish. That is NOT what is happening.
Paper and pens were far far more useful than computers.The OLPC is like an infinite supply of paper and pen, and a complete set of encyclopedias, a communications system that auto-discovers and promotes group communications, and a music studio, as well as a general purpose computer and video game system.
Educations works.And yet educational programs that use technology don't?
...just don't get a piece of technology for a child who can't charge it.Ignorance is bliss? It connects to solar panels and ships with a hand crank to charge it in regions where those are needed.
The whole point of real efforts to solve the problems is creating a sustainable way for people to get out of poverty. Agriculture is not going to work, unless we invest huge amounts of capital and I don't se it happening. The OLPC bootstraps them to sustainable content creation and info technology. These kids can probably make more money solving captchas than they could farming crops. Then they can buy their own food.
Look, Apple needs the content from the music publishers. They are pushing to remove as much as possible, but they're rather have DRM'd content than no content at all. Apple cn only release music without DRM when the publishers agree and they have only so much influence.
No, the only goal that Apple has; is to make as much money as it can, and it doesn't care about DRM or open formats. It's all about the bottom line and the shareholders.What is wrong with people's reading comprehension today? As I said Apple wants to get rid of DRM because it makes them more money in the long term. That's the whole point. Apple makes more money without DRM, thus the argument that Apple is against Ogg formats because they want to add more DRM is flawed, assuming Apple is working to make the most money.
Don't drink the "Apple is good for you" Kool-Aid(tm)Sigh. I argue that it is in Apple's best financial interests to get rid of DRM they are probably doing that, and people respond by claiming I'm blindly in favor of whatever Apple is doing or I think they're being altruistic, despite that is exactly the opposite of what I've said.
Apple's interests coincide with ours on the topic of DRM. DRM hinders users and thus hinders Apple's hardware sales. Thus, we can benefit from Apple's interest in their own bottom line as they work to get rid of DRM. That doesn't mean we should blindly support them. In fact Ogg as part of the HTML5 spec may be the best option. Apple's objection to it may not be in our best interests, but it isn't because of DRM for multiple reasons I originally stated.
Except Jobs has spoken out as saying DRM in general is a flawed concept and DRM is never really helping Apple's bottom line. Apple makes money selling bundles, mostly bundles including hardware. Apple sells music at near break-even. Their music business is to sell iPods and Macs and anything that makes people enjoy iPods more, means they sell more and make more money.
Read the recemt EULA's from Apple.We're talking about DRM. You do know what DRM is right? t has nothing to do with Apple's licensing.
Did you even read my previous post? I wrote that if there was DRM, Apple wanted to control it. Real was trying to enforce DRM, using Apple's own authentication servers without permission, via an exploit in the system. No company in their right mind would tolerate that. It is one thing to allow content from another supplier, another is to tolerate a security hole and pay the bandwidth costs for another company to authenticate their DRM.
Steve Jobs came out against DRM only after Apple was approached through channels by EMI about non-DRM sales.That is actually not true. Jobs spoke out against DRM, calling it doomed to failure and unworkable, before Apple even released the iPod.
Sure, none of the labels had any objection to Harmony, and Apple was blatantly manipulating DRM to maintain its monopoly on legal digital iPod downloads, but Apple never had any interest in DRM.Apple's interest in DRM was in keeping the labels willing to supply content. Downloads have always been legal on the iPod, for other companies, Apple just has refused to support other DRM. Contrary to what most people think, Apple even licensed fairplay to several other manufacturers, mostly for cell phones. Their DRM was predominantly a counter to MS's attempt to monopolize music DRM in the first place.
After all, St. Jobs said so.*Poof* there goes your credibility. My post was explaining why Apple's best financial interests were to get rid of DRM, and you try to portray it as if I was claiming they were being altruistic. You seem to be lacking reading comprehension. Why do I bother responding to ACs?
I think you're following a red herring here. Apple is opposed to DRM, from pure selfishness, but that applies as much to Vvideo as it does to audio. Apple implements DRM when they have to and removes it when they can, this is because their goal is to sell hardware. To sell hardware, you need content. If they can only get content with DRM, they'll try to use minimal DRM under their control because their goal is to make things as easy for users as possible, because then more people buy their hardware. If they can do away with it, well that is even easier for users and will sell even more hardware.
No, Apple's opposition to Vorbis as a standard has little to do with DRM, as they could always apply DRM encapsulation for it. Actually I suspect Apple is just heavily invested in the MPEG standard, which is not as open, but is DRM agnostic as well. Having developed a lot of technologies on top of the MPEG standard as well as both pro and consumer tools for creating it, Apple just sees no benefit to them for Vorbis, since licensing costs are not all that significant.
I disagree. Both are important factors. Being able to view all the source is important, but so is having the software available to the 80% of the planet that cannot currently afford it. This could lead to huge advances simply because it opens areas of research to thousands of brilliant mathematicians who make less in a year than the cost of Mathematica.
Blender is a UI for advanced users. It has very poor learnability, but I've heard it is a very good UI once you are used to it. I haven't seen any usability studies though, so it is just hearsay.
GIMP's no good for commercial artwork (Pantone swatches and CYMYK and whatnot)I have used GIMP for commercial work for years and it has been the best tool on the market for certain uses, especially large automated batch jobs that are beyond Graphics Converter. More recently, Pixelmator may have taken the title away from them, but to call GIMP "no good" in a commercial environment is just wrong. It is used a lot in certain segments, although it can't compete with Photoshop for one off photo touch-ups and that sort of thing.
I can't comment on Inkscape.Inkscape is pretty decent and a reasonable Illustrator replacement for many projects. The main drawbacks I have with it is for Visio type work it is not well suited, and support on the Mac (where realistically most pro graphic artists work) is very weak.
They're more "challenged" than a challenge to commercial programs.I disagree. Most of them are focused on different parts of the market than commercial competitors, but all of this software is probably the best for some uses.
Those are all arguments against the tools you're using to make PDFs, not against the format. For example, InDesign and Framemaker both tag text frames automatically. Many tools don't bother, but PDFs for use as ebooks on ebook readers is not a common use.
No I'm not since I address reflow in the next paragraph.
It doesn't matter who's at fault -- the software or the format...Yes it does because the previous argument was against the format and ignored that you can use software designed for different use of the format, like reading on ebooks.
Unfortunately, PDF does not allow an easy way of preserving content -- sans the presentation or with a different presentation -- across multiple devices.And this is our fundamental disagreement. PDF is fine at preserving content, provided you're not viewing it with a viewer designed for showing print views, like Acrobat on a PC. You might as well argue HTML is unsuitable because IE's buttons are too hard to use on an ebook reader.
All of PDFs merits mean nothing in this case if they still can't be easily read on small devices.PDFs can be, if you use a good PDF reader made for ebooks.
I don't know anything aboutHTML lacks support for annotation and is a broken standard. HTML renderers from MS don't follow standards and won't for the foreseeable future so it will depend upon which device you use, for if a given book is readable. HTML does not support DRM, so many publishers will not make their work available for it or will add proprietary encryption that will only work on a given brand. HTML cannot rely upon vector graphics for scalable images and diagrams because MS refuses to implement SVG.
PDF has none of these problems and is specifically protected from tampering by MS. Why don't you wish for better PDF readers on ebooks instead and we'll all be a lot better off?
But then they'd have to spend money and compete with other tools. Why bother when they can have the same benefit for no upfront or ongoing cost?
Also, users would use it for the same reason they always have: because it comes pre installed.That is a powerful incentive for regular users, but OEMs could include something else and many big companies would move to something they can control. MS makes more money with both forms of illegal tying, the bundle and the broken standards.
The drivers reveal more about the hardware than the OS. There are already OSS drivers for hardware on Windows XP, especially video drivers. I don't see how MS hiring someone to write OSS Windows drivers for the OLPC hardware would be a big deal for them.
Microsoft is a business. Keeping IE non-compliant with standards makes them money. If they complied with standards then all the Web pages and applications would soon do the same, which means there would be nothing stopping companies with Web apps from migrating to something cheaper than Windows and Office. MS's strategy is called "tying" and is illegal for companies with monopoly influence in a market, but MS still makes more money breaking the law and paying off politicians than it does complying with the law, so we're screwed. IE will never be compliant with the specs unless MS loses their monopoly influence.