"your grievances against XP (long boot time) were not really true"
It's not even true that I said that! My comparison was between 2000 and 2003, I said:
"2000 would start/stop drivers sequencially, whereas 2003 will do it concurrently"
I made no comment on XPs driver loading, my grievances with XP lie elsewhere, like it slowing me down by asking me if I'm "sure" about everything. I need an interface that's designed for people who know what they're doing, not one that's designed for people who aren't sure.
"The problem with this is that either the server keeps the lock until the client reconnects (leading to unkillable processes in the server) or it opens it and relocks it on client reconnect"
or the locks remain held during disconnected state (as is the case now), but when the client reconnects, locks held open on the server that aren't still on the client (ie, the process holding them has been killed) get released.
"But that would force people to handle I/O errors in their programs"
no I was just thinkin of being able to terminate a task that's waiting on a blocking I/O, eg, if you know you're not able to reconnect to a stateless nfs, or the read is on a stateful [n]fs.
2003 comes with all the shinies already turned off, so you just turn on what ya need, but yeah the swiching from sequencial to concurrent driver load/unloading was between 2000 an XP.
I thought that, until I tried 2003 and converted from server to desktop modes (eg, enable all hardware accelleration for sound/graphics, enable sound server, disable having to tell it why you wanna reboot etc etc). I went to 2003 because I'm a web developer and need to test under IE7 (not available for 2000), but would rather find a new job than have to use XP. The startup/shutdown time alone makes a huge difference (I don't do this often, but damnit when I do I want it done fast! 2000 would start/stop drivers sequencially, whereas 2003 will do it concurrently, hiding a lot of IO wait times. The difference is significant).
The missing "minimise all windows" from the taskbar was real annoying, but then I found the Win+M shortcut key ("show desktop" is not the same). But then 2003 is the current end of the server line (NT4, 2000, 2003) rather than desktop line (95, 98, ME, XP). The server line's always been a much better line of products (although more expensive, if you're into buying them)
Oh come on, it's not like they spent all that time just coming up with dynamic memory management... they also invented protected memory and preemptive multitasking every other OS didn't have years before:-/
I know I'd prefer my OS to have those than a limiting, I mean simple GUI.
"I will never forget when W98(?) said it would not check the disk on boot if it was previously shutdown nicely"
Okay, I've only used MS OS's MSDOS 3.2, 5, 6.2(2), and Win 3.1(1), WfWG, Win 95 - 2003, and prerelease of Vista... but all of them didn't check the disk on boot if it was shut down nicely. Which did?
"(I guess the comatose state causes ethical issues)"
*lol* very good. I've bought up this unkillable process issue before on here, like when a network mount goes down, hanging all processes with active reads so they can't be killed. The response I got was that this is actually by design; with NFS being connectionless or sessionless or stateless or something (I forget the word used) means when the connection comes back up, and the nfs remounted, the reads etc will resume where they left off. Killing the process on the client would leave locks open on the server.
I can understand this, but do disagree; you should never have a process on your own system that you cannot kill. The left open locks issue could easily be resolved by updating the server on closed connections on reconnect etc, and these days with other network filesystems like CIFS, and removable media (linux ready for the desktop?) reads shouldn't expect to always be able to resume.
Just like no one was twisting peoples arms to use MS-Windows + Internet Explorer + Media Player, but they still had an antitrust suit filed against them, right over there in America... damn that socialist America.
Idiot.
And yes, all iTunes has to do is license Fairplay to other hardware manufacturers for the case to be dropped, but so far, they've refused to.
It's not to do with DRM, it's to do with monopoly & tie in... because iTunes has a huge market share, and the DRM won't work on non-Apple players, it's seen as "using a monopoly in one area to gain or maintain a monopoly in another". They're trying to do something about it, which isn't wrong. If there are other cases where someone's using a monopoly in one area to gain or maintain a monopoly in another, then they should be gone after too, and they are - the ruling against apple will apply to all others in norway, but apple being the biggest, are getting the most media coverage (those are words from spokesperson of the consumer group that's pressing this issue).
DVDs might be region locked, but they're not manufacturer locked in anyway near the same way. I know, I've seen DVD drives 'n players from Sony, Panasonic, Freecom, LG, Philips, Matsui, ALBA, Sanyo... how does that compare with "you can play iTunes DRM contents with: Apple" ???
"How hard would it be for a recording company to copyright all of the hash values for every common LAME/Nero/WinAMP encoding option set?"
Impossible. Firstly - do you know how many combinations that is? Just with VBR files, you have each different value for the lower bitrate AND upper bitrate bounds, multiply by each of the quality bias values, multiply by stereo (joint vs seperate) options, multiply by frequency options (44100, 48000)... THEN you could just drop or raise the volume of the whole track by 1%, and get completely different codes for each of those combo's... then 2%... or increase the bass by 1%... in the end, you're probably talking about so many different values, that you'd get hash colisions with a file that isn't that copyrighted material, which would prove the whole system flawed.
Secondly - you'd have to publish (in some form or another) all of those codes to show you created them.
So no, it's not funny at all that they haven't tried it.
Since when?! DRMed CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, BluRays... they play on a multitude of different devices, from different companies. Windows doesn't limit what hardware you can run it on, and all the other 3rd party software that only runs on Windows? Well that's the people who write the software's decision.
Norway has outlawed iTunes because you don't have the choice of what hardware from what company to listen to it on. It's Apples' players only.
brilliant, thanks for that link. Only thing they missed was him saying "Are you getting this?", pretentious patronising ijerk, I can't believe he said that, like it's difficult to comprehend or was totally unpredicted or anything./rant
1 - using letters from the alphabet isn't copyright infringement. 2 - it was a joke 3 - saying "copyright infringement isn't theft" doesn't make it so.
Slashdot Mirror
All of a sudden Hitlers ideas don't seem so bad now, huh?
You won't be laughing when the moon comes crashing into your house!
...but I didn't kill the deputy [webmaster]
"your grievances against XP (long boot time) were not really true"
It's not even true that I said that! My comparison was between 2000 and 2003, I said:
"2000 would start/stop drivers sequencially, whereas 2003 will do it concurrently"
I made no comment on XPs driver loading, my grievances with XP lie elsewhere, like it slowing me down by asking me if I'm "sure" about everything. I need an interface that's designed for people who know what they're doing, not one that's designed for people who aren't sure.
Which is why in my original post I said:
"The server line's always been a much better line of products (although more expensive, if you're into buying them)"
"The problem with this is that either the server keeps the lock until the client reconnects (leading to unkillable processes in the server) or it opens it and relocks it on client reconnect"
or the locks remain held during disconnected state (as is the case now), but when the client reconnects, locks held open on the server that aren't still on the client (ie, the process holding them has been killed) get released.
"But that would force people to handle I/O errors in their programs"
no I was just thinkin of being able to terminate a task that's waiting on a blocking I/O, eg, if you know you're not able to reconnect to a stateless nfs, or the read is on a stateful [n]fs.
"I hate to be pedantic"
:-p
no you don't, you love it
2003 comes with all the shinies already turned off, so you just turn on what ya need, but yeah the swiching from sequencial to concurrent driver load/unloading was between 2000 an XP.
I thought that, until I tried 2003 and converted from server to desktop modes (eg, enable all hardware accelleration for sound/graphics, enable sound server, disable having to tell it why you wanna reboot etc etc). I went to 2003 because I'm a web developer and need to test under IE7 (not available for 2000), but would rather find a new job than have to use XP. The startup/shutdown time alone makes a huge difference (I don't do this often, but damnit when I do I want it done fast! 2000 would start/stop drivers sequencially, whereas 2003 will do it concurrently, hiding a lot of IO wait times. The difference is significant).
The missing "minimise all windows" from the taskbar was real annoying, but then I found the Win+M shortcut key ("show desktop" is not the same). But then 2003 is the current end of the server line (NT4, 2000, 2003) rather than desktop line (95, 98, ME, XP). The server line's always been a much better line of products (although more expensive, if you're into buying them)
Oh come on, it's not like they spent all that time just coming up with dynamic memory management... they also invented protected memory and preemptive multitasking every other OS didn't have years before :-/
I know I'd prefer my OS to have those than a limiting, I mean simple GUI.
"I will never forget when W98(?) said it would not check the disk on boot if it was previously shutdown nicely"
Okay, I've only used MS OS's MSDOS 3.2, 5, 6.2(2), and Win 3.1(1), WfWG, Win 95 - 2003, and prerelease of Vista... but all of them didn't check the disk on boot if it was shut down nicely. Which did?
And two other cogent comparisons are zebras, footballs, and your post! See the simularities?
"(I guess the comatose state causes ethical issues)"
*lol* very good. I've bought up this unkillable process issue before on here, like when a network mount goes down, hanging all processes with active reads so they can't be killed. The response I got was that this is actually by design; with NFS being connectionless or sessionless or stateless or something (I forget the word used) means when the connection comes back up, and the nfs remounted, the reads etc will resume where they left off. Killing the process on the client would leave locks open on the server.
I can understand this, but do disagree; you should never have a process on your own system that you cannot kill. The left open locks issue could easily be resolved by updating the server on closed connections on reconnect etc, and these days with other network filesystems like CIFS, and removable media (linux ready for the desktop?) reads shouldn't expect to always be able to resume.
"There's no one out there twisting your arm"
Just like no one was twisting peoples arms to use MS-Windows + Internet Explorer + Media Player, but they still had an antitrust suit filed against them, right over there in America... damn that socialist America.
Idiot.
And yes, all iTunes has to do is license Fairplay to other hardware manufacturers for the case to be dropped, but so far, they've refused to.
It's not to do with DRM, it's to do with monopoly & tie in... because iTunes has a huge market share, and the DRM won't work on non-Apple players, it's seen as "using a monopoly in one area to gain or maintain a monopoly in another". They're trying to do something about it, which isn't wrong. If there are other cases where someone's using a monopoly in one area to gain or maintain a monopoly in another, then they should be gone after too, and they are - the ruling against apple will apply to all others in norway, but apple being the biggest, are getting the most media coverage (those are words from spokesperson of the consumer group that's pressing this issue).
DVDs might be region locked, but they're not manufacturer locked in anyway near the same way. I know, I've seen DVD drives 'n players from Sony, Panasonic, Freecom, LG, Philips, Matsui, ALBA, Sanyo... how does that compare with "you can play iTunes DRM contents with: Apple" ???
"Consumers could only buy DVD players that were licensed by DVDCCA"
so the equivalent would be apple licensing the DRM decode to other manufacturers to use in their players... but they refuse to. There is a difference.
"How hard would it be for a recording company to copyright all of the hash values for every common LAME/Nero/WinAMP encoding option set?"
Impossible. Firstly - do you know how many combinations that is? Just with VBR files, you have each different value for the lower bitrate AND upper bitrate bounds, multiply by each of the quality bias values, multiply by stereo (joint vs seperate) options, multiply by frequency options (44100, 48000)... THEN you could just drop or raise the volume of the whole track by 1%, and get completely different codes for each of those combo's... then 2%... or increase the bass by 1%... in the end, you're probably talking about so many different values, that you'd get hash colisions with a file that isn't that copyrighted material, which would prove the whole system flawed.
Secondly - you'd have to publish (in some form or another) all of those codes to show you created them.
So no, it's not funny at all that they haven't tried it.
oops, replace "is" with "isn't", was quoting your first post.
"Hello, thats what DRM is all about"
Since when?! DRMed CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs, BluRays... they play on a multitude of different devices, from different companies. Windows doesn't limit what hardware you can run it on, and all the other 3rd party software that only runs on Windows? Well that's the people who write the software's decision.
Norway has outlawed iTunes because you don't have the choice of what hardware from what company to listen to it on. It's Apples' players only.
brilliant, thanks for that link. Only thing they missed was him saying "Are you getting this?", pretentious patronising ijerk, I can't believe he said that, like it's difficult to comprehend or was totally unpredicted or anything. /rant
Ah, I was wondering where that "copyright infringement is theft" came from, but yeah hehe "woosh!" I see now you were just joking. Apoligise.
'Assuming by "temporary" you mean "contemporary"'
I figured he meant temporal; the physics of time (as opposed to temporary; limited time, or contemporary; present time)
"Wanna join the"
See, I can make you look stupid by chopping off the latter part of what you said too.
1 - using letters from the alphabet isn't copyright infringement.
2 - it was a joke
3 - saying "copyright infringement isn't theft" doesn't make it so.
Take as much time to note as you want, doesn't change anything.