Re:Apple is going to make a killing...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
... if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!
Ummm... I think you just identified about 95% of the computer-buying public (OK, I am exagerating because I am generalizing all Windows boxes as Dells).
I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.
That's odd. You are already a Mac zealot. What can you possibly gain by being able to run Windows since OSX is so superior? I'm afraid your argument that this will entice a huge population to switch does not hold water. By my estimation, mostly it will entice the relatively small population of existing Mac owners to upgrade so they can run Windows-only games and apps.
In my mind there are 2 types of mac owners: computer-phobic types and computer-saavy types. The Windows world has those 2 types of people as well, along with a large number of price-sensitive folks, and an even larger number of captive users (those for whom Windows is mandated by their company/parents/school).
Arguably the tech-phobic types who are running Windows are having a much more unpleasant experience than their Mac counterparts. However, they are most probably chained to Windows due to the availability of Apps or due to the price of the hardware. This group is not going to switch either because they can't afford to buy Macs, or they don't have the technical know-how to install a dual-booted Windows.
The saavy types (a small percentage of the market - figure 5-10% max) have pretty much chosen their platform. They are gurus and have a great deal invested in customizing, optimizing and otherwise totally bonding with their machines. It is doubtful to me that many of them will switch, though some might buy the Macs to get the cool hardware.
This leaves the big group in the middle. Most of these are subject to the purchasing whims of the organization that provides them their computer. I simply cannot imagine many companies or schools willing to replace all their perfectly fine PCs with much more pricey Macs, and THEN paying for Windows licenses and putting in all that labor to dual boot and install Windows, and THEN installing all the applications, all just to get back to where they were. Not gonna happen.
So where does this leave us? I think existing Mac owners are the big beneficiaries here, and will be the biggest buyers. Some percentage of the tech-saavy Windows people will switch, but that is not a large part of the market. IMHO, the vast majority of Windows customers will stay right where they are.
Re:By my calculation ...
on
ILM's Datacenter
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I wasn't suggesting moving the media was necessarily a better way to go -- I was just curious what the bitrate would turn out to be.
As an aside, the other day in the lab a coworker asked me for an application I had on my thumbdrive. I tossed it across the room to him and then observed that I had just moves 1GB of data in 1 second, wirelessly!
BTW, I tried to read the article but the site was slashdotted at the time.
By my calculation ...
on
ILM's Datacenter
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
According to Mapquest a trip from San Rafeal to San Francisco would take about 35 minutes (Est. Distance: 21.06 miles). Therefore, if I loaded up all 170TB on a truck my effective bandwidth would be about 3.06e28 bps (or roughly 3e16 Tbps). Once again for huge data repositories there is no substitute for shipping physical media.
Are you familiar with pandora.com? [pandora.com] If you haven't, you can try it 10 hours for free. Pandora is only $35 per year, and it is a pretty impressive internet radio system.
Thanks for the pointer. I gave Pandora the run-through the last few days -- comparing it to Yahoo Music Unlimited. I think for the things I value in a music service (ability to choose, ability to play music even when not connected to the net, wide selection of "mainstream" artists, encode quality) Yahoo is a much superior experience. True, Pandora is $25/year cheaper, but the selection of content (at least the stuff I listen to) seems to be quite limited. Further, only being able to skip 10 songs/hour is a problem for me; I routinely bumped against that limit. One song was so obnoxious that I had to turn the volume all the way down and wait it out, since I was out of skips. That experience conditioned me to tolerate songs I didn't care for just in case something really bad came along later. As regards the quality of the encode, Yahoo uses 192kbps WMA, which is quite a bit better than 128kbps mp3. The biggest advantages I see for Pandora are: nothing to install, accessible from any browser (Yahoo must be installed and you are limited to 3 activated machines) and it's a decent music discovery service. I was really intrigued by their categorization of music driving the recommendations. Yahoo has a recommendation feature, but I believe it's simply based on the Amazon model (others who downloaded this song also downloaded this other song).
Oh, and if there is a song I really want to keep around or play in a non-WMA compatible device, there is always Audacity (the dreaded analog hole!). BTW, I searched everywhere on my harddrive for those "open mp3s" you spoke about, but they were nowhere to be found. Could Pandora perhaps have switched to a true streaming model?
First, thank you for the excellent and detailed response. I read it several times and can readily appreciate your argument. However, I believe we have a fundamental disconnect. Full disclosure: Yes I am a coder, and beyond that, I have in fact implemented DRM in a prior job. Yes, I understand that the key must be embedded in the device hardware, and that the key must be unique for every device, not just every TYPE of device. And content must be encrypted using the target device's key. And yes, I acknowledge that techies will figure out a way to access the key and/or break the encryption. All of that we can agree on.
Where we part ways is how DRM affects and is perceived by the other 99% of the population. For them it is all just mysterious and causes them grief. It is not an option for them to pull down an OSS decrypter, or hack into their shiny new DVD player. All they want to do is make a copy of their CD so they can have it in their car. They want to put the CD into their computer, press a button, and have the music in their cell phone or mp3 player. They want to make a custom mix CD of their favorite songs. They want to listen to their music on their work computer as well as on their home computer, and perhaps their laptop when they are traveling. They want to buy content from online providers and add it to their playlists, or burn it to CD/DVD. They don't understand why, if they buy a song from iTunes, they can't play it on their phone. Or why they can't put all their music into one playlist (DRM schemes are almost always exclusive of other schemes). None of this is "fixed" by eliminating DCMA. You yourself said that companies (content providers) are free to use any DRM scheme they choose. This implies to me that the tower of Babel will not only persist, but worsen. My suggestion was based on the fact that the "Free market" has created this concept of DRM, and it is probably with us to stay. I was hoping to find a way to make it workable/tolerable for the casual user.
And if something does need to be done, then it needs to be some innovation and adaption on the copyright law side to compensate creators, not some war to exterminate technology and exterminate abilities.
Yikes! I suppose one could imagine, if we had a blank sheet of paper, we would come up with a scheme where content creators would be "compensated" by some sort of "worldwide organization" that counted the number of times their content was accessed. For this to work every device would have to be "connected", and every user would receive a periodic "content bill". Alternatively I suppose it could be paid for by a broad-based "tax" of some sort. In either of these scenarios the concept of content ownership becomes an anachronism, and perhaps that is where it ultimately needs to be. Interestingly, that seems to be where Microsoft is headed with its software subscription model. I have to say, I don't read alot of praise for this approach on these boards.
I personally think, in the end, that the notion of "property ownership" is too firmly embedded in our psyche to accept this rental approach (remember DIVX - the first one, not the current one?). Then again, maybe once technology evolves sufficiently it will become easy and cheap enough for people to accept it. There are a number of "unlimited" streaming music services (I subscribe to Yahoo Unlimited) that seem to be catching on, but they are crippled today by the lack of portability of the music.
It might be slower than current systems, with a lot more steps required to transfer a file between continents. But it'll work.
I agree, and that is *almost* my point. By forcing people to invest time and effort, abuse will be throttled. Yet at the same time it would still be easy to share/swap with nearby friends. If you wanted to swap with someone a half a world away, they *could* send their device to you, and then you could swap keys and send it back -- then you could swap via the net. And of course you could easily move your content between your own devices without any impediments.
I personally think the biggest objection people have to all these DRM schemes is that they get in the way of common, reasonable use of purchased content. It always seems to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I am just searching for some middle ground that makes sense.
And I know the internet makes it easy to share with anyone on the planet, but just because something is possible, that doesn't mean we should do it. For example, it's also possible to put everyone's private information into an online, widely accessible database so anybody, anywhere can find out anything they want to know about you. I could come up with many, many reasons why this would be a good idea. But obviously most people would strongly (and rightly) object. So instead if someone wants some of your personal data they have to contact you directly and you have to decide to give it to them or not.
Reading the article, I am struck by the common sense he exhibits. I have to say this whole P2P thing really needs to be sorted out - it is consuming far too many resources.
As I think back to when I was younger, the way those of use with little disposable income got our music was to record it off the radio. I would wait anxiously for the Thursday night countdown so I could try to get a recording of my favorite songs. Of course we didn't have nonlinear digital editing tools (or even crude analog editing tools) so invariably there would be a DJ yammering (and sometimes other room sounds) on my recorded music. And I became the master of the 70's fadeout, turning down the volume of the radio near the end of the song, trying to end the recording gracefully before the DJ chimed in. Anyhow, it strikes me that the big difference between then and now was that, while I could get (inferior quality) free music, I couldn't easily share it with others, though occassionally I would get together with friends and let them copy my recordings (and vice versa). Oh, and when I got a few sheckles together I would buy the 45 of my favorite songs, and over time built a decent collection (decent in size, not quality;-).
So this makes me wonder if we need to change the P2P universe somehow. I just don't think the current system is sustainable over the long-term. To me the "problem" is massive sharing. I personally believe this goes beyond the concept of "fair use". I don't think there are many people who consider it a crime for me to loan a friend a CD (or a book or a DVD for that matter). If we could extend that model somehow to P2P, keeping it easy to share with people we have "direct contact" with, but more difficult to share with people on another continent, I think that would be a more balanced approach. And of course there would be nothing stopping artists from distributing their stuff broadly if they so chose. I could almost imagine "content-playing machines" exchanging some sort of key or token via some non-remotable physical interface, thereby allowing those machines to share content with each other. Sounds Orwellian, I know, but it would maintain the "fair use" aspects while inhibiting massive sharing.
help resolve many problems associated with entertainment and media centre functionality inside the OS
The way I read this, 60% of the code that implements the entertainment and media centre functionality needs a rewrite --- not 60% of Vista. This is much more consistent with the fact that the Vista Business Edition (whatever MS is actually calling it) is still on schedule to release this year. With this interpretation, 60% does not seem totally out of line. Heck, I'd vote for re-writing 100% of media Player if it was up to me!
From the article: Microsoft argues that by integrating those user-oriented software packages thoroughly with back-end programs for data storage, communications, and business-process management, it puts companies' ordinary employees, rather than the geeks, at the center of the computing world. "Our innovations facilitate the power of people" in businesses, he said.
It's true that MS is taking a completely different approach from IBM. MS espouses off-the-shelf software products (theirs of course) glued together by the customer's own employees. IBM espouses an army of consultants armed with a collection of applications and CDs packed full of open source, writing your company's custom business software.
Now which approach do you think will win? What does history tell us? Personally, I think things in computerdom always trend towards off-the-shelf standardization. the reasons for this are obvious. There is someone to call when there's a problem. The cost typically drops as volumes are high. And the learning curve is lower because people already are familiar with the building blocks. I can't think of any examples where customization is a longterm solution to a problem. This is why I think MS has a good chance of success here.
As the old saying goes, "People tend to overestimate what can be done in one year and to underestimate what can be done in ten years." I think that applies very nicely here. It took much longer for HDTV to take off than was originally believed. When I bought my first rear projection TV back in 1993 the salesman said "you should hold off and buy an HDTV-ready TV - everyone will be replacing their TVs by 1995 when HDTV broadcasting begins". I ignored his advice and, last year as I was replacing that old klunker I bought a 57" HDTV-ready widescreen. Personally, I believe HD-DVD will probably catch on, but it will take some time.
Actually, no such assumption is made on my part. From what I have seen so far (have you tried the Vista beta yet?) there are a number of usability enhancements beyond mere eye-candy in Vista. FYI, there is a nice article here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931945 ,00.asp that discusses them. Most of them are targeted at everyday (ie non-techie) users, so they may go unappreciated (and hence be subject to scorn and mockery) by this audience. But the simple fact is, those things matter A LOT to common users -- the very crowd the Linux desktop distributions need to attract to gain any significant market share. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that the "perceived usability" of the Linux desktops closely tracks its increasing operational similarity to Windows.
And yes, Microsoft also freely copies as well -- tabbed browsing in IE7 is an example that quickly comes to mind. I never said that they didn't. But folks around these parts are very quick to castigate MS as a non-innovator when in fact they innovate as much as they copy, and perhaps more.
Lastly, there seems to be the perception around here that innovation == goodness. In the commonly accepted definition of the word, innovation means something new and unique, not necessary better. And for all their faults, you cannot possibly argue, as many on this board do, that Microsoft never introduces anything new or different. That said, you *might* have some success arguing they never introduce anything good;-)
If few of these changes are major by themselves, the overall result is welcome. Perhaps the best way of looking at the release is not as an end in itself, but as a milestone on the road to desktop usability in free operation systems. From this perspective, GNOME 2.14 is a sign that much of the journey is already over -- and that the remaining distance is less than many observers think.
This statement is true, at least until Vista is released, at which point the bar goes up again and the "free operation systems" are again at a significant deficit. Luckily it is always quicker to copy than it is to innovate, so I have no doubt the gap will close again.
And the benficiaries are the pre-IPO Google shareholders (employees, pre-IPO investors and founders), who sold those shares at a grossly inflated price. Do you honestly believe they (Google) behave the way they do for altruistic reasons? They did a cold calculation and reasoned that this was how they could maximize their (shareholders pre-IPO) "take", which ultimately must come at the expense of the investors. Google is just another company acting in what it perceives is its self-interest and I, as a died-in-the-wool capitalist, have no problem with that. Don't ascribe anything more than that to their actions and you won't be disappointed.
... who sees the irony in the fact that Google's plans to offer web-based storage of all of our personal information was accidentally leaked to the web?
So another data point that proves my assertion. So why then did RMS use UNIX? UNIX, in his words, is evil. And (his words again) people who use non-free software are making an ethical choice. We have established that this was not necessary in order to accomplish his goal. So instead he compromised his principals - the very principals with which he flogs everyone else. Throwing his coat over a video camera because the event was being streamed in Real Player format is nice theatrics. Too bad that's all it is.
First RMS steps in it by saying nobody should use any non-free software (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti onID=13&ItemID=9350), and if they are working on a task that requires non-free software they should just not do the task... then 2 paragraphs later he admits to using Unix to develop GNU, but says that was OK because he was only using it to stamp out "evil".
And now we have the founder of Wikipedia editing his own bio 18 times, despite strongly worded discouragement of that type of activity. And better yet, he is using some of these edits to rewrite the history of Wikipedia. I think I will have to tell my kids to steer clear of using Wikipedia as a source for any future school work.
Now, ordinarily I would let these relatively minor transgressions pass, but the fact is, these two folks are very quick to position their movements as "good versus evil". If you are so quick to sing your own virtues, you had better be above reproach, and clearly neither of these gentlemen are.
Actually, I did include his rationalization for his "digression".
We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in
I did not misquote; nor did I use his words out of context. It is not my fault if his rationale is inconsistent and his words are hypocritical. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in his public statements.
The robotic laboratory was designed to search Mars for signs of past or present life.
Scientists are mortified to report that the Beagle 2 did indeed find life on Mars. Unfortunately, due to its poorly controlled re-entry it crashed into and killed all the Martian lifeforms...
Thank you. Yes, as a matter of fact I handwrote and hand-assembled the code, then keyed in the hex. And before you point out that the software that interpretted my keystrokes was an "OS", I wrote that also, and hand-keyed the hex into a prom burner. Fortunately, the prom burner is a piece of "non-free" hardware which, for some reason, is not subject to RMS's draconian rules... so, ummm, the answer to your question is most definitely yes. Of course I did all this in the late 70s as a hobbyist.
My views are significantly different from those expressed by RMS. I believe we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Whether they chose to "pursue personal goals" or if they were "pure of spirit" doesn't matter to me. What matters is leverage. And I hope I am creating things that others will build upon. That is how great things are created. If you instead have this silly political dogma govern everything you do, replicating the work of others merely to satisfy some self-absorbed "morality", you (please pardon the pun) stall progress.
RMS: There are some special circumstances. To develop GNU, I used Unix. But first, I thought about whether it would be ethical to do that.
I concluded it was legitimate to use Unix to develop GNU, because GNU's purpose was to help everyone else stop using Unix sooner. We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in.
Hypocrisy pure and simple. I love how earlier in the interview he says:
JP: But is there still an ethical issue if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job, for ZNet for example?
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
Clearly one can write an operating system without using an operating system. I have done it and I'm sure others in Slashdot-land have as well. To blithely say everyone else should follow his draconian rules, but he is immune because of "special circumstances" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
still, your dubious point about nobody can search every little thing that goes on is silly,
Your language suggests that you have never participated in the patent process. Finding patents that *seem* to talk about the same thing you are considering is quite easy, but it's a LOOOONNNNNGGGG way from determining if your idea infringes. For that you must read, and understand, the various claims. You need to know if the claims are dependent or independent? You need to look at continuances. And it's mostly written in impenetrable legalese, not "clear engineering-jargon". After my 4th or 5th patent I sort of got the hang of reading these things, but it still takes a chunk of time analyzing all the claims to see what was really patented. Now multiply that times the 10-1000 "hits" your keyword search yields and you have a serious commitment of effort.
Slashdot Mirror
... if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!
... I think you just identified about 95% of the computer-buying public (OK, I am exagerating because I am generalizing all Windows boxes as Dells).
Ummm
I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.
That's odd. You are already a Mac zealot. What can you possibly gain by being able to run Windows since OSX is so superior? I'm afraid your argument that this will entice a huge population to switch does not hold water. By my estimation, mostly it will entice the relatively small population of existing Mac owners to upgrade so they can run Windows-only games and apps.
In my mind there are 2 types of mac owners: computer-phobic types and computer-saavy types. The Windows world has those 2 types of people as well, along with a large number of price-sensitive folks, and an even larger number of captive users (those for whom Windows is mandated by their company/parents/school).
Arguably the tech-phobic types who are running Windows are having a much more unpleasant experience than their Mac counterparts. However, they are most probably chained to Windows due to the availability of Apps or due to the price of the hardware. This group is not going to switch either because they can't afford to buy Macs, or they don't have the technical know-how to install a dual-booted Windows.
The saavy types (a small percentage of the market - figure 5-10% max) have pretty much chosen their platform. They are gurus and have a great deal invested in customizing, optimizing and otherwise totally bonding with their machines. It is doubtful to me that many of them will switch, though some might buy the Macs to get the cool hardware.
This leaves the big group in the middle. Most of these are subject to the purchasing whims of the organization that provides them their computer. I simply cannot imagine many companies or schools willing to replace all their perfectly fine PCs with much more pricey Macs, and THEN paying for Windows licenses and putting in all that labor to dual boot and install Windows, and THEN installing all the applications, all just to get back to where they were. Not gonna happen.
So where does this leave us? I think existing Mac owners are the big beneficiaries here, and will be the biggest buyers. Some percentage of the tech-saavy Windows people will switch, but that is not a large part of the market. IMHO, the vast majority of Windows customers will stay right where they are.
I wasn't suggesting moving the media was necessarily a better way to go -- I was just curious what the bitrate would turn out to be.
As an aside, the other day in the lab a coworker asked me for an application I had on my thumbdrive. I tossed it across the room to him and then observed that I had just moves 1GB of data in 1 second, wirelessly!
BTW, I tried to read the article but the site was slashdotted at the time.
According to Mapquest a trip from San Rafeal to San Francisco would take about 35 minutes (Est. Distance: 21.06 miles). Therefore, if I loaded up all 170TB on a truck my effective bandwidth would be about 3.06e28 bps (or roughly 3e16 Tbps). Once again for huge data repositories there is no substitute for shipping physical media.
Are you familiar with pandora.com? [pandora.com] If you haven't, you can try it 10 hours for free. Pandora is only $35 per year, and it is a pretty impressive internet radio system.
Thanks for the pointer. I gave Pandora the run-through the last few days -- comparing it to Yahoo Music Unlimited. I think for the things I value in a music service (ability to choose, ability to play music even when not connected to the net, wide selection of "mainstream" artists, encode quality) Yahoo is a much superior experience. True, Pandora is $25/year cheaper, but the selection of content (at least the stuff I listen to) seems to be quite limited. Further, only being able to skip 10 songs/hour is a problem for me; I routinely bumped against that limit. One song was so obnoxious that I had to turn the volume all the way down and wait it out, since I was out of skips. That experience conditioned me to tolerate songs I didn't care for just in case something really bad came along later. As regards the quality of the encode, Yahoo uses 192kbps WMA, which is quite a bit better than 128kbps mp3. The biggest advantages I see for Pandora are: nothing to install, accessible from any browser (Yahoo must be installed and you are limited to 3 activated machines) and it's a decent music discovery service. I was really intrigued by their categorization of music driving the recommendations. Yahoo has a recommendation feature, but I believe it's simply based on the Amazon model (others who downloaded this song also downloaded this other song).
Oh, and if there is a song I really want to keep around or play in a non-WMA compatible device, there is always Audacity (the dreaded analog hole!). BTW, I searched everywhere on my harddrive for those "open mp3s" you spoke about, but they were nowhere to be found. Could Pandora perhaps have switched to a true streaming model?
First, thank you for the excellent and detailed response. I read it several times and can readily appreciate your argument. However, I believe we have a fundamental disconnect. Full disclosure: Yes I am a coder, and beyond that, I have in fact implemented DRM in a prior job. Yes, I understand that the key must be embedded in the device hardware, and that the key must be unique for every device, not just every TYPE of device. And content must be encrypted using the target device's key. And yes, I acknowledge that techies will figure out a way to access the key and/or break the encryption. All of that we can agree on.
Where we part ways is how DRM affects and is perceived by the other 99% of the population. For them it is all just mysterious and causes them grief. It is not an option for them to pull down an OSS decrypter, or hack into their shiny new DVD player. All they want to do is make a copy of their CD so they can have it in their car. They want to put the CD into their computer, press a button, and have the music in their cell phone or mp3 player. They want to make a custom mix CD of their favorite songs. They want to listen to their music on their work computer as well as on their home computer, and perhaps their laptop when they are traveling. They want to buy content from online providers and add it to their playlists, or burn it to CD/DVD. They don't understand why, if they buy a song from iTunes, they can't play it on their phone. Or why they can't put all their music into one playlist (DRM schemes are almost always exclusive of other schemes). None of this is "fixed" by eliminating DCMA. You yourself said that companies (content providers) are free to use any DRM scheme they choose. This implies to me that the tower of Babel will not only persist, but worsen. My suggestion was based on the fact that the "Free market" has created this concept of DRM, and it is probably with us to stay. I was hoping to find a way to make it workable/tolerable for the casual user.
And if something does need to be done, then it needs to be some innovation and adaption on the copyright law side to compensate creators, not some war to exterminate technology and exterminate abilities.
Yikes! I suppose one could imagine, if we had a blank sheet of paper, we would come up with a scheme where content creators would be "compensated" by some sort of "worldwide organization" that counted the number of times their content was accessed. For this to work every device would have to be "connected", and every user would receive a periodic "content bill". Alternatively I suppose it could be paid for by a broad-based "tax" of some sort. In either of these scenarios the concept of content ownership becomes an anachronism, and perhaps that is where it ultimately needs to be. Interestingly, that seems to be where Microsoft is headed with its software subscription model. I have to say, I don't read alot of praise for this approach on these boards.
I personally think, in the end, that the notion of "property ownership" is too firmly embedded in our psyche to accept this rental approach (remember DIVX - the first one, not the current one?). Then again, maybe once technology evolves sufficiently it will become easy and cheap enough for people to accept it. There are a number of "unlimited" streaming music services (I subscribe to Yahoo Unlimited) that seem to be catching on, but they are crippled today by the lack of portability of the music.
It might be slower than current systems, with a lot more steps required to transfer a file between continents. But it'll work.
I agree, and that is *almost* my point. By forcing people to invest time and effort, abuse will be throttled. Yet at the same time it would still be easy to share/swap with nearby friends. If you wanted to swap with someone a half a world away, they *could* send their device to you, and then you could swap keys and send it back -- then you could swap via the net. And of course you could easily move your content between your own devices without any impediments.
I personally think the biggest objection people have to all these DRM schemes is that they get in the way of common, reasonable use of purchased content. It always seems to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I am just searching for some middle ground that makes sense.
And I know the internet makes it easy to share with anyone on the planet, but just because something is possible, that doesn't mean we should do it. For example, it's also possible to put everyone's private information into an online, widely accessible database so anybody, anywhere can find out anything they want to know about you. I could come up with many, many reasons why this would be a good idea. But obviously most people would strongly (and rightly) object. So instead if someone wants some of your personal data they have to contact you directly and you have to decide to give it to them or not.
Reading the article, I am struck by the common sense he exhibits. I have to say this whole P2P thing really needs to be sorted out - it is consuming far too many resources.
;-).
As I think back to when I was younger, the way those of use with little disposable income got our music was to record it off the radio. I would wait anxiously for the Thursday night countdown so I could try to get a recording of my favorite songs. Of course we didn't have nonlinear digital editing tools (or even crude analog editing tools) so invariably there would be a DJ yammering (and sometimes other room sounds) on my recorded music. And I became the master of the 70's fadeout, turning down the volume of the radio near the end of the song, trying to end the recording gracefully before the DJ chimed in. Anyhow, it strikes me that the big difference between then and now was that, while I could get (inferior quality) free music, I couldn't easily share it with others, though occassionally I would get together with friends and let them copy my recordings (and vice versa). Oh, and when I got a few sheckles together I would buy the 45 of my favorite songs, and over time built a decent collection (decent in size, not quality
So this makes me wonder if we need to change the P2P universe somehow. I just don't think the current system is sustainable over the long-term. To me the "problem" is massive sharing. I personally believe this goes beyond the concept of "fair use". I don't think there are many people who consider it a crime for me to loan a friend a CD (or a book or a DVD for that matter). If we could extend that model somehow to P2P, keeping it easy to share with people we have "direct contact" with, but more difficult to share with people on another continent, I think that would be a more balanced approach. And of course there would be nothing stopping artists from distributing their stuff broadly if they so chose. I could almost imagine "content-playing machines" exchanging some sort of key or token via some non-remotable physical interface, thereby allowing those machines to share content with each other. Sounds Orwellian, I know, but it would maintain the "fair use" aspects while inhibiting massive sharing.
Hmmm, perhaps my son's goal of being a virtual cop in the online worlds could be a good career choice after all.
help resolve many problems associated with entertainment and media centre functionality inside the OS
The way I read this, 60% of the code that implements the entertainment and media centre functionality needs a rewrite --- not 60% of Vista. This is much more consistent with the fact that the Vista Business Edition (whatever MS is actually calling it) is still on schedule to release this year. With this interpretation, 60% does not seem totally out of line. Heck, I'd vote for re-writing 100% of media Player if it was up to me!
From the article: Microsoft argues that by integrating those user-oriented software packages thoroughly with back-end programs for data storage, communications, and business-process management, it puts companies' ordinary employees, rather than the geeks, at the center of the computing world. "Our innovations facilitate the power of people" in businesses, he said.
It's true that MS is taking a completely different approach from IBM. MS espouses off-the-shelf software products (theirs of course) glued together by the customer's own employees. IBM espouses an army of consultants armed with a collection of applications and CDs packed full of open source, writing your company's custom business software.
Now which approach do you think will win? What does history tell us? Personally, I think things in computerdom always trend towards off-the-shelf standardization. the reasons for this are obvious. There is someone to call when there's a problem. The cost typically drops as volumes are high. And the learning curve is lower because people already are familiar with the building blocks. I can't think of any examples where customization is a longterm solution to a problem. This is why I think MS has a good chance of success here.
As the old saying goes, "People tend to overestimate what can be done in one year and to underestimate what can be done in ten years." I think that applies very nicely here. It took much longer for HDTV to take off than was originally believed. When I bought my first rear projection TV back in 1993 the salesman said "you should hold off and buy an HDTV-ready TV - everyone will be replacing their TVs by 1995 when HDTV broadcasting begins". I ignored his advice and, last year as I was replacing that old klunker I bought a 57" HDTV-ready widescreen. Personally, I believe HD-DVD will probably catch on, but it will take some time.
Actually, no such assumption is made on my part. From what I have seen so far (have you tried the Vista beta yet?) there are a number of usability enhancements beyond mere eye-candy in Vista. FYI, there is a nice article here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931945 ,00.asp that discusses them. Most of them are targeted at everyday (ie non-techie) users, so they may go unappreciated (and hence be subject to scorn and mockery) by this audience. But the simple fact is, those things matter A LOT to common users -- the very crowd the Linux desktop distributions need to attract to gain any significant market share. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that the "perceived usability" of the Linux desktops closely tracks its increasing operational similarity to Windows.
;-)
And yes, Microsoft also freely copies as well -- tabbed browsing in IE7 is an example that quickly comes to mind. I never said that they didn't. But folks around these parts are very quick to castigate MS as a non-innovator when in fact they innovate as much as they copy, and perhaps more.
Lastly, there seems to be the perception around here that innovation == goodness. In the commonly accepted definition of the word, innovation means something new and unique, not necessary better. And for all their faults, you cannot possibly argue, as many on this board do, that Microsoft never introduces anything new or different. That said, you *might* have some success arguing they never introduce anything good
If few of these changes are major by themselves, the overall result is welcome. Perhaps the best way of looking at the release is not as an end in itself, but as a milestone on the road to desktop usability in free operation systems. From this perspective, GNOME 2.14 is a sign that much of the journey is already over -- and that the remaining distance is less than many observers think.
This statement is true, at least until Vista is released, at which point the bar goes up again and the "free operation systems" are again at a significant deficit. Luckily it is always quicker to copy than it is to innovate, so I have no doubt the gap will close again.
And the benficiaries are the pre-IPO Google shareholders (employees, pre-IPO investors and founders), who sold those shares at a grossly inflated price. Do you honestly believe they (Google) behave the way they do for altruistic reasons? They did a cold calculation and reasoned that this was how they could maximize their (shareholders pre-IPO) "take", which ultimately must come at the expense of the investors. Google is just another company acting in what it perceives is its self-interest and I, as a died-in-the-wool capitalist, have no problem with that. Don't ascribe anything more than that to their actions and you won't be disappointed.
So another data point that proves my assertion. So why then did RMS use UNIX? UNIX, in his words, is evil. And (his words again) people who use non-free software are making an ethical choice. We have established that this was not necessary in order to accomplish his goal. So instead he compromised his principals - the very principals with which he flogs everyone else. Throwing his coat over a video camera because the event was being streamed in Real Player format is nice theatrics. Too bad that's all it is.
Clearly he could much more easily screw the company's founders if it wasn't for those blasted patents they had already filed.
First RMS steps in it by saying nobody should use any non-free software (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti onID=13&ItemID=9350), and if they are working on a task that requires non-free software they should just not do the task ... then 2 paragraphs later he admits to using Unix to develop GNU, but says that was OK because he was only using it to stamp out "evil".
And now we have the founder of Wikipedia editing his own bio 18 times, despite strongly worded discouragement of that type of activity. And better yet, he is using some of these edits to rewrite the history of Wikipedia. I think I will have to tell my kids to steer clear of using Wikipedia as a source for any future school work.
Now, ordinarily I would let these relatively minor transgressions pass, but the fact is, these two folks are very quick to position their movements as "good versus evil". If you are so quick to sing your own virtues, you had better be above reproach, and clearly neither of these gentlemen are.
Actually, I did include his rationalization for his "digression".
We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in
I did not misquote; nor did I use his words out of context. It is not my fault if his rationale is inconsistent and his words are hypocritical. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in his public statements.
The robotic laboratory was designed to search Mars for signs of past or present life.
...
Scientists are mortified to report that the Beagle 2 did indeed find life on Mars. Unfortunately, due to its poorly controlled re-entry it crashed into and killed all the Martian lifeforms
Thank you. Yes, as a matter of fact I handwrote and hand-assembled the code, then keyed in the hex. And before you point out that the software that interpretted my keystrokes was an "OS", I wrote that also, and hand-keyed the hex into a prom burner. Fortunately, the prom burner is a piece of "non-free" hardware which, for some reason, is not subject to RMS's draconian rules ... so, ummm, the answer to your question is most definitely yes. Of course I did all this in the late 70s as a hobbyist.
My views are significantly different from those expressed by RMS. I believe we all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Whether they chose to "pursue personal goals" or if they were "pure of spirit" doesn't matter to me. What matters is leverage. And I hope I am creating things that others will build upon. That is how great things are created. If you instead have this silly political dogma govern everything you do, replicating the work of others merely to satisfy some self-absorbed "morality", you (please pardon the pun) stall progress.
RMS: There are some special circumstances. To develop GNU, I used Unix. But first, I thought about whether it would be ethical to do that.
I concluded it was legitimate to use Unix to develop GNU, because GNU's purpose was to help everyone else stop using Unix sooner. We weren't merely using Unix to do some worthwhile job, we were using it to end the specific evil that we were participating in.
Hypocrisy pure and simple. I love how earlier in the interview he says:
JP: But is there still an ethical issue if there is no alternative? If, say, there is no free software way of doing a particular job, for ZNet for example?
RMS: One can live without doing those jobs.
Clearly one can write an operating system without using an operating system. I have done it and I'm sure others in Slashdot-land have as well. To blithely say everyone else should follow his draconian rules, but he is immune because of "special circumstances" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
still, your dubious point about nobody can search every little thing that goes on is silly,
Your language suggests that you have never participated in the patent process. Finding patents that *seem* to talk about the same thing you are considering is quite easy, but it's a LOOOONNNNNGGGG way from determining if your idea infringes. For that you must read, and understand, the various claims. You need to know if the claims are dependent or independent? You need to look at continuances. And it's mostly written in impenetrable legalese, not "clear engineering-jargon". After my 4th or 5th patent I sort of got the hang of reading these things, but it still takes a chunk of time analyzing all the claims to see what was really patented. Now multiply that times the 10-1000 "hits" your keyword search yields and you have a serious commitment of effort.
Check out Sam's Toy Box at:
http://www.samstoybox.com/
He even has a Mattel Powershop!
Apple Computer's iTunes service, RealNetworks Rhapsody, eMusic and Amazon.com
:-)
I wonder why Yahoo Music Unlimited (the best deal around) isn't in the list.