That's ridiculous. Any smart user knows to wait two weeks before installing any Apple updates. Maybe one week if you're in a hurry for some reason. Then, if there are no reports of massive issues, proceed with the update. Installing their updates as they're released is just asking for trouble.
Paul might be crazy, but he's OUR crazy guy... Anyone who wants to massively cut federal spending at this point is the one we need to support. Stopping insane policies like the War on Drugs and War on Terror (domestic surveillance) is just the icing on the cake. I, for one, have had my share of "sane" candidates...
I tried running Ubuntu on an HP Pavillion about a month ago, and couldn't for the life of me get the (I think Broadcom) WiFi card to work with my WPA2-protected WiFi LAN, after several hours of research and trial and error. That's not "just working" as far as I'm concerned.
Try using Taiyo Yuden DVD-R media. They're available for cheap online, and they have the best compatibility with DVD players. I am in no way affiliated with Taiyo Yuden or DVD-R retailers...
Maybe it's to maximize the use of the limited 256MB of RAM in the iPhone? Maybe swapping kernel space and user space on a system with memory protection significantly degrades performance on such a memory-restricted device? Anyone want to weigh in on whether that may be the case?
If that's true, then why are they trying to get labels to sign up for "iTunes Plus", with DRM-free content? Apple could be earning royalties on pretty much every CD and digital track sold if they licensed Fairplay to other distributors, and that's pure profit with negligible overhead. Apple seems to be using their power over the digital media player market and over digital media distribution to demonstrate to labels the power they give up when they require controlled DRM systems, in order to encourage them to approve distribution of content in standard formats. If the labels would agree to license their content for sale in standard formats, then Apple would hold no power over them, and they could switch distributors as easily as they send out a C&D. As long as Apple has such a large chunk of the pmp market with their iPods, other incompatible DRM systems are not viable, and that's the way I want to keep it. The sooner labels realize this, the sooner they will move towards standard formats.
The locking of iPods to iTunes issue is completely separate, and while I agree that it's a lousy move, it's not the first time they've attempted this, and it won't be the last time people find ways to get around it. I'm not saying that Apple has our interests at heart with all their decisions, but only that licensing Fairplay is NOT in our interest. Anything that encourages sales of standard format content is a win in my book.
Wrong, Apple is choosing to NOT screw over their customers by refusing to license Fairplay. Apple apparently does not want Fairplay to succeed; they want to sell standard format content. Fairplay was just a kludge to pander to the labels' requirements for licensing, and Apple doesn't want to give it any more momentum than they have to. In effect, refusing to license Fairplay while owning the market for playback devices puts the labels in a position where they have little choice but to license their content for sale in standard formats, if they want any hope of keeping distribution under some control. I applaud Apple's moves, as an opponent of DRM on purchased content.
Allow me to nominate ByteAlluvion for the name of the coming open source fork of the BitTorrent protocol. ...or maybe RainPipe, FileStorm, FileSwarm, or BitFunnel... I do strongly agree that using a different name for the forked open source protocol would be a good idea.
My guess is MS becomes a middleware vendor, with Windows Runtime for Linux, BSD and Mac OS X, which would allow for the use of Windows executables and libraries under those operating systems. A "light" version of this runtime would be bundled with their consumer products, such as Zune store and media management app, any games they sell, MS Office, Windows Media Player, etc., so they can extend the target audience for those services to other operating systems. This is the only move that makes sense for them in a world of increasing OS diversity that can't be crushed through traditional maneuvering... This would also free up their resources to build their nice APIs and developer tools without having to worry about an increasingly commoditized and irrelevant underlying OS. If they do offer their own Posix-compliant OS, I would wager they'd go with a BSD flavor, much as Apple did, so they can control the release of source code with much more granularity.
How about using the Stanley Hammer of Doom to crush your enemies? Don't forget the Craftsman crossbow, or the Maglight Torch of Visibility. You wouldn't think of going into battle without your Tommy Hilfinger battle armor, would you? If only I could find some Aquafina to get my health points up...
Woops... To be fair, their changes to LLVM are not the same as a replacement for GCC project based on LLVM... It's possible that that entire combined project will be released under a different license. If I could edit my post, I'd probably go with the Apache license, as it seems to be the trend they're following lately. Who knows though, maybe they'll stick with the current license for the LLVM component. You have to admit though, BuildKit sounds pretty iFabulous... : P
In this case, Debian would likely have to obtain permission from Apple if they wanted to keep calling it CUPS. If those are the only changes they make to it, I would assume Apple would gladly grant them the right to use the trademark.
Like it or not, touch screens are going to become increasingly prevalent. If updating your site for the iPhone means that it will work with other touch screen devices, then you're ahead of the game. The main thing that's different about a touch screen device is that there is no mouse-over or hovering of the cursor. There is no real cursor either, just clicks at specific coordinates. As long as your site navigation doesn't depend on mouse-over events, and you've implemented some kind of workaround if you're relying on Flash for navigation, then you should be golden. It could be that there is some technical reason Flash is not present on iPhone-class devices (CPU/memory requirements maybe), and you'll start seeing more similar devices ship without Flash support. If you can have the flexibility to target those kinds of devices without too much effort, it would be stupid not to.
YouTube will most-likely update their website with H.264 videos (probably as an option, not the default), once they get enough content encoded in that format on there. H.264 is lower bandwidth than h.263 (the codec currently used on Youtube, decoded by the Flash plugin), so there's no reason they wouldn't prefer to stream that format to you. The reason it will still only be optional and not the default is because flash is much more ubiquitous than QuickTime (the most common H.264 decoder).
Slashdot Mirror
That's ridiculous. Any smart user knows to wait two weeks before installing any Apple updates. Maybe one week if you're in a hurry for some reason. Then, if there are no reports of massive issues, proceed with the update. Installing their updates as they're released is just asking for trouble.
Paul might be crazy, but he's OUR crazy guy... Anyone who wants to massively cut federal spending at this point is the one we need to support. Stopping insane policies like the War on Drugs and War on Terror (domestic surveillance) is just the icing on the cake. I, for one, have had my share of "sane" candidates...
I tried running Ubuntu on an HP Pavillion about a month ago, and couldn't for the life of me get the (I think Broadcom) WiFi card to work with my WPA2-protected WiFi LAN, after several hours of research and trial and error. That's not "just working" as far as I'm concerned.
Try using Taiyo Yuden DVD-R media. They're available for cheap online, and they have the best compatibility with DVD players. I am in no way affiliated with Taiyo Yuden or DVD-R retailers...
I'm going to guess "Final Fantasy"...
Or maybe it's a place to go urinate while no one's watching...
Maybe it's to maximize the use of the limited 256MB of RAM in the iPhone? Maybe swapping kernel space and user space on a system with memory protection significantly degrades performance on such a memory-restricted device? Anyone want to weigh in on whether that may be the case?
If that's true, then why are they trying to get labels to sign up for "iTunes Plus", with DRM-free content? Apple could be earning royalties on pretty much every CD and digital track sold if they licensed Fairplay to other distributors, and that's pure profit with negligible overhead. Apple seems to be using their power over the digital media player market and over digital media distribution to demonstrate to labels the power they give up when they require controlled DRM systems, in order to encourage them to approve distribution of content in standard formats. If the labels would agree to license their content for sale in standard formats, then Apple would hold no power over them, and they could switch distributors as easily as they send out a C&D. As long as Apple has such a large chunk of the pmp market with their iPods, other incompatible DRM systems are not viable, and that's the way I want to keep it. The sooner labels realize this, the sooner they will move towards standard formats.
The locking of iPods to iTunes issue is completely separate, and while I agree that it's a lousy move, it's not the first time they've attempted this, and it won't be the last time people find ways to get around it. I'm not saying that Apple has our interests at heart with all their decisions, but only that licensing Fairplay is NOT in our interest. Anything that encourages sales of standard format content is a win in my book.
Wrong, Apple is choosing to NOT screw over their customers by refusing to license Fairplay. Apple apparently does not want Fairplay to succeed; they want to sell standard format content. Fairplay was just a kludge to pander to the labels' requirements for licensing, and Apple doesn't want to give it any more momentum than they have to. In effect, refusing to license Fairplay while owning the market for playback devices puts the labels in a position where they have little choice but to license their content for sale in standard formats, if they want any hope of keeping distribution under some control. I applaud Apple's moves, as an opponent of DRM on purchased content.
How can you hate on "Dick in a Box"? That was pure brilliance!
Wouldn't it be the author who was knocked out? The magazine headline would be "Triumphant Vista Defeats Editor"... : P
Same here in N. California...
My guess is MS becomes a middleware vendor, with Windows Runtime for Linux, BSD and Mac OS X, which would allow for the use of Windows executables and libraries under those operating systems. A "light" version of this runtime would be bundled with their consumer products, such as Zune store and media management app, any games they sell, MS Office, Windows Media Player, etc., so they can extend the target audience for those services to other operating systems. This is the only move that makes sense for them in a world of increasing OS diversity that can't be crushed through traditional maneuvering... This would also free up their resources to build their nice APIs and developer tools without having to worry about an increasingly commoditized and irrelevant underlying OS. If they do offer their own Posix-compliant OS, I would wager they'd go with a BSD flavor, much as Apple did, so they can control the release of source code with much more granularity.
How about using the Stanley Hammer of Doom to crush your enemies? Don't forget the Craftsman crossbow, or the Maglight Torch of Visibility. You wouldn't think of going into battle without your Tommy Hilfinger battle armor, would you? If only I could find some Aquafina to get my health points up...
I'm still holding out for the OMG PONIES!!! edition 360/GTA4 bundle...
Woops... To be fair, their changes to LLVM are not the same as a replacement for GCC project based on LLVM... It's possible that that entire combined project will be released under a different license. If I could edit my post, I'd probably go with the Apache license, as it seems to be the trend they're following lately. Who knows though, maybe they'll stick with the current license for the LLVM component. You have to admit though, BuildKit sounds pretty iFabulous... : P
In this case, Debian would likely have to obtain permission from Apple if they wanted to keep calling it CUPS. If those are the only changes they make to it, I would assume Apple would gladly grant them the right to use the trademark.
$20 says Apple forks it, gives it a new trademark (BuildKit?) and releases under the APSL license...
Webkit is distributed under the LGPL license. They made the whole project LGPL; I don't think anyone can complain about that...
Now if only they could make hats out of this stuff, to protect our brains from their mind control rays...
"I need a submit macro"
You mean like the "Preview" button right next to the "Submit" one?
Like it or not, touch screens are going to become increasingly prevalent. If updating your site for the iPhone means that it will work with other touch screen devices, then you're ahead of the game. The main thing that's different about a touch screen device is that there is no mouse-over or hovering of the cursor. There is no real cursor either, just clicks at specific coordinates. As long as your site navigation doesn't depend on mouse-over events, and you've implemented some kind of workaround if you're relying on Flash for navigation, then you should be golden. It could be that there is some technical reason Flash is not present on iPhone-class devices (CPU/memory requirements maybe), and you'll start seeing more similar devices ship without Flash support. If you can have the flexibility to target those kinds of devices without too much effort, it would be stupid not to.
Just wait until the lawsuits start pouring in from content providers, you'll see how this free market works...
YouTube will most-likely update their website with H.264 videos (probably as an option, not the default), once they get enough content encoded in that format on there. H.264 is lower bandwidth than h.263 (the codec currently used on Youtube, decoded by the Flash plugin), so there's no reason they wouldn't prefer to stream that format to you. The reason it will still only be optional and not the default is because flash is much more ubiquitous than QuickTime (the most common H.264 decoder).