In regard to the architectural advantages, I'd have to point to the current design of the average PC vs. the current Macs. The PC, while an open architecture, is dragged down by its need to be compatible with the original design.
Consider the limited amount of interrupts in your PC right now, could you really fit 3 video cards without removing/disabling a few devices? Or worse, sharing IRQs and possibly locking the computer up or burning out an IRQ controller? This limitation alone hurts the expandability of the PC, and will almost certainly have to be rectified as people require more components in their computers.
There's also the subject of the PC's BIOS. While 32 bit BIOS extensions exist, to maintain compatibility several things are harder than they need to be. For instance, the BIOS still recognizes the boot device in a certain fashion. Anyone who has added an IDE hard drive greater than 36GB knows what I mean here. BIOS translation is a hack, not a solution, and until this is rectified (Where oh where are ATAPI HDs?) it will continue to be an issue as drive sizes increase.
Further, selection of the bootable HD is done in the BIOS, and is inconsistent at best between PCs. In many implementations it's simply impossible. On a Mac this is trivial - you simply select the boot device from a control panel. This is more important than you might think, especially when one needs to boot multiple operating systems due to software compatibility issues. MacOS8, MacOS 9, LinuxPPC and OS/X on the same computer? No problem. Windows 95, 98 and NT on the same computer? Have fun, or at least be prepared to spend extra for a commercial boot manager to make the process palatable...
I realize these issues are not publishing specific, however the Macintosh does have some advantages inherent in its design. BTW, while I do own a Mac, I do most of my work on a Linux machine which dual boots 95 OSR2 for games. I believe the current MacOS lacks the stability and efficiency for general purpose use. (My old SE/30 boots faster than my current machine, there's something wrong here!) However, when I want to do some photo editing or page layout I reach for my Mac (and Wacom tablet heh.) It really does provide a great environment for these apps.
When OS/X arrives en force, don't be surprised if the Mac starts breaking out of its current niche market. With an excellent OS to go with the well designed hardware, the Macintosh will again be a force to be reckoned with. It may not replace my Linux box, but it just might replace that Windows drive:-)
Reading the article, the subject of 3D cube-style memories was brought up. The need for spinning mirrors in order to redirect lasers was posted as a potential problem. Laser printers and photocopiers had this same 'problem' several years ago. Now I'm not sure if/how it would work with a laser, but with LED printers (which are basically laser printers with an LED instead of a laser) a hologram film was able to take the place of the moving mirrors. This dramatically reduced the price, complexity and durability of these printers.
Would anyone out there with some experience in this area care to comment on whether this would be workable, via perhaps 3 or more holographic film pieces, in a 3D cube-type memory? If so, it would seem to be within our technological grasp already to make relatively inexpensive readers at the very least, and writers shouldn't be too difficult beyond that.
I don't remember how many users I conned into hitting the spacebar with their little finger 1000 times (or whatever it was...) Still have the original zip archive. It was possible to get it working locally btw, though it was a pain. The ANSI images were just priceless in their cutting edge offensiveness:-) Here's an excerpt from the disclaimer which just has to be shared (read no further if you can't stand slightly offensive text, or have no sense of humor...)
--- The only GUARANTEE that comes with this game is that it will take up disk space. By loading this game, which you are not guaranteed to be able to do, you take a certain risk, that an overlooked error or flaw in Cripple Smash's design might cause any NUMBER of malady's to your system. Cripple Smash could:
(1) Make your system respond only to the ENTER key (2) Give all of your files the same name (3) Hijack your modem and call Quebec to download "HORSE.GIF" in which 2 women perform sexually deviant acts on a thoroughbred
Of course, this is only a joke, but, should #3 actually take place, please send a POLAROID of the GIF with a 100 word or less essay on "Why This Gif Is Not Stimulating." Best entry wins a Polaroid of "DUCK.GIF"... ---
Perhaps the 'NIX LORD clone will succeed, that would be a nice game to telnet into every now and then:-) Maybe port some of LORD's IGMs over too, or perhaps Usurper...
No, actually these facts are true. You _can_ copy a DVD without the key, just not with unmodified commodity PC DVD-ROM drives. The people who will be able to copy off working DVDs bit for bit are the ones the companies really have to worry about, the larger pirates with the resources to buy or hack a DVD mastering drive. The average consumer, who might rather play a backup disc and leave the clean original in the case (anyone remember this from the days of floppies?) is the only one truly shafted, because their drive will not allow them to create a copy. Given, the smaller pirates might suffer temporarily as well, but the software/hardware hacks that they need to make it happen would just end up on warez and serialz pages anyway. DeCSS will end up on far more sites than that, _because_ of the CSS lawsuit.
The industry knows their encryption is weak, and thus will be quickly defeated. The only reason they might be serious about it is because the movie industry doesn't want to release digital copies verbatim to consumers without protection. The CSS encryption was a small and ultimately ineffective bandage the DVD industry applied to their format to coax the studios to use their technology. If the studios should be upset with anyone, it's the CSS people. This lawsuit is likely just them covering their own asses.
Regardless of its purpose, the lawsuit is very dangerous from a consumer rights perspective. I've stated before (perhaps too strongly, this fiasco does make me rather angry) that I'll never buy a DVD under these conditions. I would recommend that others avoid them as well. Their involvement in defining our fair use rights is a conflict of interest at best. We cannot give our rights up just so some corporations can make a few extra million in pocket change. That's shady ethics if I've ever heard of it.
I actually wouldn't doubt that the quality of the voice will have a great effect on how popular the service becomes. It could get very annoying listening to a robotic sounding voice drone on all the time, and most people would probably just shut it off. Perhaps a few would turn off the sound and keep it around for the view, I won't deny it looks nice;-)
To actually get people to use this on a regular basis, I think they're going to need a smoother, more natural sounding text to speech engine than what is currently available. I wonder if the technology is ready for this...
"Spring has sprung. Fall has fell. Winter's here, and it's colder than usual." -- Boing voice sample from Macintalk
Super_Frosty wrote: > Am I correct in interpreting this as a virtual > actor? If so, how realistic is it? Can it do > better than the stilted tone in which my Power > Mac speaks to me?
They are starting to number a bit low, I must admit. He's looking into doing some interesting things though, hopefully he's successful with them. Perhaps that'll prompt the man to get something done about the choppers...
As an aside, he had ICQ set up on his laptop to play perhaps the most annoying "incoming" sound I've ever heard: the system startup sound (It's one of the thin Mac G3 laptops.) Every time he got a message thru icq, I thought the thing had crashed. What drives people to such madness? And why am I still using a PB1400?:-)
Can't speak for Woz, but I met John last fall when he was returning from India and the man seems to be in a rather sad state. Go figure under the circumstances, but he could certainly take a bit better care of himself. That, and he's a bit zealous about his yoga-type "Energy Excercises":-)
This would be the case, except that DVDs still do not have a proper standard as such. There have been at least 3 revisions that I'm aware of with the drives, even the disc format itself was a hack at first (UDF on top of ISO9660.) The little incident with "The Matrix" DVD not being playable in some DVD drives hints at how far the format has to go before it is ready to become a completely reliable playback medium.
Given the rate that new technologies are coming out, I wouldn't be surprised if DVD was replaced in the near future by something with a stable, well defined format and better features. Those 140GB clear CDs seem like a good candidate. I'm not saying that DVDs will flop completely, but they will not achieve the popularity and ubiquity of VHS until they are cheap, reliable and recordable. Ubiquity is what they actually want, is it not?
When I first heard of the DVD format I was rather excited. The thought of high quality movies on a CD sounded great, not to mention the potential storage capacity of a writeable disc. This was dispelled rather quickly when I got into the sticky details of hardware version requirements, incompatible discs and their nasty little encryption scheme making the video discs rather platform specific. The half-size writeable "DVD" worms did little to garner my enthusiasm either.
I for one am ready to see the DVD CCA crash and burn. They jumped the gun by releasing a poorly defined platform. They're artificially holding back the technology by ensuring that recording will be extremely expensive and inferior in capacity. They're not even letting people make opensource/free players. May the DVD industry crumble in their clenched fist.
GnrcMan wrote:
I would disagree. DVD is the video equivalent of the CD. The reason LaserDisc never went mainstream is because they were huge and inconvienient. DVD's are small, easy, and packed with added value.
DVD marketers and lawyers can muck with the system for as long as they want. The fact remains that as long as one cannot write to a DVD, there will be a substantially smaller market than for writeable media. If Jimbob can't write his porn to DVD, or Grandma can't create a christmas home video, they're not likely to give up these abilities to attain better video quality. Their NTSC/PAL televisons can't really do much better with it anyway.
One has only to look at VHS vs. Laserdisc for a fair precedence. Laserdisc video was higher quality than VHS (and DVD for that matter, since there was no compression) but it never really went mainstream. Most people could care less about the "superior" quality of the LD and DVD formats. Have a good look at a projection screen sometime, note the spotty color registration and lack of brightness. Despite these shortcomings, people still buy them because it's a (relatively) cheap way to get a large screen when compared to a direct CRT of the same size.
Getting back to the point, until a system with all the capabilities of the previous technology and a few substantial benefits arrives, they aren't going to completely supercede current formats. One can still purchase prerecorded audio cassette tapes for instance. Would this be the case if CDs were as easy and cheap to write to? Probably not.
I'd like the DVD CCA to answer this simple question: How many people are going to belly up for both expensive DVD readers and cheap VHS video recorders? Further, are those people as likely to "pirate" as those who have two VCRs and a stack of blank tapes? Not bloody likely. Are DVD owners in the majority? No, and they won't be for a long time, if ever. DVD will continue to be a niche market until we can either write to and copy them, or they are superceded by better technology. The industry has to realize and embrace this simple fact before VHS will go away and the real money will be made. You have to give a little if you want to take a little, and they currently aren't giving an inch.
Hideyho! Ok, I'm a sucker for older hardware, but I thought I'd mention a few other emulators available for various platforms. If you're running a Mac, there's a commercial emulator (with a time limited demo) called Bernie II The Rescue, created by F.E. Systems Emulation Technologies. Their web site is http://www.magnet.ch/emutech/ The emulator seems to run most programs fine, playing senseless violence is just as disgustingly offensive as it ever was:-) You can even run programs right off the floppy. They were also working on Sweet 16, a BeOS GS emulator, but have outsourced it to Sheppyware (Eric Shepherd.) The URL for this is http://www.sheppyware.net/products/beos/sweet16/ It's shareware, but worth the money. He's still developing a few GS programs as well, worth a look certainly. Admittedly even further off the course, but there's also a (now free) UNIX-like system which runs on top of GS/OS available for the GS - there's even a TCP/IP stack available for it. Oddly enough, it's called GNO/ME (GNO Multitasking Environment.) And before anyone asks, the system was written in 1993, well before the GNOME desktop was thought of. The URL's http://www.hypermall.com/companies/procyon/gnome.h tml Ahh, nostalgia...
Sure, you can drive any car to get where you want to go, but you can use any computer too. That seems to be the point. I happen to own both a Mac and a PC (dual boot Linux/Windows 95 OSR2.)
As far as my reasons go, I use the Mac partially because I've used them longer than Windows has been in existence, I happen to like its interface for many tasks as well. Also, some applications just aren't there for Linux. I use Windows only for video games, since I don't like the thought of losing my necessary applications to registry corruption. I suppose that makes it my toy OS:-)
Now back to your analogy, try to repair a Taurus with a Cavalier's parts. That valve cover just doesn't fit, eh?:-) Now tell me that Ford doesn't have a monopoly on the Taurus. I'd say this case is closer to the Ford vs. Chevy cheese arguments, and IMHO neither side is exactly right. They both have their points, but in the end either will do.
This is rather an aside, but I wonder if they have even considered the effect that this will have on the environment. It seems to me that this will put quite a strain on our waste disposal systems, while taking up a lot of room.
Disposing of a standard CRT is also rather expensive, and they are effectively proposing that _ALL_ current televisions will become useless and therefore need to be disposed of. Considering the fact that many old televisions are still in use in places due to costs, this could get messy for low income families and not-for-profit organizations.
Anyone considering the purchase stock in CRT recycling companies?:-) Do such companies even exist?
The main reason a reasonable person would not want to use GNU/Linux and UNIX as their standard web browser is not the lack of plugins, or the large amount of RAM it requires (although that is definitely a shame.)
It's simply that the most advanced browser available under GNU/Linux and most UNIX machines, Netscape Navigator, is not nearly as stable as one would expect from a typical Linux app. It also needs to conform better to current standards, and introduce support for new ones such as the PNG image format. This much at least is obvious.
Now, if it happened that Netscape/Mozilla were extremely stable - as stable as one would expect from a typical GNU/Linux or UNIX app - fewer people would become frustrated with browsing the web in this environment. That alone would translate into many more people using these OS' for browsing.
When the amount of people using a platform increases beyond a critical mass, they start to get noticed by the webmasters and site designers. The same thing happens with plugin vendors, witness Macromedia's Flash plugin for GNU/Linux. As the number of people using GNU/Linux for browsing increases, and we have good reason to believe it will, this trend will continue with both site designers and plugin vendors. It's all about demand.
None of this will happen, though, if the browser is unfriendly to use. An application which crashes frequently is _not_ friendly, this is much of the reason I don't use Windows myself. Why should we expect less from our applications than our OS?
By extension, why should we contribute less? Some people seem upset with the Mozilla license. However, Netscape gave GNU/Linux credibility early on by porting Navigator, a rather large show of good faith on their part. They've even given us the source. Now it's crunch time for the Mozilla project, and they could use help. It certainly couldn't hurt to return the favor.
The man has it dead on, we need to support the Mozilla project as much as possible. Otherwise we'll be left in the dark on the web, which after all is where GNU/Linux is traditionally strongest. Let's not give up the home turf:-)
It isn't up to RMS or the FSF to enforce the license you have chosen for your program. If you feel your software is being used in a manner which is inconsistent with the terms of its license, contact your lawyer. You've been provided with the tools in the GPL and your copyright, it's up to you to utilize them. Make your own reality, don't let yourself be stepped on.
That being said, if you feel the BSD license is right for your software you are of course welcome. Your unwillingness to enforce your copyright isn't likely to persuade others to use the BSD license, however... A license where the software can be raped wholesale by any company which might stick your name somewhere in the end of the manual... Changes the code such that it is incompatible with the original, creating a standard which you don't have the specifications for and leaving your program unused... And in return you get a kick in the pants. (I understand that Windows 2000's TCP/IP stack acts a _lot_ like FreeBSD's for some reason...)
There is certainly a place for the BSD license, especially when the software is destined for a commercial setting. For progressive and cohesive free software development however, the GPL seems more useful.
This is of course my opinion, and should be taken with a grain of anything from NaCL to H2So4 depending on the circumstances.:-P
The GPL may well be restrictive in some ways. but it does what is fundamentally the right thing in most cases. The code is there to use and, perhaps more importantly, to learn from. The license also adds value to the software by allowing modifications where necessary or desired.
I believe people are missing the point when they complain about its restrictions on using the code to make something non-free/closed source. The GPL was not designed for this purpose, it simply provides safeguards for the author and the end user. However, the author (as the copyleft holder) has complete freedom to release their code under another license if they wish. They could release their code under another license as a special case if the need arises. This is often done with the Artistic license for example.
Perhaps more interesting, the author could decide to sell a differently licensed copy of the source code. This could be done to allow the code to be included in commercial software where the GPL would normally prevent its use. The original authur benefits by having the freedom to choose how _closed_ source projects use their code, yet the code is still completely free for end users and developers who choose to release their projects under GPL. The author could provide the alternate licenses to closed source projects for free if they so desired. Their intentions remain intact regardless, and when new situations arise they can be dealt with on a per-case basis.
In the end, the GPL is not a virus. It is a powerful document which provides insurance for programmers who wish their code to remain free in the GPL'ed form. It allows the software to grow by encouraging free development, yet maintains ultimate control over aspects where the author's interests might be compromised. As one person has already noted, its reatrictions are very reasonable when compared to those found in most commercial licenses.
Nope, different universe, different "monster"... Drow are dark skinned elves who serve Lolth and turn into spider-beasts if they flunk a test. The grue is a large beast which lives its life in dark areas waiting for lamps to run out.
Anyone out there remember the Wishbringer book (based on the Infocom game I believe, or was it the other way around...) and Mary Sue Grue?:-) I wonder what her view on this entire debacle would be, heh...
I work at an ISP, and trust me, "Average Users" spend a great deal of time online as well. The eBayers, 'surfers' and those with kids are at least as likely to be online 24/7 as a technical user. We actually pay out the most for simple customer support when the customers have problems.
On an aside, we do support any and all OS' with reasonable TCP/IP support, and we set up our customers' computers in our shop (for free) if they cannot do it themselves... There are still good ISPs out there:-)
Slashdot Mirror
In regard to the architectural advantages, I'd have to point to the current design of the average PC vs. the current Macs. The PC, while an open architecture, is dragged down by its need to be compatible with the original design.
:-)
Consider the limited amount of interrupts in your PC right now, could you really fit 3 video cards without removing/disabling a few devices? Or worse, sharing IRQs and possibly locking the computer up or burning out an IRQ controller? This limitation alone hurts the expandability of the PC, and will almost certainly have to be rectified as people require more components in their computers.
There's also the subject of the PC's BIOS. While 32 bit BIOS extensions exist, to maintain compatibility several things are harder than they need to be. For instance, the BIOS still recognizes the boot device in a certain fashion. Anyone who has added an IDE hard drive greater than 36GB knows what I mean here. BIOS translation is a hack, not a solution, and until this is rectified (Where oh where are ATAPI HDs?) it will continue to be an issue as drive sizes increase.
Further, selection of the bootable HD is done in the BIOS, and is inconsistent at best between PCs. In many implementations it's simply impossible. On a Mac this is trivial - you simply select the boot device from a control panel. This is more important than you might think, especially when one needs to boot multiple operating systems due to software compatibility issues. MacOS8, MacOS 9, LinuxPPC and OS/X on the same computer? No problem. Windows 95, 98 and NT on the same computer? Have fun, or at least be prepared to spend extra for a commercial boot manager to make the process palatable...
I realize these issues are not publishing specific, however the Macintosh does have some advantages inherent in its design. BTW, while I do own a Mac, I do most of my work on a Linux machine which dual boots 95 OSR2 for games. I believe the current MacOS lacks the stability and efficiency for general purpose use. (My old SE/30 boots faster than my current machine, there's something wrong here!) However, when I want to do some photo editing or page layout I reach for my Mac (and Wacom tablet heh.) It really does provide a great environment for these apps.
When OS/X arrives en force, don't be surprised if the Mac starts breaking out of its current niche market. With an excellent OS to go with the well designed hardware, the Macintosh will again be a force to be reckoned with. It may not replace my Linux box, but it just might replace that Windows drive
Reading the article, the subject of 3D cube-style memories was brought up. The need for spinning mirrors in order to redirect lasers was posted as a potential problem. Laser printers and photocopiers had this same 'problem' several years ago. Now I'm not sure if/how it would work with a laser, but with LED printers (which are basically laser printers with an LED instead of a laser) a hologram film was able to take the place of the moving mirrors. This dramatically reduced the price, complexity and durability of these printers.
Would anyone out there with some experience in this area care to comment on whether this would be workable, via perhaps 3 or more holographic film pieces, in a 3D cube-type memory? If so, it would seem to be within our technological grasp already to make relatively inexpensive readers at the very least, and writers shouldn't be too difficult beyond that.
Man, do I remember this game...
:-) Here's an excerpt from the disclaimer which just has to be shared (read no further if you can't stand slightly offensive text, or have no sense of humor...)
:-) Maybe port some of LORD's IGMs over too, or perhaps Usurper...
I don't remember how many users I conned into hitting the spacebar with their little finger 1000 times (or whatever it was...) Still have the original zip archive. It was possible to get it working locally btw, though it was a pain. The ANSI images were just priceless in their cutting edge offensiveness
---
The only GUARANTEE that comes with this game is that it will take up disk space. By loading this game, which you are not guaranteed to be able to do, you take a certain risk, that an overlooked error or flaw in Cripple Smash's design might cause any NUMBER of malady's to your system. Cripple Smash could:
(1) Make your system respond only to the ENTER key
(2) Give all of your files the same name
(3) Hijack your modem and call Quebec to download
"HORSE.GIF" in which 2 women perform sexually
deviant acts on a thoroughbred
Of course, this is only a joke, but, should #3
actually take place, please send a POLAROID of
the GIF with a 100 word or less essay
on "Why This Gif Is Not Stimulating." Best entry
wins a Polaroid of "DUCK.GIF"...
---
Perhaps the 'NIX LORD clone will succeed, that would be a nice game to telnet into every now and then
Those were some killer days.
Mr. Hankey
No, actually these facts are true. You _can_ copy a DVD without the key, just not with unmodified commodity PC DVD-ROM drives. The people who will be able to copy off working DVDs bit for bit are the ones the companies really have to worry about, the larger pirates with the resources to buy or hack a DVD mastering drive. The average consumer, who might rather play a backup disc and leave the clean original in the case (anyone remember this from the days of floppies?) is the only one truly shafted, because their drive will not allow them to create a copy. Given, the smaller pirates might suffer temporarily as well, but the software/hardware hacks that they need to make it happen would just end up on warez and serialz pages anyway. DeCSS will end up on far more sites than that, _because_ of the CSS lawsuit.
The industry knows their encryption is weak, and thus will be quickly defeated. The only reason they might be serious about it is because the movie industry doesn't want to release digital copies verbatim to consumers without protection. The CSS encryption was a small and ultimately ineffective bandage the DVD industry applied to their format to coax the studios to use their technology. If the studios should be upset with anyone, it's the CSS people. This lawsuit is likely just them covering their own asses.
Regardless of its purpose, the lawsuit is very dangerous from a consumer rights perspective. I've stated before (perhaps too strongly, this fiasco does make me rather angry) that I'll never buy a DVD under these conditions. I would recommend that others avoid them as well. Their involvement in defining our fair use rights is a conflict of interest at best. We cannot give our rights up just so some corporations can make a few extra million in pocket change. That's shady ethics if I've ever heard of it.
Howdyho!
;-)
I actually wouldn't doubt that the quality of the voice will have a great effect on how popular the service becomes. It could get very annoying listening to a robotic sounding voice drone on all the time, and most people would probably just shut it off. Perhaps a few would turn off the sound and keep it around for the view, I won't deny it looks nice
To actually get people to use this on a regular basis, I think they're going to need a smoother, more natural sounding text to speech engine than what is currently available. I wonder if the technology is ready for this...
"Spring has sprung. Fall has fell. Winter's here, and it's colder than usual." -- Boing voice sample from Macintalk
Super_Frosty wrote:
> Am I correct in interpreting this as a virtual
> actor? If so, how realistic is it? Can it do
> better than the stilted tone in which my Power
> Mac speaks to me?
Sounds like a job for a Microkernel to me, I believe at one point this was one of the goals of the HURD. Anyone care to correct or clarify this?
They are starting to number a bit low, I must admit. He's looking into doing some interesting things though, hopefully he's successful with them. Perhaps that'll prompt the man to get something done about the choppers...
:-)
As an aside, he had ICQ set up on his laptop to play perhaps the most annoying "incoming" sound I've ever heard: the system startup sound (It's one of the thin Mac G3 laptops.) Every time he got a message thru icq, I thought the thing had crashed. What drives people to such madness? And why am I still using a PB1400?
Can't speak for Woz, but I met John last fall when he was returning from India and the man seems to be in a rather sad state. Go figure under the circumstances, but he could certainly take a bit better care of himself. That, and he's a bit zealous about his yoga-type "Energy Excercises" :-)
(The 60's _Has_ ended, man...)
This would be the case, except that DVDs still do not have a proper standard as such. There have been at least 3 revisions that I'm aware of with the drives, even the disc format itself was a hack at first (UDF on top of ISO9660.) The little incident with "The Matrix" DVD not being playable in some DVD drives hints at how far the format has to go before it is ready to become a completely reliable playback medium.
Given the rate that new technologies are coming out, I wouldn't be surprised if DVD was replaced in the near future by something with a stable, well defined format and better features. Those 140GB clear CDs seem like a good candidate. I'm not saying that DVDs will flop completely, but they will not achieve the popularity and ubiquity of VHS until they are cheap, reliable and recordable. Ubiquity is what they actually want, is it not?
When I first heard of the DVD format I was rather excited. The thought of high quality movies on a CD sounded great, not to mention the potential storage capacity of a writeable disc. This was dispelled rather quickly when I got into the sticky details of hardware version requirements, incompatible discs and their nasty little encryption scheme making the video discs rather platform specific. The half-size writeable "DVD" worms did little to garner my enthusiasm either.
I for one am ready to see the DVD CCA crash and burn. They jumped the gun by releasing a poorly defined platform. They're artificially holding back the technology by ensuring that recording will be extremely expensive and inferior in capacity. They're not even letting people make opensource/free players. May the DVD industry crumble in their clenched fist.
GnrcMan wrote:
I would disagree. DVD is the video equivalent of the CD. The reason LaserDisc never went mainstream is because they were huge and inconvienient. DVD's are small, easy, and packed with added value.
> You cannot eat the food you bough cause you need a license" ?
Already been done.
Howdyho!
DVD marketers and lawyers can muck with the system for as long as they want. The fact remains that as long as one cannot write to a DVD, there will be a substantially smaller market than for writeable media. If Jimbob can't write his porn to DVD, or Grandma can't create a christmas home video, they're not likely to give up these abilities to attain better video quality. Their NTSC/PAL televisons can't really do much better with it anyway.
One has only to look at VHS vs. Laserdisc for a fair precedence. Laserdisc video was higher quality than VHS (and DVD for that matter, since there was no compression) but it never really went mainstream. Most people could care less about the "superior" quality of the LD and DVD formats. Have a good look at a projection screen sometime, note the spotty color registration and lack of brightness. Despite these shortcomings, people still buy them because it's a (relatively) cheap way to get a large screen when compared to a direct CRT of the same size.
Getting back to the point, until a system with all the capabilities of the previous technology and a few substantial benefits arrives, they aren't going to completely supercede current formats. One can still purchase prerecorded audio cassette tapes for instance. Would this be the case if CDs were as easy and cheap to write to? Probably not.
I'd like the DVD CCA to answer this simple question: How many people are going to belly up for both expensive DVD readers and cheap VHS video recorders? Further, are those people as likely to "pirate" as those who have two VCRs and a stack of blank tapes? Not bloody likely. Are DVD owners in the majority? No, and they won't be for a long time, if ever. DVD will continue to be a niche market until we can either write to and copy them, or they are superceded by better technology. The industry has to realize and embrace this simple fact before VHS will go away and the real money will be made. You have to give a little if you want to take a little, and they currently aren't giving an inch.
Mr. Hankey
Blast, it's that "HTML Formatted" default again :-)
Hideyho! Ok, I'm a sucker for older hardware, but I thought I'd mention a few other emulators available for various platforms. If you're running a Mac, there's a commercial emulator (with a time limited demo) called Bernie II The Rescue, created by F.E. Systems Emulation Technologies. Their web site is http://www.magnet.ch/emutech/ The emulator seems to run most programs fine, playing senseless violence is just as disgustingly offensive as it ever was :-) You can even run programs right off the floppy. They were also working on Sweet 16, a BeOS GS emulator, but have outsourced it to Sheppyware (Eric Shepherd.) The URL for this is http://www.sheppyware.net/products/beos/sweet16/ It's shareware, but worth the money. He's still developing a few GS programs as well, worth a look certainly. Admittedly even further off the course, but there's also a (now free) UNIX-like system which runs on top of GS/OS available for the GS - there's even a TCP/IP stack available for it. Oddly enough, it's called GNO/ME (GNO Multitasking Environment.) And before anyone asks, the system was written in 1993, well before the GNOME desktop was thought of. The URL's http://www.hypermall.com/companies/procyon/gnome.h tml Ahh, nostalgia...
Whoa, have you ever worked on a car?
:-)
:-) Now tell me that Ford doesn't have a monopoly on the Taurus. I'd say this case is closer to the Ford vs. Chevy cheese arguments, and IMHO neither side is exactly right. They both have their points, but in the end either will do.
Sure, you can drive any car to get where you want to go, but you can use any computer too. That seems to be the point. I happen to own both a Mac and a PC (dual boot Linux/Windows 95 OSR2.)
As far as my reasons go, I use the Mac partially because I've used them longer than Windows has been in existence, I happen to like its interface for many tasks as well. Also, some applications just aren't there for Linux. I use Windows only for video games, since I don't like the thought of losing my necessary applications to registry corruption. I suppose that makes it my toy OS
Now back to your analogy, try to repair a Taurus with a Cavalier's parts. That valve cover just doesn't fit, eh?
(Now, none of that comparing apples to...)
This is rather an aside, but I wonder if they have even considered the effect that this will have on the environment. It seems to me that this will put quite a strain on our waste disposal systems, while taking up a lot of room.
:-) Do such companies even exist?
Disposing of a standard CRT is also rather expensive, and they are effectively proposing that _ALL_ current televisions will become useless and therefore need to be disposed of. Considering the fact that many old televisions are still in use in places due to costs, this could get messy for low income families and not-for-profit organizations.
Anyone considering the purchase stock in CRT recycling companies?
The main reason a reasonable person would not want to use GNU/Linux and UNIX as their standard web browser is not the lack of plugins, or the large amount of RAM it requires (although that is definitely a shame.)
:-)
It's simply that the most advanced browser available under GNU/Linux and most UNIX machines, Netscape Navigator, is not nearly as stable as one would expect from a typical Linux app. It also needs to conform better to current standards, and introduce support for new ones such as the PNG image format. This much at least is obvious.
Now, if it happened that Netscape/Mozilla were extremely stable - as stable as one would expect from a typical GNU/Linux or UNIX app - fewer people would become frustrated with browsing the web in this environment. That alone would translate into many more people using these OS' for browsing.
When the amount of people using a platform increases beyond a critical mass, they start to get noticed by the webmasters and site designers. The same thing happens with plugin vendors, witness Macromedia's Flash plugin for GNU/Linux. As the number of people using GNU/Linux for browsing increases, and we have good reason to believe it will, this trend will continue with both site designers and plugin vendors. It's all about demand.
None of this will happen, though, if the browser is unfriendly to use. An application which crashes frequently is _not_ friendly, this is much of the reason I don't use Windows myself. Why should we expect less from our applications than our OS?
By extension, why should we contribute less? Some people seem upset with the Mozilla license. However, Netscape gave GNU/Linux credibility early on by porting Navigator, a rather large show of good faith on their part. They've even given us the source. Now it's crunch time for the Mozilla project, and they could use help. It certainly couldn't hurt to return the favor.
The man has it dead on, we need to support the Mozilla project as much as possible. Otherwise we'll be left in the dark on the web, which after all is where GNU/Linux is traditionally strongest. Let's not give up the home turf
It isn't up to RMS or the FSF to enforce the license you have chosen for your program. If you feel your software is being used in a manner which is inconsistent with the terms of its license, contact your lawyer. You've been provided with the tools in the GPL and your copyright, it's up to you to utilize them. Make your own reality, don't let yourself be stepped on.
:-P
That being said, if you feel the BSD license is right for your software you are of course welcome. Your unwillingness to enforce your copyright isn't likely to persuade others to use the BSD license, however... A license where the software can be raped wholesale by any company which might stick your name somewhere in the end of the manual... Changes the code such that it is incompatible with the original, creating a standard which you don't have the specifications for and leaving your program unused... And in return you get a kick in the pants. (I understand that Windows 2000's TCP/IP stack acts a _lot_ like FreeBSD's for some reason...)
There is certainly a place for the BSD license, especially when the software is destined for a commercial setting. For progressive and cohesive free software development however, the GPL seems more useful.
This is of course my opinion, and should be taken with a grain of anything from NaCL to H2So4 depending on the circumstances.
The GPL may well be restrictive in some ways. but it does what is fundamentally the right thing in most cases. The code is there to use and, perhaps more importantly, to learn from. The license also adds value to the software by allowing modifications where necessary or desired.
I believe people are missing the point when they complain about its restrictions on using the code to make something non-free/closed source. The GPL was not designed for this purpose, it simply provides safeguards for the author and the end user. However, the author (as the copyleft holder) has complete freedom to release their code under another license if they wish. They could release their code under another license as a special case if the need arises. This is often done with the Artistic license for example.
Perhaps more interesting, the author could decide to sell a differently licensed copy of the source code. This could be done to allow the code to be included in commercial software where the GPL would normally prevent its use. The original authur benefits by having the freedom to choose how _closed_ source projects use their code, yet the code is still completely free for end users and developers who choose to release their projects under GPL. The author could provide the alternate licenses to closed source projects for free if they so desired. Their intentions remain intact regardless, and when new situations arise they can be dealt with on a per-case basis.
In the end, the GPL is not a virus. It is a powerful document which provides insurance for programmers who wish their code to remain free in the GPL'ed form. It allows the software to grow by encouraging free development, yet maintains ultimate control over aspects where the author's interests might be compromised. As one person has already noted, its reatrictions are very reasonable when compared to those found in most commercial licenses.
Nope, different universe, different "monster"... Drow are dark skinned elves who serve Lolth and turn into spider-beasts if they flunk a test. The grue is a large beast which lives its life in dark areas waiting for lamps to run out.
:-) I wonder what her view on this entire debacle would be, heh...
Anyone out there remember the Wishbringer book (based on the Infocom game I believe, or was it the other way around...) and Mary Sue Grue?
On an aside, we do support any and all OS' with reasonable TCP/IP support, and we set up our customers' computers in our shop (for free) if they cannot do it themselves... There are still good ISPs out there :-)