It's only good when it's the only game in town like it is on linux. (
Funny:-) - I use it under windows, but very rarely under linux (I agree that totem sucks tho')
VLC seems to be totally cool because it supports more formats than just about anything,
Should read:
VLC is totally cool because it supports more formats than anything period.
One stop shop for anyone having video troubles is to just download VLC. I agree it's slow, but it's stable. Things just work (tm) - they way Apple advertises, but (at least in this case) fail to deliver on.
'cause it makes something previously unusable, usable. (Not that I will ever be using this app, I've never been stupid enough to buy a DRM encumbered piece of content).
Oh - and for those hoping it stripped the DRM from WMV9. Nope, WMA DRM only.
Somebody correct me on this, but I think this shows a bigger processor use in "idle" mode for the XP machine, and more heat to the CPU means more consummed power;
Linux runs cooler than other operating systems, because it tends to halt for short periods when it has nothing else to do."
That said, the difference is probably negligible in day-to-day use.
I agree, the operating system makes little difference, if running the same processor. That's why I asked the OP what they meant by 'wintel' (rather than 'intel').
That's because you've been reading Apple's environment page, which is peppered with feel good phrases such as "Apple helps to safeguard the environment" and "Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen"
Apple talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Again.
Oh - and Dell & Nokia are near the top because they've made a greater effort to be green than the other companies.
Yes. However, I think I should have qualified it. I wrote that due to something in the wget man page:
Identify as agent-string to the HTTP server. The HTTP protocol allows the clients to identify themselves using a User-Agent header field. This enables distinguishing the WWW software, usually for statistical purposes or for tracing of protocol violations. Wget normally identifies as `Wget/version', version being the current version number of Wget. However, some sites have been known to impose the policy of tailoring the output according to the User-Agent-supplied information. While conceptually this is not such a bad idea, it has been abused by servers denying information to clients other than Mozilla or Microsoft Internet Explorer. This option allows you to change the User-Agent line issued by Wget. Use of this option is discouraged, unless you really know what you are doing. NOTE that Netscape Communications Corp. has claimed that false transmissions of `Mozilla' as the User-Agent are a copyright infringement, which will be prosecuted. DO NOT misrepresent Wget as Mozilla.
However - that item is not in the current version of wget, so who knows.
Interesting hoever, that netscape at least at one point in time claimed copyright on "Mozilla" in a UA string.
by Robin "Roblimo" Miller A Linux/.com/OSTG production
*snort* Production? Using vnc2swf does not make you a producer;-)
Seriously tho' - roblimo's correct. It's an utterly absurd situation. A linux user should not have to change their UA string (illegal in some jurisdictions) just to watch videos. Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?
Nicely done anyway - and using flash a little flash presentation is a good way to get your point across to the non-techies around (I imagine even a senior editor at the NYT could understand the problem after watching that video).
You shouldn't have been marked flamebait - you should have been marked 'common or garden obvious troll'. Just because the post you were responding to was a troll doesn't give you license to do so.
For the umpteenth time, I've already posted that proof. Next.
It's common knowledge that you posted speculation - not proof. Why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
He wants to get rid of all proprietary software because it is evil. What else would you call that?
I'd call it 'creating a better alternative and educating people as to why it's better', not 'banning'. Why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
OS X uses BSD.
Utterly stupid - you think because it uses some BSD code that it doesn't use GPLed code as well?
Yeah, I know he's not really a shill, just another troll (the trolls, with the odd exception have really lost their touch on/. I have to say). other then that, I completely agree with your post:-)
Anyway, in an attempt to pretend this post is vaguely ontopic, don't you think the sugar interface looks more attractive than whatever the Apple guys (probably the interns) would've slapped together had the OLPC project been dumb enough to choose os x over linux?
Stallman speaks & writes alot. He's not exactly what you'd call ashamed of his opinions. Surely if he wants to 'ban' proprietary software, you'd be able to find him saying that somewhere?
It's not my fault you wish to ignore the interview I posted or the countless others in a simple Google search result.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
I haven't changed my argument at all (you just made that up to have something to attack). Stallman wants to ban proprietary software. He believes it is "evil."
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Which is 100% true. They are opposed to the use of proprietary software on their ideological grounds and don't believe you should get to use it.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Yes, I already proved long ago that Stallman thinks proprietary software is evil. Perhaps you're a Stallman fanboy, I don't know. What I do know is, you're apparently in complete denial about the man's very well-known position on proprietary software.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Oh? Because you can't? I'm afraid that its fast becoming 'common knowledge' that you're wrong. Stallman wants proprietary software gone - but he's not advocating 'banning' it - just creating a better alternative (one os x relies on). I can't believe you can't understand the difference!
Seems odd that they'd give out iPods out for something related to Linux. I was under the impression they didn't play well together.
Your impression was incorrect. Linux plays very nicely with ipods (nicer than itunes even) - its just itunes music store and the crud downloaded from there that can be problematic.
I love to use and code Open Source stuff as much as the next guy, but shouldn't schools/governments be worrying about the best tool for the job instead of making blanket statements like "100% open source by 20xx"?
I see where you're coming from - but consider, if you're in a position where you need a certain amount of control over the software you're running, then nothing but F/OSS is going to cut the mustard.
Vendor independance, ability to control your own destiny, freedom from the possibility of foreign government intervention, possibility to independantly audit code, etc etc etc.
You can write all of that in your requirements or just 'OSI approved license". *Shrug*, the second is certainly shorter....
Slashdot Mirror
What if you were the teacher? (dumbass)
basically with Apple DRM *I* can do whatever *I* want to do,
As the GP said:
Oh - and congratulations. I've never seen a post disagreeing with it's parent backup the parents POV as thoroughly as you just did!
Just because its not usable to YOU, doesn't mean its not usable to the rest of us.
But I was talking about me! Neither my preferred music software, nor my mp3 player support fairplay *spits* music. To me it is unusable.
Some of us don't have this fixation on the thought that software and music should be free.
Strawman.
I have a fixation that I should be free to listen how I like to music I've paid for.
It's only good when it's the only game in town like it is on linux. (
:-) - I use it under windows, but very rarely under linux (I agree that totem sucks tho')
Funny
VLC seems to be totally cool because it supports more formats than just about anything,
Should read:
VLC is totally cool because it supports more formats than anything period.
One stop shop for anyone having video troubles is to just download VLC. I agree it's slow, but it's stable. Things just work (tm) - they way Apple advertises, but (at least in this case) fail to deliver on.
Perhaps also of interest, engadget's open letter to microsoft on why they shouldn't kill FairUseWM.
FairUse4WM Breaks Windows DRM
should read:
FairUse4WM Fixes Windows DRM
'cause it makes something previously unusable, usable. (Not that I will ever be using this app, I've never been stupid enough to buy a DRM encumbered piece of content).
Oh - and for those hoping it stripped the DRM from WMV9. Nope, WMA DRM only.
IOW, you are wrong.
Wrong about what? It appears that there's a problem with an older QT plugin.
I've upgraded to VLC, so its working for me now! Thanks for your concern tho'
You are correct. Nasa chooses linux because it runs cools:
That said, the difference is probably negligible in day-to-day use.
I agree, the operating system makes little difference, if running the same processor. That's why I asked the OP what they meant by 'wintel' (rather than 'intel').
Nope. Plays perfectly fine in Firefox 1.5 on my Mac.
;-)
Yup. Appears to be a problem with the quicktime plugin for windows. Crashes IE or FF, works fine using VLC under windows or ubuntu.
Luckily for Apple, people using the quicktime plugin under windows are not the target market for these ads
Far nicer than the political ads that are swamping televisions this election year.
;-)
Apple Ads: Still more truthful and less nasty than the 2004 election campaign.
Not a motto I'd be proud of for my company
Did they take the power consumption of Wintell machines into account here?
Do you think windows intel PCs use more power than mac intel PCs? (or 'nix intel PCs?)
I am surpised Apple was quite so low on the list
That's because you've been reading Apple's environment page, which is peppered with feel good phrases such as "Apple helps to safeguard the environment" and "Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen"
Apple talking the talk, but not walking the walk. Again.
Oh - and Dell & Nokia are near the top because they've made a greater effort to be green than the other companies.
Your first mistake there was installing the quicktime plugin, it's almost as bad as the Acrobat Reader plugin.
You're absolutely right. I booted my laptop, and it works perfectly under ubuntu.
(oh - and anyone else having the quicktime plugin for ff crash ff when trying to play these?)
Yes. However, I think I should have qualified it. I wrote that due to something in the wget man page:
However - that item is not in the current version of wget, so who knows.
Interesting hoever, that netscape at least at one point in time claimed copyright on "Mozilla" in a UA string.
*snort* Production? Using vnc2swf does not make you a producer
Seriously tho' - roblimo's correct. It's an utterly absurd situation. A linux user should not have to change their UA string (illegal in some jurisdictions) just to watch videos. Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?
Nicely done anyway - and using flash a little flash presentation is a good way to get your point across to the non-techies around (I imagine even a senior editor at the NYT could understand the problem after watching that video).
Why am I marked as "Flamebait"
You shouldn't have been marked flamebait - you should have been marked 'common or garden obvious troll'. Just because the post you were responding to was a troll doesn't give you license to do so.
He's said repeatedly that he wants to get rid of proprietary software because it's evil. Again, I already posted this.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You said he wants to 'ban' proprietary software. It is common knowledge that you can't back up your statements.
Already did.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You said he wants to 'ban' proprietary software. It is common knowledge that you can't back up your statements.
It uses GCC.
Yes. That's why I said os x 'relies' on the GNU project. Saying it relies on BSD code too doesn't disupte that.
For the umpteenth time, I've already posted that proof. Next.
It's common knowledge that you posted speculation - not proof. Why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
He wants to get rid of all proprietary software because it is evil. What else would you call that?
I'd call it 'creating a better alternative and educating people as to why it's better', not 'banning'. Why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
OS X uses BSD.
Utterly stupid - you think because it uses some BSD code that it doesn't use GPLed code as well?
Don't forget - it's still just in the prototype phase - alpha testing in thailand soon. Should be interesting.
Yeah, I know he's not really a shill, just another troll (the trolls, with the odd exception have really lost their touch on /. I have to say). other then that, I completely agree with your post :-)
Anyway, in an attempt to pretend this post is vaguely ontopic, don't you think the sugar interface looks more attractive than whatever the Apple guys (probably the interns) would've slapped together had the OLPC project been dumb enough to choose os x over linux?
Stallman speaks & writes alot. He's not exactly what you'd call ashamed of his opinions. Surely if he wants to 'ban' proprietary software, you'd be able to find him saying that somewhere?
It's not my fault you wish to ignore the interview I posted or the countless others in a simple Google search result.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
I haven't changed my argument at all (you just made that up to have something to attack). Stallman wants to ban proprietary software. He believes it is "evil."
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Which is 100% true. They are opposed to the use of proprietary software on their ideological grounds and don't believe you should get to use it.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Yes, I already proved long ago that Stallman thinks proprietary software is evil. Perhaps you're a Stallman fanboy, I don't know. What I do know is, you're apparently in complete denial about the man's very well-known position on proprietary software.
*snort* - why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Oh? Because you can't? I'm afraid that its fast becoming 'common knowledge' that you're wrong. Stallman wants proprietary software gone - but he's not advocating 'banning' it - just creating a better alternative (one os x relies on). I can't believe you can't understand the difference!
*sighs* you're probably right - I'd just come from reading a long thread describing RMS as a 'fascist' and was a little annoyed.
Seems odd that they'd give out iPods out for something related to Linux. I was under the impression they didn't play well together.
Your impression was incorrect. Linux plays very nicely with ipods (nicer than itunes even) - its just itunes music store and the crud downloaded from there that can be problematic.
You do realize that the only thing Overly Critical Guy ever does at any time whatsoever is troll, right?
Yes, yes I do. But I was just wondering if he ever gave up. Apparantly not - kinda like a bulldog.
Its almost like steve jobs pays him by the word.
I love to use and code Open Source stuff as much as the next guy, but shouldn't schools/governments be worrying about the best tool for the job instead of making blanket statements like "100% open source by 20xx"?
I see where you're coming from - but consider, if you're in a position where you need a certain amount of control over the software you're running, then nothing but F/OSS is going to cut the mustard.
Vendor independance, ability to control your own destiny, freedom from the possibility of foreign government intervention, possibility to independantly audit code, etc etc etc.
You can write all of that in your requirements or just 'OSI approved license". *Shrug*, the second is certainly shorter....