Is this what's going to be going on up till and after the release of Vista? Everyone and their Grandma posting stories of how it did work/didn't work/saved my life/killed my firstborn? Does it really matter? Outside of some of the broader concepts and technologies that Vista will employ, do we have to talk about every single persons user experience. This is similar to the "I couldn't install one Linux distro so all Linux is DUMB 4 real" type posts that used to go around. One persons experience on a system that will be employed eventually in millions of computers, does not a definitive opinion make. Even sysadmins and IT people who oversee large numbers of computers can at best only have a slice of an opinion on something.
For me, either way, its irrelevent. I don't use Windows anymore, except for the rare need to open up an app (presuming it doesn't run in WINE), so what Microsoft does or offers is no longer an issue, since I'm not shelling out the money for the upgrade. I'd much rather break up the cost of whatever the upgrade cost for Vista will be (150?) and donate 10 bucks to my 15 favorite Linux open source applications.
Personally, I'm holding my judgement on Vista until i get to see it in a powered up setting. My old laptop couldn't handle the stress of yet another OS partition, let alone some of the requirements for it (especially the video card).
From viewing various videos on-line, I have no doubt that Vista will be, at least GUI wise, an impressive looking beast, and certainly a lot of the features in it (even if they're taken from Mac OS X) will be enough to hold over those who might have thought about switching to Mac's. This presuming they get it out anywhere near on time and in a stable form.
Except the PS2 Linux kit was exactly that...an add on kit for a periphereal that hardly anyone bought. This on the other hand will be bundled in, straight from the get go, and powered by one of the most buzzed CPU architectures in recent years. I don't think that all of a sudden everyone is going to be hopping to you know, install KDE or something on the PS3, but I think it will be infinetly more useful than the PS2's Linux add on, and even I would be willing to buy a PS3 if there was a solid sign from Sony that they would support it in a homebrew fashion (something I'll wait awhile after release to see if it happens).
Question, if anyone could answer it, would USB drivers have to be re-written for the new Cell architectures, or could I say, plug and mount another external HDD that I already had working on my Linux box? Using Linux only on x86 I am fuzzy as to how much things change when you switch processors, particuarly drivers. My notion was that it pretty much all stayed the same.
For legitimate homebrew, I would wait for the PS3 and its inclusion of Linux. Why waste your efforts on something thats only for a contest, when you could build long-term projects for the PS3, and possibly see them arrive for the larger Linux community?
Speaking of which, am I the only one who see's the PS3 as the world's greatest way to sneak Linux in the backdoor into homes? Imagine the possibilities of turning a PS3 into a fully functional desktop, except with the massive horsepower of the Cell architecture behind it. The possibilities could be endless.
That sounds like a possibility, but you are making claims for a very long way into the future. The momentum alone will keep iTunes and iPod popular for a long time to come. Look at IBM and Micosoft as valid tech examples. However, I was under teh impression we were talking about the present reality of things, not some far reaching "what if" fantasy of yours.
It's not a what if. It's a matter of when. I don't understand why everyone seems to be under the impression that Apple somehow escapes the same forces that have shaped alot of other consumer electronic markets, namely the commodification of everything. All this nonsense talk about an "iPod eco-system" or an iPod industry is bumpkis. The iPod is outfeatured by the Zen and other PMC's and if Sony ever ratcheted up the usefulness of the PSP that they tried to kill by killing off homebrew developers access to the hardware, we'd be talking a seriously different game here.
As a point of reference, attempting to define a word with examples is never considered a smart move when try to prove a point.
When trying to make a point about the english language, it helps to use gerunds. And it still doesn't matter. iTunes is not multiplatform. It's tied down to Quicktime, which in turn is tied down to Windows and Mac's, unless of course, you circumvent it (in the same way I can watch.mov files on my Linux desktop). If I can run (though I don't) iTunes on my desktop its because of the emulation efforts by the guys and girls over at Wine, and not because of anything Apple did.
Ripping from cd's you purchased is one thing, buying songs off iTunes, burning them to a CD, and then ripping them there, is something different. You're creating more than one backup copy, which, as far as I've known is generally illegal. I'm not saying I agree with this at all, but its my understanding that doing the ITunes cd ripping shuffle is not particuarly legit.
f ITunes does close up shop (though you are foolish to even think that is in the realm of possibilities with it's 1billion plus downloads)
Foolish huh? Just because iTunes, and the iPod, are dominating the scene does not mean they will always continue to do so. No one has a golden streak forever. Feature for feature iPod's can't compete with some of Creative and iRiver's offerings, particuarly on price point. What keeps Apple going, much like its computers division, is a marketing schtick. When that falls by the wayside, and it will, we will see a much more balanced mp3 player market.
At least with iTunes the ability to copy and change format is completely legal.
No its not. You have the ability to burn CD's, yes, but you do not have the ability to rip them (legally anyways). The fact that its easy enough to do, and that Apple looks the other way, does not make it legal, just makes it easily circumvented. The fact that iTunes has a more lenient DRM scheme does not mean its the ultimate in freedom.
- Find me a dictionary that doesn't list a defintion for "multi-" as "more than one.
Oh please. We all know what multiplatform means, and it means alot more than two. Video Lan, for instance, is a multiplatform player, because it can run on not only Windows (including CE versions) and Mac OS X, but Linux, a couple of the BSD's, and even BeOS and Zaurus. THAT'S multiplatform. About the only thing it lacks is a port to AmigaOS! iTunes is NOT multiplatform. It's a Windows/Mac application.
If ITunes, or Apple, ever goes under, how will your computer get authorization to play the songs from your account? Is that stored on the computer thats been authorized, and how could you move that authorization without Apple? Could it be done?
3) You can transfer them to CDs (then copy them back as unprotected MP3s if you'd like)
The fact that people list the fact that ITunes DRM can be easily worked around as somehow a netplus for iTunes, as opposed to an example of how dumb DRM schemes are in general, is ridiculous. It's not "awesome" that Apple makes me have to waste a cd in order to do what I should be able to do anyways.
5) iTunes is a multiplatform application.
Multiplatform? So they have a Linux version right? Or a FreeBSD version? Multi means more than two. The fact that other mp3 player software have gotten around or managed to negotiate with iPod's and iTunes is not because of anything Apple has done, and mostly inspite of it.
Personally I don't see the netgain for Mac users from Apple letting copies of MacOS X work only on its computers. The argument that most people on here use, that the last time they tried a clone effort it killed Apple, shows exactly how little people remember about the go-go days when you could grab a UMAX PPC clone that could wipe the floor with an Apple computer, and how much Apple was responsible for its own mismanagement, namely trying to stay in the hardware business while selling licenses for clones. If they were to sell OS X to anyone who wanted it they would have to get out of the computer hardware business pronto.
Will this happen? No. I think Apple is quite content to be a "boutique" hardware maker. But at the same time that cache of cool that they've built up with slick ad's and impressive storefronts will only be maintained as long as their image is maintained that they are "innovative" and have things that other OS' dream about. But that, in reality, is bumpkis. There is nothing that Mac OS X does that can't be replicated on any other OS, including the free ones (Linux, the BSD's, etc), or isn't already there, and the main thing holding back those other OS from tearing Apple's market share to shreds is a lack of certain flagship applications (Adobe/Macromedia, Quicken, etc), ease of use issues (which are quickly being taken care of), and a united advertising/marketing front (even Linspire, the most desktop concious distro has yet to push a big mass media effort to get Linux out there). Without the very cultivated sense of "cool" and "hip" that Apple has, people would realize very quickly that they can get similar, if not better on other OS' with far cheaper hardware choices.
More importantly, they control what does not go into the system. MP3 player? Support for your video card? Tough luck; the church doesn't like the license terms for the software that exists, so you will just have to do without.
Criticizing free-software advocates for not wanting to get involved in proprietary licensing schemes is ridiculous. Most people advocate such a position because it could lead to serious erosion of the essential point of free, open source software, namely that it's free and open source. I have no problem with the fact that entangling oneself with such agreements would cause all sorts of potential legal issues down the line.
That said, theres nothing stopping the end user from doing such a thing, as indicated by the existence of many drivers and libraries on my system of proprietary things cracked and laid bare for all. The illegality of that aside, it CAN be done.
And I guess you missed the part where Apple had ad's and this ridiculous logo saying "We're Open" implying some sort of support of the OSS community, which never really existed. I don't know whether or not they "owe" the OSS community anything, but I would like for them to stop taking credit for shit that's not theirs (KHTML, Mach, BSD) and repackaging it and saying "Hey look at the crazy innovation we came up with!".
I suppose if you don't value your time at all, your argument makes sense. But more often than not, you can either 1) buy a quality component that Just Works but costs a lot, or 2) "shop around" and "minimize expense" (at the register) and spend a few days tweaking it to work, costing you time with your wife/girlfriend/kids/dog.
I do value my time, and that's why I don't buy expensive stuff that Just Works (TM). Buying expensive stuff is only a time saver if the time saved is worth more than the work hours you put in to earn the money to buy the pricier item. I don't know about the other slashdot users here, but if its between a 600 or 700 dollar Just Works (TM) Mac Mini and a bargain basement PC with minimum specs required to put Linux on and run as a media center computer, I'm taking the Linux machine. The dollars saved are considerable, the time investment for myself is not significantly more than setting up a a Mac Mini for the same application use, and I have a computer that is significantly more customizable (something I prize) across the board. That may not be true for a person who is now knowledgeable in computers, but then again, I think the whole point learned in this whole discussion thread is that, at the end of the day, ones computer choices as far as OS', hardware, etc, are completely dictated by what you want to do, what you're willing to invest (time and money wise), and finding a suitable solution for yourself. Despite what many people say on here, a world where any OS was completely and utterly unchallenged (even if that OS happened to be Linux or MacOS) would be disastrous.
See, I don't think it will be a move towards a proprietary world however. There's nothing on the Mac today, for the most part, that's really all that proprietary. An iPod hooks up by USB or FireWire, plays mp3's, and while it was intially limited to Apple's terrible iTunes product, many other software programs have managed to reverse-engineer into it. While admittedly none of the standards above are completely "free" (vorbis would be better than mp3, etc) It's not like the old days of when Mac's talked to each other using AppleTalk or something.
To be honest, the continued focus on market share and OS dominance by analysts strikes me as hollow in today's computing world, where its increasingly becoming irrelevant what OS you run, as long as they hook up into the standards for communicating with other computers. No amount of "Extend and dominate" by Microsoft or "Making seamless" from Apple can change the fact that the world is all about pretty widely agreed upon standards.
What do you mean international law doesn't exist? What do you call maritime law, the various treaties that cover human rights abuses (regardless of how little they are enforced), and the litany of trade agreements and other rules/regulations that the WTO promulgates? Last time I checked those had the distinct smell of law and generally dictate alot of the behaviour of states and other actors, particuarly the trade stuff.
While it is true that international agreements have only so much force as the national countries that sign them are willingly to enforce them (witness the many countries that shelter people guilty of human rights abuses), and that any violation of a treaty would NOT be handled by domestic courts, its absurd to suggest that doing so would be without consequences, though I think in this treaty's case, I doubt anyone will go out of their way to enforce it (just like the fact that certain state authorities look the other way with pirated goods, I doubt they'll care about stealing clips on transmission).
Either way, I doubt that this treaty will be passed, because inevitably every third world country will go through the roof complaining about how western media outlets are depriving them of the ability to report news using their video feeds and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, either way, its irrelevent. I don't use Windows anymore, except for the rare need to open up an app (presuming it doesn't run in WINE), so what Microsoft does or offers is no longer an issue, since I'm not shelling out the money for the upgrade. I'd much rather break up the cost of whatever the upgrade cost for Vista will be (150?) and donate 10 bucks to my 15 favorite Linux open source applications.
From viewing various videos on-line, I have no doubt that Vista will be, at least GUI wise, an impressive looking beast, and certainly a lot of the features in it (even if they're taken from Mac OS X) will be enough to hold over those who might have thought about switching to Mac's. This presuming they get it out anywhere near on time and in a stable form.
Question, if anyone could answer it, would USB drivers have to be re-written for the new Cell architectures, or could I say, plug and mount another external HDD that I already had working on my Linux box? Using Linux only on x86 I am fuzzy as to how much things change when you switch processors, particuarly drivers. My notion was that it pretty much all stayed the same.
Speaking of which, am I the only one who see's the PS3 as the world's greatest way to sneak Linux in the backdoor into homes? Imagine the possibilities of turning a PS3 into a fully functional desktop, except with the massive horsepower of the Cell architecture behind it. The possibilities could be endless.
Ripping from cd's you purchased is one thing, buying songs off iTunes, burning them to a CD, and then ripping them there, is something different. You're creating more than one backup copy, which, as far as I've known is generally illegal. I'm not saying I agree with this at all, but its my understanding that doing the ITunes cd ripping shuffle is not particuarly legit.
If the Cell chip from IBM is as ridiculously crazy as everyone says it is, well...
Personally I don't see the netgain for Mac users from Apple letting copies of MacOS X work only on its computers. The argument that most people on here use, that the last time they tried a clone effort it killed Apple, shows exactly how little people remember about the go-go days when you could grab a UMAX PPC clone that could wipe the floor with an Apple computer, and how much Apple was responsible for its own mismanagement, namely trying to stay in the hardware business while selling licenses for clones. If they were to sell OS X to anyone who wanted it they would have to get out of the computer hardware business pronto. Will this happen? No. I think Apple is quite content to be a "boutique" hardware maker. But at the same time that cache of cool that they've built up with slick ad's and impressive storefronts will only be maintained as long as their image is maintained that they are "innovative" and have things that other OS' dream about. But that, in reality, is bumpkis. There is nothing that Mac OS X does that can't be replicated on any other OS, including the free ones (Linux, the BSD's, etc), or isn't already there, and the main thing holding back those other OS from tearing Apple's market share to shreds is a lack of certain flagship applications (Adobe/Macromedia, Quicken, etc), ease of use issues (which are quickly being taken care of), and a united advertising/marketing front (even Linspire, the most desktop concious distro has yet to push a big mass media effort to get Linux out there). Without the very cultivated sense of "cool" and "hip" that Apple has, people would realize very quickly that they can get similar, if not better on other OS' with far cheaper hardware choices.
That said, theres nothing stopping the end user from doing such a thing, as indicated by the existence of many drivers and libraries on my system of proprietary things cracked and laid bare for all. The illegality of that aside, it CAN be done.
And I guess you missed the part where Apple had ad's and this ridiculous logo saying "We're Open" implying some sort of support of the OSS community, which never really existed. I don't know whether or not they "owe" the OSS community anything, but I would like for them to stop taking credit for shit that's not theirs (KHTML, Mach, BSD) and repackaging it and saying "Hey look at the crazy innovation we came up with!".
See, I don't think it will be a move towards a proprietary world however. There's nothing on the Mac today, for the most part, that's really all that proprietary. An iPod hooks up by USB or FireWire, plays mp3's, and while it was intially limited to Apple's terrible iTunes product, many other software programs have managed to reverse-engineer into it. While admittedly none of the standards above are completely "free" (vorbis would be better than mp3, etc) It's not like the old days of when Mac's talked to each other using AppleTalk or something. To be honest, the continued focus on market share and OS dominance by analysts strikes me as hollow in today's computing world, where its increasingly becoming irrelevant what OS you run, as long as they hook up into the standards for communicating with other computers. No amount of "Extend and dominate" by Microsoft or "Making seamless" from Apple can change the fact that the world is all about pretty widely agreed upon standards.
What do you mean international law doesn't exist? What do you call maritime law, the various treaties that cover human rights abuses (regardless of how little they are enforced), and the litany of trade agreements and other rules/regulations that the WTO promulgates? Last time I checked those had the distinct smell of law and generally dictate alot of the behaviour of states and other actors, particuarly the trade stuff.
While it is true that international agreements have only so much force as the national countries that sign them are willingly to enforce them (witness the many countries that shelter people guilty of human rights abuses), and that any violation of a treaty would NOT be handled by domestic courts, its absurd to suggest that doing so would be without consequences, though I think in this treaty's case, I doubt anyone will go out of their way to enforce it (just like the fact that certain state authorities look the other way with pirated goods, I doubt they'll care about stealing clips on transmission).
Either way, I doubt that this treaty will be passed, because inevitably every third world country will go through the roof complaining about how western media outlets are depriving them of the ability to report news using their video feeds and the like.