Fairtunes, Playfair, and iTunes

[arobasefr]

iTunes 4.5 Update !

According to macbidouille.com and Macgeneration Steve Jobs will announce to day iTunes 4.5 at the phone conference.
macbidouille.com

macgeneration.com

New:

Conversion of unprotected WMA and FLAC support
iMix
New undestroy encoding
Direct impression of CD-covers
Dynamic music lists
No limit burning

iTunes becomes much more then a Mp3 player !

 

[iMan]

Apple's relationship to Linux is a little brain-damaged in my opinion. Linux is going to become as important as Microsoft is, it is going to engage Microsoft in markets that Apple has barely a toehold and ultimately I believe that OpenSource and all its associated entities under GPL will create some great products that will change the dynastic power-struggles we have previously faced. Apple understands that OpenSource is a great lever to use, hence Safari, but they ignore the actual OS entirely.

Sorry to disagree with you there; Linux is never going to put Microsoft out of business. It is never going (in its current form) to be a major player for end users (large corporations/organisation etc is an other matter). It is - and will be for foreseeable future - way too complicated for the average user. And creating a GUI that really can compete with Mac OS or Windows is not going to happen in the Linux world - not the way it operates.
For Apple to not port iTunes to Linux is of course both a political and practical reason. Also note that Apple may have some ambitions for OS X to be the "user friendly" Unix/Linux alibi... think about where this is going if you match Linux's strengths and flexibility with Apple ease of use

 

[eSnow]

Apple's relationship to Linux is a little brain-damaged in my opinion. Linux is going to become as important as Microsoft is, it is going to engage Microsoft in markets that Apple has barely a toehold and ultimately I believe that OpenSource and all its associated entities under GPL will create some great products that will change the dynastic power-struggles we have previously faced.

Well, I am certainly not the only one who believes that Apple will be a victim too if or when Linux is this widespread. There just ain't competing with "for free".

Besides, OpenSource and GPL are not necessarily connected. Apple uses no (zero) GPL-software, which I believe is a good thing [TM] since the GPL deprives you of the freedom to decide what you are going to do with your own code, once you adopt it.

Therefore, I like Apple supporting free OpenSource (BSD) and fighting GPL.

 

[coolsoldier]

Apple uses no (zero) GPL-software, which I believe is a good thing [TM] since the GPL deprives you of the freedom to decide what you are going to do with your own code, once you adopt it.

GNU Emacs (Which is GPL-software) is part of every installation of OS X.

ALSO, the GPL lets you do whatever you want with your code. The only difference is that it also lets anyone else do the same.

Linux as a direct product of open source community will never have the interface to attract desktop users, simply because all of the Linux desktop environments are clones of existing, more mature interfaces. However, AFAIK, there's nothing to stop a company from developing a proprietary desktop env. that runs on top of Linux that rivals, or even beats anything out there now. But, being proprietary, it wouldn't be free, and therefore not as much of a threat.

Linux could, however, eventually kick proprietary operating systems out of the business world completely.

But this is entirely offtopic for the iTunes discussion, because iTunes is a carbon program -- in order to port iTunes, they'd have to either port the entire carbon API (unlikely) or rewrite the entire program (like they did for windows, also unlikely for what is currently an insignificant number of deskotp users, much less a userbase that's used to getting everything for free )

 

[coolsoldier]

I'm sorry if I mispoke, my point was that you should try to follow an argreement in the spirit of the agreement and not hunt for legal arguments to avoid doing do once you've already agreed to the contract. You agreed to the contract, as insidious as it may be, you cannot suddenly change you mind because now you don't like the contract six months down the road. If you do you must understand that Apple would be well within their rights to enforce the contract.

The "spirit of the agreement" was something along the lines of "click this button to use iTunes," not some mutual endorsement of their tactics. I think you're being over-idealistic to say that they really expect their customers to even read, much less understand, the "contract" they present.

As I said, if Apple wants to terminate my account for circumventing their DRM, I invite them to -- they will have lost a paying customer and gained nothing. If they take me to court for it, it will be their money wasted, since any way they would have of knowing what I do with those files for my own personal use would be illegal. Hence, the contract, even if agreed to "in good faith," does not apply in this situation, simply because any way of enforcing it's terms would be illegal.

So I'm pretty sure it's not illegal. Is it unethical? That's really subjective, but here's a breif explanation of why I don't think it is:
--There are no damages -- none of the things I do with my decrypted files cause any damage to anyone (i.e. I'm not redistributing them or anything)
--There is no expectation that every customer read, understand, and agree to that agreement. In fact, because of the relatively small number of people that are even capable of reading and comprehending that kind of legaleese, I'd say that their entire business model depends on people using the store without knowledgeable agreement to those terms.

 

[eSnow]

GNU Emacs (Which is GPL-software) is part of every installation of OS X.

ALSO, the GPL lets you do whatever you want with your code. The only difference is that it also lets anyone else do the same.

Well, since Apple did replace wget with curl, I hoped they'd strife for a GNU-free environment.

And, no the GPL does not allow me to do whatever I want with my code. Keeping it private, for instance.

Linux as a direct product of open source community will never have the interface to attract desktop users, simply because all of the Linux desktop environments are clones of existing, more mature interfaces. However, AFAIK, there's nothing to stop a company from developing a proprietary desktop env. that runs on top of Linux that rivals, or even beats anything out there now. But, being proprietary, it wouldn't be free, and therefore not as much of a threat.

Linux could, however, eventually kick proprietary operating systems out of the business world completely.

Well, Linux is a knock-off of commercial unix concepts and yet it has succeeded in killing off most of them (notable exception: MacOS X). So by any indication, the dumping tactics will succeed in killing off Windows and MacOS in the long run and replacing it with craptified versions based on Linux.

But this is entirely offtopic for the iTunes discussion, because iTunes is a carbon program -- in order to port iTunes, they'd have to either port the entire carbon API (unlikely) or rewrite the entire program (like they did for windows, also unlikely for what is currently an insignificant number of deskotp users, much less a userbase that's used to getting everything for free )

Apple did not rewrite iTunes for Windows, they ported Quicktime over and some parts of CoreFoundation and Carbon. Would be a minor effort to port it to QT.

 

[coolsoldier]

Well, since Apple did replace wget with curl, I hoped they'd strife for a GNU-free environment.

And, no the GPL does not allow me to do whatever I want with my code. Keeping it private, for instance.

Sure it does. You keep your code private as long as you also keep the product private. For instance, if you make a derivative work, you don't have to publish it. And depending how your code uses the GPL code, you might even be able to publish it anyway (i.e. wrapper apps, plugins, etc. are not considered "derivative works").