My adventure with Ubuntu

[drag]

Originally posted by: JohnBernstein
"It's Illegal in the US for Redhat to bundle MP3 support."

HATE TO BURST YOUR BUBBLE PAL,.....

but your very first statement is crap.

Microsoft bundles MP3 support for a start.

And the rest of your statements aren't much better.

Microsoft pays royalties and/or has special agreements with the mp3's creators (and patent holders) in order to do that.

Mp3 is patent encumbered. Redhat is in the business of providing open source software and software support to people. Unless Redhat pays to get a similar license then it is illegal to ship it.

You can add on all the mp3 support you want. It's trivially easy and it doesn't cost you anything. You can add NTFS support and not have to worry about being sued by Microsoft. Redhat has neither of these luxuries and they are very carefull about what they will and will not support. They are very paraniod about this.

Trouble is is that your willing to burn on Redhat when you obviously have no clue what your talking about. Redhat is one among many distros that don't support MP3's out of the box. Debian doesn't provide Mp3 support by default and neither does Ubuntu. Nor does OpenSuse.

Think about it for a second... Redhat is now a major publicly traded corporation owned by individuals who drive the company to seek profits. Debian is a dedicated non-profit Free-software distribution. They both do the 'crippling' you describe. Do you suppose they have a REASON for what they do? Don't you think that they publicly state these reasons at multiple places and make it public knowledge?

Or are they just another clog of this secret cabal along with the creators of NTFS-Fuse, the ntfsprogs/NTFS kernel driver developers, and dozens of other Linux distros to prop up Redhat (or Microsoft) (or themselves) up for whatever bizzare reason you just dreamt up?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: JohnBernstein
And the rest of your statements aren't much better,..... in fact some are far worse:

For example when talking about NTFS read-only support, you answer concerning NTFS read-write support.

They take out Read support because they are paranoid about the patent situation. I covered it.

"Accidentally" answering the wrong question to misdirect your audience,... a standard disinfo technique.

NTFS read-only support has been part of Linux for about 10 years. It is EXTREMELY safe.

So what?

Do some critical thinking... What reason would Redhat have to disable read access. What is in it for them?

Think... Now of course having the ability to read from a NTFS mount would be a desirable feature for people to have. Redhat doesn't offer any pay-for services or advice on how to enable this, and neither does anybody else.... Except that as a end user you can trivially easily add ntfs read support or buggy write support if you felt like it.

What is the reason for their behavior?

It is the NTFS read-only support that has been taken out of Linux by Redhat, as stated above above, not the read-write support, which never got into it.

Ya sure exactly.. and the previous posts directly above what you were talking about didn't have ANYTHING remotely to do with read/write stability and the supposed consperacy from the NTFS-Fuse folks to keep it from working more then 50% of the time.

If you want I can replay your conversation, since it's sooo difficutl to follow.. here is a summary:

you:

Szakacsits is proud to say that NO ONE has reported any corruption (NTFS-FUSE) and if it is found the team will fix it.

The reason it sometimes refuses to write is theoretically to keep everything safe,... but in reality it is properly to cripple the software.

Nothingham:

Cripple the software for what reason?

you:

There are many reasons, some innocent, some not.

One is, to get paid. You release the full deal on receipt of payment.

Another possible reason; is to support RedHat which is deliberately crippling Linux,.... one assumes, so that they will be able to charge for support of the missing features.

(then you go on to list things Redhat does to cripple the software)

me:

NTFS support is ****** at best. Redhat is a enterprise company and customers expect that when they buy Redhat support the software Redhat provides actually works to a high degree of reliability. No ntfs support in Linux does this. Seems Redhat would rather ship nothing at all rather then ship something that would spontaniously corrupt their customer's data and possibly violate several of Microsoft's patents.. A dangerous company which stated publicly and in leaked documents that it will use it's patents as a weapons against Linux (and Redhat) if push comes to shove.

you:

"Accidentally" answering the wrong question to misdirect your audience,... a standard disinfo technique.

NTFS read-only support has been part of Linux for about 10 years. It is EXTREMELY safe.

It is the NTFS read-only support that has been taken out of Linux by Redhat, as stated above above, not the read-write support, which never got into it.

Your nuts


(As far as the MP3 stuff goes just remember that Redhat ships the source code along with the binaries. This source code is ment to be redistributable. The binaries only part of the picture and if you were to ship MP3 support the source code would not be redistributable. The mp3 folks do not license their patents in a way that is compatable with redistributable source code. If the source code wasn't redistributable then it would violate the GPL license. A license which makes it possible for a company like Redhat to exist in the first place and is the license of the majority of software they support.. Including the software that is used to do media playback.)

 

[JohnBernstein]

"Microsoft pays royalties and/or has special agreements with the mp3's creators (and patent holders) in order to do that."

And Redhat can't? Are you sane? You ignored this statement, or are you watching this thread so closely, that you got the original before the change was made, less than 60 seconds later.

"Redhat is in the business of providing open source software and (open) software support to people."

No it is NOT. Are you telling me they do not provide Adobe Acrobat reader? It is about making money. Do you believe anything you say?

"Trouble is is that your willing to burn on Redhat when you obviously have no clue what your talking about."

Most Linux distros have had both MP3 and NTFS (read only) support either for their entire existence, or till recently.

Many, probably most, distros still have both MP3 and NTFS read only support.

Redhat decided to remove these items from its distribution, for reasons that are not initially obvious,... however, clearly NOT for the reasons you state.

Sorry, but I think you are the one who has no clue what your talking about.

 

[Nothinman]

One is, to get paid. You release the full deal on receipt of payment.

Ah, more reasons not to use that software, thanks.

And Redhat can't? Are you sane? You ignored this statement, or are you watching this thread so closely, that you got the original before the change was made, less than 60 seconds later.

RedHat can, but they're not in the workstation/desktop business so why should they? Who wants a server to play MP3s? And FC isn't an official part of RedHat so they're not going to pay for licenses for an unsupported product.

No it is NOT. Are you telling me they do not provide Adobe Acrobat reader? It is about making money. Do you believe anything you say?

I know they provide tools like ggv and xpdf to read PDFs but I wasn't aware that RedHat shipped the official Acrobat Reader. And even if it's true, I'm sure they didn't pay a license for it, they most likely just got permission from Adobe to redistribute their already freely downloadable software.

And while RedHat is a for-profit company, they are dedicated to OSS otherwise they wouldn't release everything they acquire (i.e. Netscape Directory Server, GFS, etc) under the GPL.

Most Linux distros have had both MP3 and NTFS (read only) support either for their entire existence, or till recently.

Most had it when MP3s took off, but many removed support for them once the legal issues became apparent. There's also the issue that most distributions aren't backed by a corporate entity that can be sued, like RedHat.

 

[JohnBernstein]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
RedHat can (pay royalties), but they're not in the workstation/desktop business so why should they? Who wants a server to play MP3s?

I agree. I will never buy another copy of RedHat,.... EVER.
Not having a server, why would I want it?
RedHat is TRASH.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I wasn't aware that RedHat shipped the official Acrobat Reader.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't know.
Why do you voice opinions on things you clearly know so little about, anyway.
Adobe Acrobat reader is, eg, IN Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS version 4 under Extras.
These extras are NOT open source, which was the whole point of mentioning Adobe Acrobat reader.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
many removed support for them once the legal issues became apparent.

Untrue. Very few distros have removed MP3 support. Mandriva is an example of a commercial distro that still has MP3 support.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
There's also the issue that most distributions aren't backed by a corporate entity that can be sued, like RedHat.

That's the fiction. I guess you are saying that non-corporate entities cannot be sued. Do you believe anything you say? The reality is that NO ONE HAS BEEN SUED OVER THIS,.... EVER.

 

[Nothinman]

I agree. I will never buy another copy of RedHat,.... EVER.
Not having a server, why would I want it?
RedHat is TRASH.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that you ever really did buy a copy of RedHat.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't know.
Why do you voice opinions on things you clearly know so little about, anyway.
Adobe Acrobat reader is, eg, IN Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS version 4 under Extras.
These extras are NOT open source, which was the whole point of mentioning Adobe Acrobat reader.

That's an interesting fact, but beside the point. Acrobat Reader is freely distributable, MP3 and CSS support are not.

Untrue. Very few distros have removed MP3 support. Mandriva is an example of a commercial distro that still has MP3 support.

A) I said many, not most.
B) I explicitly noted that the hundreds of distros produced by 1 or 2 people don't count because they don't have a corporate entity behind them to be sued. RedHat, Novell, Debian, etc are in a special position because they are large organizations that can be sued by the copyright holders of things like the MP3, CSS and MPEG algorthms.

And I'm downloading a Mandriva ISO now to verify whether it really has MP3 support or not, but since they're based in France their legal standpoint is going to be different than US companies like Redhat.

That's the fiction. I guess you are saying that non-corporate entities cannot be sued. Do you believe anything you say? The reality is that NO ONE HAS BEEN SUED OVER THIS,.... EVER.

They can be, but the copyright holders aren't going to spend time like the RIAA going after every single people violating their licenses. The same thing can be said for MS, they don't go after people pirating XP, but does that make it right or legal?

 

[JohnBernstein]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Somehow I find it hard to believe that you ever really did buy a copy of RedHat.

Not true and I paid for SuSE 5.1 6.4 7.1 8.0 and 9.3. And Slackware before that.
I stopped purchasing SuSE at 9.3 when they compiled out MP3 support.
I will never pay for SuSE again. Ever.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
That's an interesting fact, but beside the point. Acrobat Reader is,.....

Oh really. You obviously can't follow a simple argument.
The point of mentioning Acrobat Reader was to show that "drag" was wrong when he claimed that Redhat was purely an Open Source distro.
So you are entirely wrong.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I explicitly noted that the hundreds of distros produced by 1 or 2 people don't count because they don't have a corporate entity behind them to be sued. RedHat, Novell, Debian, etc are in a special position because they are large organizations that can be sued by the copyright holders of things like the MP3

Why don't you explain why RedHat, Novell, Debian can't pay, just like Microsoft does.
You seem the always miss the relevant points and ramble about the irrelevant.
And while you are at it explain why Mandriva and to a lesser extent Novelle SuSE 10.0 support MP3.

 

[scottws]

Wait, CSS support isn't included? I thought CSS was interpereted by browsers, and Firefox is capable of interpereting CSS just fine. Am I to believe that it has to be supported within the OS?

 

[Nothinman]

Not true and I paid for SuSE 5.1 6.4 7.1 8.0 and 9.3. And Slackware before that.
I stopped purchasing SuSE at 9.3 when they compiled out MP3 support.
I will never pay for SuSE again. Ever.

That's fine, you're free to do what you want with your money just I'm sure most people will ignore your crippled NTFS crap.

Oh really. You obviously can't follow a simple argument.
The point of mentioning Acrobat Reader was to show that "drag" was wrong when he claimed that Redhat was purely an Open Source distro.
So you are entirely wrong.

Please point out where he used the phrase purely Open Source.

Why don't you explain why RedHat, Novell, Debian can't pay, just like Microsoft does.

Because they don't care? It's not difficult to install a few extra packages from some non-free repositories and at least in the Debian case, they won't go out of their way to support non-free software let a lone pay licensing fees for it. How about you stop speculating and just email them and ask?

And while you are at it explain why Mandriva and to a lesser extent Novelle SuSE 10.0 support MP3.

As I said, Mandriva is a european company so the laws there are going to be different. And SuSe was based in Germany before Novell bought them, I don't know wholey how the acquisition affects them though.

You seem the always miss the relevant points and ramble about the irrelevant.

No, you're the one missing the point. You totally ignored my comparison to pirating XP because you know it's true.

Wait, CSS support isn't included? I thought CSS was interpereted by browsers, and Firefox is capable of interpereting CSS just fine. Am I to believe that it has to be supported within the OS?

The CSS to which I was referring is the Content Scrambling System used in encrypted DVDs. Cascading Style Sheets is supported just fine by OSS software.

 

[scottws]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The CSS to which I was referring is the Content Scrambling System used in encrypted DVDs. Cascading Style Sheets is supported just fine by OSS software.

Oh. Hah! Sorry about that... it didn't occur to me. I'm currently taking a class on XTHML and CSS, so forgive me.

 

[JohnBernstein]

Some totally WRONG things said by the disinfo agents:

"It's Illegal in the US for Redhat to bundle MP3 support" (WRONG: MICROSOFT DOES IT).

"It's illegal in the US for Redhat to bundle (encrypted -- the original comment did NOT include the word encrypted -- just DVD support) DVD support" (WRONG: MICROSOFT OR WINDVD OR PowerDVD DOES IT).

"It's a violation of the Linux kernel developer's choosen copyright license (the GPL) for Redhat to bundle support for Nvidia or ATI propriatory drivers" (IMPLYING THAT REDHAT IS A PURELY OPEN SOURCE DISTRO WHICH IS WRONG (otherwise it would be fine to include Nvidia and ATI propriatory drivers (and it is a fact that Redhat includes many non-GPL applications like Acrobat Reader)))

"They take out Read support because they are paranoid about the patent situation" (WRONG: THIS IS JUST CRAP. THE READ-ONLY SUPPORT WAS WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM ANY MICROSOFT PATENTS).

"Please point out where he used the phrase purely Open Source" (NOTHING MAN KNOWS THIS IS WRONG -- NOTHING MAN KNOWS HE DID NOT USE THIS PHRASE -- NOTHING MAN IS BEING A JERK -- NOTHING MAN KNOWS THAT "DRAG" implies this when he says It's a violation of the Linux kernel developer's choosen copyright license (the GPL) for Redhat to bundle support for Nvidia or ATI propriatory drivers)

You are so obviously talking for vested interests that it shines out your butt.

See what's new at http://linux.coconia.net

 

[scottws]

Microsoft pays Fraunhofer a licensing fee for every copy of Windows that has MP3 decoding and encoding support. That's different than not paying a fee and releasing the software without consent and license.

Also, I don't think Microsoft bundles DVD-decrypting software in Windows. I'm pretty sure you need something like WinDVD or PowerDVD to watch a DVD on your computer.

JohnBernstein, you're obviously very committed to your position. You also have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JohnBernstein]

Originally posted by: scottws
Microsoft pays Fraunhofer a licensing fee,...

And Redhat can't pay? Are you sane?

It is a pity you can't read -- as this has been mentioned many times above.

And as to CSS, only you disinfo people have mentioned it.

And not only can you not read, but you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

See what's new at http://linux.coconia.net

 

[Nothinman]

"It's Illegal in the US for Redhat to bundle MP3 support" (WRONG: MICROSOFT DOES IT).

It is illegal for them to do it for free which was inferred.

"It's illegal in the US for Redhat to bundle (encrypted -- the original comment did NOT include the word encrypted -- just DVD support) DVD support" (WRONG: MICROSOFT OR WINDVD OR PowerDVD DOES IT).

Microsoft most certainly does not include CSS supprt in Windows, infact I don't think WMP will even play unencrypted MPEG2 streams out of the box. You pay for the CSS and MPEG2 licenses when you buy a copy of WinDVD or PowerDVD. Installing them installs the you just paid for codecs and only after that will WMP be able to play DVDs. If you got a copy of WinDVD with your DVD drive or computer, good for you, but you still paid for it.

"It's a violation of the Linux kernel developer's choosen copyright license (the GPL) for Redhat to bundle support for Nvidia or ATI propriatory drivers" (IMPLYING THAT REDHAT IS A PURELY OPEN SOURCE DISTRO WHICH IS WRONG (otherwise it would be fine to include Nvidia and ATI propriatory drivers (and it is a fact that Redhat includes many non-GPL applications like Acrobat Reader)))

A) The legality of the nVidia and ATI drivers is still grey. They technically work, but whether or not it's legal to link non-GPL compatible code with the kernel is still up in the air since no one has challenged it in court.
B) nVidia (not sure about ATI) don't allow redistribution of their drivers without agreeing to their license which would mean that installing RH would require you to agree to nVidia's license in addition to any others that RH currently presents you with, it would just be another annoying step in the installer. It might be possible for RedHat to ask nVidia for permission to redistribute them without making you click on the license, but why should they?

"They take out Read support because they are paranoid about the patent situation" (WRONG: THIS IS JUST CRAP. THE READ-ONLY SUPPORT WAS WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM ANY MICROSOFT PATENTS).

NTFS itself is patented by MS, any implementation of it has to include patented material. Didn't you see the big debacle about the VFAT LFN patent crap? MS owns the patent to LFNs in VFAT and people were up in arms because any device that implements VFAT with LFN support might be forced to pay MS a licensing fee or remove the feature. Same thing, it doesn't matter if it's a clean room implementation or not. I think the only thing saving the NTFS developers is the fact that their driver sucks and I believe they're not in the US.

"Please point out where he used the phrase purely Open Source" (NOTHING MAN KNOWS THIS IS WRONG -- NOTHING MAN KNOWS HE DID NOT USE THIS PHRASE -- NOTHING MAN IS BEING A JERK -- NOTHING MAN KNOWS THAT "DRAG" implies this when he says It's a violation of the Linux kernel developer's choosen copyright license (the GPL) for Redhat to bundle support for Nvidia or ATI propriatory drivers)

You're the one who's reading too much into the postings here and not enough about what the real situations are with regards to these pieces of software. And yes, the nVidia and ATI drivers might be violating the GPL just by existing since they could be considered to be derivatives of the Linux kernel and anything that's a derivative of a GPL'd application must also be GPL'd, it's just that no one has taken either company to court yet.

See what's new at http://linux.coconia.net

Frankly, I think you're just here to spam your crappy website.

 

[JohnBernstein]

NOTHING MAN: you're a nut. You continue to rave about it being illegal for Redhat to support MP3 when the question is, and has always been:

WHY THE ****** DOESN'T Redhat PAY TO SUPPORT MP3?

It's cheap. Its a bargain. The reason is because they are owned by the music industry and you are a music industry shill.

You continually answer questions different to those asked and try to introduce other stupidity like CSS as if it was part of the original argument even though it was not.

I will keep it easy for you and just ask you to answer one question at a time. That shouldn't be to hard for you, should it?

 

[Nothinman]

WHY THE ****** DOESN'T Redhat PAY TO SUPPORT MP3?

I've answered that many times now and you've ignored me, They aren't producing a desktop distribution so MP3 support is irrelevant so what motivation do they have to spend the money?

It's cheap. Its a bargain. The reason is because they are owned by the music industry and you are a music industry shill.

Really? RedHat is owned by the music industry? That's news to me? And just how cheap is a MP3 license?

You continually answer questions different to those asked and try to introduce other stupidity like CSS as if it was part of the original argument even though it was not.

You're the one who mentioned RedHat "crippling" their software by not including DVD support and CSS is the reason that some DVDs don't play. If you have an unencrypted DVD it'll play out of the box just fine.

I will keep it easy for you and just ask you to answer one question at a time. That shouldn't be to hard for you, should it?

You shouldn't try to sound so condescending, you're the one with the reading comprehension problems.

 

[Nick5324]

Holy thread hijack batman!!

 

[thegorx]

hands away from the reply button
step away from the thread, nice and slow .....

 

[saabman]

MP3, just not something I care to listen to. Always sounded poor to me at any bitrate. Give me bit-perfect (44.1kHz) audio files any day.

I like listening to my music. Guess using MP3 as background music source might be OK, but it's going to be too much bother for me to have multiple quality versions of the same music.

 

[scottws]

Either you are listening to poorly encoded MP3s, have the best ears on Earth, or are experiencing a reverse-placebo effect.

 

[JohnBernstein]

WHY THE ****** DOESN'T Redhat PAY TO SUPPORT MP3?

I've answered that many times now and you've ignored me, They aren't producing a desktop distribution so MP3 support is irrelevant so what motivation do they have to spend the money?

NOTHING MAN: you're crazy. You continue to rave. You call that an answer.
It is sooooooo OBVIOUSLY incorrect,... sooooooo OBVIOUSLY silly.

They aren't producing a desktop distribution so the Gnome (KDE) desktop will NO LONGER BE INCLUDED WITH Redhat.

After all, running the X graphics environment is a security risk for a server.

I haven't read that yet,... but by your perverse "logic" I am sure I will be hearing about it soon.

 

[JohnBernstein]

And just how cheap is a MP3 license?

A ONE-OFF payment of $50,000 per software decoder, see: http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

Really? RedHat is owned by the music industry? That's news to me?

So you shill for the music/movie industry and don't even know it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

See what's new at http://linux.coconia.net

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Nick5324
Holy thread hijack batman!!

QFT! :Q

JohnBernstein: It's not cool to come in here as a new member and hijack Nick's thread and trash on a good member like Nothinman.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: JohnBernstein

WHY THE ****** DOESN'T Redhat PAY TO SUPPORT MP3?

I've answered that many times now and you've ignored me, They aren't producing a desktop distribution so MP3 support is irrelevant so what motivation do they have to spend the money?

NOTHING MAN: you're crazy. You continue to rave. You call that an answer.
It is sooooooo OBVIOUSLY incorrect,... sooooooo OBVIOUSLY silly.

They aren't producing a desktop distribution so the Gnome (KDE) desktop will NO LONGER BE INCLUDED WITH Redhat.

After all, running the X graphics environment is a security risk for a server.

I haven't read that yet,... but by your perverse "logic" I am sure I will be hearing about it soon.

What if it's an X server? 😕

Running X11 isn't a huge security risk, it's what you run on X11 that is usually the problem.

 

[Nothinman]

MP3, just not something I care to listen to. Always sounded poor to me at any bitrate. Give me bit-perfect (44.1kHz) audio files any day.

Too bad you'll only be able to fit like 10 of them on an iPod. MP3 is lossless, there's a tradeoff that has to be made and for most people the compression ratio is more than worth it. And there are lossless audio codecs out there if you want, like FLAC, but I don't know if any of the portables support them.

They aren't producing a desktop distribution so the Gnome (KDE) desktop will NO LONGER BE INCLUDED WITH Redhat.

After all, running the X graphics environment is a security risk for a server.

I haven't read that yet,... but by your perverse "logic" I am sure I will be hearing about it soon.

Please stop with the strawmen.

A ONE-OFF payment of $50,000 per software decoder, see: http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html

Yea, real cheap. $50K for something that virtually no one cares about and can be freely and easily installed after the fact, please.

So you shill for the music/movie industry and don't even know it. Why doesn't that surprise me.

Stop posting random crap with no proof, please back up at least some of your statements.