Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude. (c) Ruffin Bailey 2001-2018

The whole Sony XCP scandal has been a real pain to read about. Up until this point, there's really only been one lesson: People don't read the licenses that come with software, and they sure as heck don't bother with them if they're attached to their music CDs. I grabbed a copy of Van Zant's Get Right with the Man which I hope to play around with once I've got an old, "disposable" laptop running, in spite of the horrible music (and I like Lynard Skynard, who have a similar sound; the lyrics on this disc are simply horrible) to see what kind of warning you get, but essentially what you've got is a very effective way for Sony to police the IP it controls, in this case music.

I mean, come on, the deal here isn't [primarily] piracy, but who controls the music's playback. Sony doesn't want Van Zant on your iPod, they want it on a Sony-friendly device. Apple and Sony are at each others' throats, and you can throw Microsoft in for good mix. Sony's CEO does.

from here:
"We have so many rivals it's frightening. The week after next I will meet Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and I will [shake hands and] look down and see if I still have a hand." Sony's Stringer on his role at the top of the Japanese electronics giant. He added that his family thought he was "insane" to take the job. (June 22.)

It's not like Sony is worried about cassette recorders. Piracy is a worry, sure, but once the files hit Limewire from any source, it's everywhere! Macs don't get hit with the XCP, so we can expect that someone, somewhere is going to use their 3% marketshare Apple to rip the thing into mp3s and get it moving. Perhaps it takes an extra week to hit Gnutella networks, but "Nobody Gonna Tell Me What To Do" is making it, like it or not.

What Sony wants is to stop you -- no, you right there. You the individual. You, the person rich enough to buy an iPod (or two) and probably not computer savvy enough to spell Limewire. Sony wants to stop you from putting these tracks on your iPod. While they're at it, why not go ahead and restrict how many copies of the CD you can make with their player? Still, that's not the crux. They want their customized player to open whenever Get Right With The Man or any other XCP protected -- any other Sony -- disc is inserted into the system so that those tracks never see the inside of an iTunes XML library file. The battle for who plays the disc is part of the reason Sony's "fix" when XCP received the horrible PR was to replace XCP CDs and give you a link to download its mp3s! (though I wonder what the bitrate is?!). If this sort of protection means you can't play any CD if you uninstall the XCP player, well, too bad. You okayed the installation. From Sony's point of view, this is a perfect solution, and does a great job protecting its property, at least on Windows 98 through XP.

The bottom line is that if you consent to having this jive put on your computer and ignore the warnings, you reap your just rewards. Want to play the CD on your computer without installing? Well, there're other sources for free music.

Those were my feelings, that is, until this story come out. Here's where we might really have an issue.

From a recent Slashdot story:
HikingStick writes 'News.com is reporting that the Texas attorney general is expanding the allegations against Sony. It seems the software would install even if users declined the EULA.

Now that's a problem. Now instead of simply a draconian approach, we've got what's increasingly turning out to be a sloppy app. It might have LGPL code (if you're a Linuxphile, that'll make sense quickly. If not, it means you've got code with a so-called viral license, meaning Sony should have to give away XCP's programming for free), it might almost irreversibly bork your computer's ability to play CDs, but if it installs when you legally decline the installation, that's more than just bad QA/QC. That's negligence.

Anyhow, enough of rant #2 for today. Hopefully some day I'll fix the issues with the writing (spelling, grammar, logic), but for now I believe you get the point. For the most part, XCP isn't such a bad idea. It shows what's at stake when we talk about iPods and Walkmen (the sale of which, we should note, also benefitted greatly from pirated tapes), and how your computer and its operating system have become a highly contested space. It also shows how I use this blog as much to work out what's on my mind as it is any sort of space for people to actually attempt to read and comprehend what the heck I'm talking about.

/rant

Kinda wondered when I'd finally see this argument coming out of RealSoftware:

Visual Basic.Net requires Visual Basic developers to modify their code because .Net cannot run Visual Basic code. So, like it or not, if you are a Visual Basic developer who wants to take your Visual Basic code forward into new projects, you will be porting.

...

After learning a new language (.Net), significantly changing my source code, and struggling to create programs with a massive 'framework' underneath them, I would have a program that ran under Windows. I then started to look into alternatives. If I had to go through the process of learning a new language and IDE, what else could I get?

I then found REAL Software and REALbasic. REALbasic 5.5.3 for Windows is a modern, fully object-oriented software development environment (IDE), quite similar to Visual Basic. It could use much of my Visual Basic code unchanged, and it could read most of my Visual Basic forms.

Okay, RealBasic does have the crossplatform compilation advantage over VB.NET, but is there really much else? I've found the IDE to be a significant downgrade from VB6 or VB.NET, and obviously you can toss your Windows familiarity out the window if you're really interested in the xplat abilities. Being able to recreate GUIs is nice at all, but as anyone with more than three VB6 apps can tell you, this guy included, I'm sure, that's hardly where you're spending most of you time. I'd also like to dispell the idea that you will "strugg[e] to create programs with a massive 'framework' underneath them" in .NET. Visual Studio.NET is another excellent IDE, and if you want to completely ignore all the new, truly object-oriented features .NET provides (DON'T!), you can use VS.NET to code for VB.NET almost exactly the way you used VB6, before.

I've not messed with RB on Windows much, but it does, admittedly, seem to provide a pretty easy way to access COM, etc, but, um, if you're not worried about xplat, doesn't your VB6 IDE still work fairly well? Can you imagine a reason Microsoft would make VB6 apps stop working on, say, Vista? Are they that cutthroat when it comes to making programmers switch? And do you really think the VB-to-RB converter app is going to have much more success than the VB6-to-VB.NET app? (which, in my experience, was horrendous) I know, I know, I should pull out a large VB6 project and give it a rip, but then that'll be hours and hours of play into a black hole without any sort of return -- kinda like this blog, but on a much larger scale.

The page is an interesting introduction to RB for VB6ers, and worth a quick read if you're interested. At the very least, it's a neat way to move your 'Windows skillz' onto other platforms pretty easily, and for just a hundred bucks. I'm upset to see $100 does not buy you any sort of ADO equivalent -- that'll cost you $300 extra bucks -- but heck, RB does have random file access. ;^)

In any event, here's the key line from the article:
The port will require some manual tweaking, so you, the developer, must determine if it's easier to port or re-write your software.

Nice. At least the author's honest, even if this is buried a bit in the "white paper". Chances are you're rewriting, and chances are you're replacing a ton of COM objects with, well, what? What a headache. For new projects, RB might be worth a look, and if you throw away xplat, you might be able to keep using Windows COM in places too, perhaps to get a few extra features into the Windows build very quickly.

Still, I just can't imagine it's the best next step for the life of medium to large apps you've still got in VB6. Blackbaud, as an extreme example, moved from VB6 to .NET. With their legacy codebase and the way they leverage Windows libraries, I seriously doubt they could have considered migrating to RB. As your apps approach that sort of size and Windows-specific investment, you'll find yourself in the same place. As long as there's Windows, you'll very likely have Microsoft. As long as, well, just who are these RealBasic guys, anyhow?!

And seriously, who reads files in VB6 like this any more?
Dim file As Integer Dim x As String x = String(FileLen("vb2linuxrocks"), " ") file = FreeFile() Open "vb2linuxrocks" For Binary Access Read As file Get file, , x Close file

/ramble

title: Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude.	descrip: One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!! Back-up your data and, when you bike, always wear white.
x MarkUpDown is the best Markdown editor for professionals on Windows 10. It includes two-pane live preview, in-app uploads to imgur for image hosting, and MultiMarkdown table support. Features you won't find anywhere else include... MarkUpDown Multiline Table & Bootstrap Grid support. Beautiful Easy Actions that keep the Markdown flowing. HTML paste to paste HTML source into your documents. You've wasted more than $15 of your time looking for a great Markdown editor. Stop looking. MarkUpDown is the app you're looking for. Learn more or head over to the 'Store now!

Thursday, December 29, 2005
NFL Team Jobs Board Why is it that IT hackers continue to let emergencies on managers' part continue to constitute necessities on theirs? From a job description for a VB web hacker: Individual must be dynamic and willing to accept change with a tough exterior to deal with tight deadlines. "Tough exterior"? I don't want to know what that's euphemizing. I've had the opportunity to manage a few software development projects and -- get this -- you can largely shield coders from the pressure of last minute deadlines through careful scoping, specification documents, and communication with your customer(s) up front. When your planning fails and you have to scramble to make up for trouble, you apologize. If it happens enough that this sort of language, even worse than the typical "must be able to multitask" or "must enjoy juggling", appears, well, the company has a more serious problem than its ability to hire good code jockeys. posted by ruffin at 12/29/2005 01:29:00 PM
0 comments
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Slashdot \| Sony DRM Installed Even When EULA Declined The whole Sony XCP scandal has been a real pain to read about. Up until this point, there's really only been one lesson: People don't read the licenses that come with software, and they sure as heck don't bother with them if they're attached to their music CDs. I grabbed a copy of Van Zant's Get Right with the Man which I hope to play around with once I've got an old, "disposable" laptop running, in spite of the horrible music (and I like Lynard Skynard, who have a similar sound; the lyrics on this disc are simply horrible) to see what kind of warning you get, but essentially what you've got is a very effective way for Sony to police the IP it controls, in this case music. I mean, come on, the deal here isn't [primarily] piracy, but who controls the music's playback. Sony doesn't want Van Zant on your iPod, they want it on a Sony-friendly device. Apple and Sony are at each others' throats, and you can throw Microsoft in for good mix. Sony's CEO does. from here: "We have so many rivals it's frightening. The week after next I will meet Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and I will [shake hands and] look down and see if I still have a hand." Sony's Stringer on his role at the top of the Japanese electronics giant. He added that his family thought he was "insane" to take the job. (June 22.) It's not like Sony is worried about cassette recorders. Piracy is a worry, sure, but once the files hit Limewire from any source, it's everywhere! Macs don't get hit with the XCP, so we can expect that someone, somewhere is going to use their 3% marketshare Apple to rip the thing into mp3s and get it moving. Perhaps it takes an extra week to hit Gnutella networks, but "Nobody Gonna Tell Me What To Do" is making it, like it or not. What Sony wants is to stop you -- no, you right there. You the individual. You, the person rich enough to buy an iPod (or two) and probably not computer savvy enough to spell Limewire. Sony wants to stop you from putting these tracks on your iPod. While they're at it, why not go ahead and restrict how many copies of the CD you can make with their player? Still, that's not the crux. They want their customized player to open whenever Get Right With The Man or any other XCP protected -- any other Sony -- disc is inserted into the system so that those tracks never see the inside of an iTunes XML library file. The battle for who plays the disc is part of the reason Sony's "fix" when XCP received the horrible PR was to replace XCP CDs and give you a link to download its mp3s! (though I wonder what the bitrate is?!). If this sort of protection means you can't play any CD if you uninstall the XCP player, well, too bad. You okayed the installation. From Sony's point of view, this is a perfect solution, and does a great job protecting its property, at least on Windows 98 through XP. The bottom line is that if you consent to having this jive put on your computer and ignore the warnings, you reap your just rewards. Want to play the CD on your computer without installing? Well, there're other sources for free music. Those were my feelings, that is, until this story come out. Here's where we might really have an issue. From a recent Slashdot story: HikingStick writes 'News.com is reporting that the Texas attorney general is expanding the allegations against Sony. It seems the software would install even if users declined the EULA. Now that's a problem. Now instead of simply a draconian approach, we've got what's increasingly turning out to be a sloppy app. It might have LGPL code (if you're a Linuxphile, that'll make sense quickly. If not, it means you've got code with a so-called viral license, meaning Sony should have to give away XCP's programming for free), it might almost irreversibly bork your computer's ability to play CDs, but if it installs when you legally decline the installation, that's more than just bad QA/QC. That's negligence. Anyhow, enough of rant #2 for today. Hopefully some day I'll fix the issues with the writing (spelling, grammar, logic), but for now I believe you get the point. For the most part, XCP isn't such a bad idea. It shows what's at stake when we talk about iPods and Walkmen (the sale of which, we should note, also benefitted greatly from pirated tapes), and how your computer and its operating system have become a highly contested space. It also shows how I use this blog as much to work out what's on my mind as it is any sort of space for people to actually attempt to read and comprehend what the heck I'm talking about. /rant posted by ruffin at 12/22/2005 04:36:00 PM
0 comments
Porting Visual Basic Applications \| REALbasic 2005 Kinda wondered when I'd finally see this argument coming out of RealSoftware: Visual Basic.Net requires Visual Basic developers to modify their code because .Net cannot run Visual Basic code. So, like it or not, if you are a Visual Basic developer who wants to take your Visual Basic code forward into new projects, you will be porting. ... After learning a new language (.Net), significantly changing my source code, and struggling to create programs with a massive 'framework' underneath them, I would have a program that ran under Windows. I then started to look into alternatives. If I had to go through the process of learning a new language and IDE, what else could I get? I then found REAL Software and REALbasic. REALbasic 5.5.3 for Windows is a modern, fully object-oriented software development environment (IDE), quite similar to Visual Basic. It could use much of my Visual Basic code unchanged, and it could read most of my Visual Basic forms. Okay, RealBasic does have the crossplatform compilation advantage over VB.NET, but is there really much else? I've found the IDE to be a significant downgrade from VB6 or VB.NET, and obviously you can toss your Windows familiarity out the window if you're really interested in the xplat abilities. Being able to recreate GUIs is nice at all, but as anyone with more than three VB6 apps can tell you, this guy included, I'm sure, that's hardly where you're spending most of you time. I'd also like to dispell the idea that you will "strugg[e] to create programs with a massive 'framework' underneath them" in .NET. Visual Studio.NET is another excellent IDE, and if you want to completely ignore all the new, truly object-oriented features .NET provides (DON'T!), you can use VS.NET to code for VB.NET almost exactly the way you used VB6, before. I've not messed with RB on Windows much, but it does, admittedly, seem to provide a pretty easy way to access COM, etc, but, um, if you're not worried about xplat, doesn't your VB6 IDE still work fairly well? Can you imagine a reason Microsoft would make VB6 apps stop working on, say, Vista? Are they that cutthroat when it comes to making programmers switch? And do you really think the VB-to-RB converter app is going to have much more success than the VB6-to-VB.NET app? (which, in my experience, was horrendous) I know, I know, I should pull out a large VB6 project and give it a rip, but then that'll be hours and hours of play into a black hole without any sort of return -- kinda like this blog, but on a much larger scale. The page is an interesting introduction to RB for VB6ers, and worth a quick read if you're interested. At the very least, it's a neat way to move your 'Windows skillz' onto other platforms pretty easily, and for just a hundred bucks. I'm upset to see $100 does not buy you any sort of ADO equivalent -- that'll cost you $300 extra bucks -- but heck, RB does have random file access. ;^) In any event, here's the key line from the article: The port will require some manual tweaking, so you, the developer, must determine if it's easier to port or re-write your software. Nice. At least the author's honest, even if this is buried a bit in the "white paper". Chances are you're rewriting, and chances are you're replacing a ton of COM objects with, well, what? What a headache. For new projects, RB might be worth a look, and if you throw away xplat, you might be able to keep using Windows COM in places too, perhaps to get a few extra features into the Windows build very quickly. Still, I just can't imagine it's the best next step for the life of medium to large apps you've still got in VB6. Blackbaud, as an extreme example, moved from VB6 to .NET. With their legacy codebase and the way they leverage Windows libraries, I seriously doubt they could have considered migrating to RB. As your apps approach that sort of size and Windows-specific investment, you'll find yourself in the same place. As long as there's Windows, you'll very likely have Microsoft. As long as, well, just who are these RealBasic guys, anyhow?! And seriously, who reads files in VB6 like this any more? `Dim file As Integer Dim x As String x = String(FileLen("vb2linuxrocks"), " ") file = FreeFile() Open "vb2linuxrocks" For Binary Access Read As file Get file, , x Close file` /ramble posted by ruffin at 12/22/2005 09:08:00 AM
0 comments
Monday, December 12, 2005
Re: bootstrap problem with union Lisp_Object There are two kinds of programmers. If you believe that, let me also tell you what they are. There are those who program The Right Way, with fully modular, well-commented objects that can be picked up and edited, bug fixed, or expanded by anyone reasonably fluent in the skillset needed to create that sort of code. Then there are those that try their daggum-est to turn into cyborgs, where you have to have the human to understand what's going on with the code. "We can't fire John Doe! Without him the whole place would collapse!" Strangely, then, the best programmers are those who are confident enough in their abilities that they happily code themselves out of any job security -- and paradoxically, if their manager is worth a rip, thereby secure the same (that being job security, if the attempt at flair was too much, which I fear it was). This guy, the guy responding and refusing to list the bugs he feels must be fixed before the product is released, is pretty clearly of the second kind. >As Kim has mentioned, it is unclear what bugs you are referring to. >There are only a couple of bugs listed in FOR-RELEASE. The bugs in >emacs-pretest-bug, which are usually minor problems, get fixed at >about the same rate as they are being reported, i.e. after a few days. >Maybe the reason you have the idea that bugs aren't being fixed >because developers sometimes don't send a follow-up email to the list >when they check their fix into CVS. I hope soon to have time to recheck the saved mail. But there are several messages I have posted more than once on this list, with no response, which will go into FOR-RELEASE when I get future reminders. Labels: cyborg posted by ruffin at 12/12/2005 03:23:00 PM
0 comments
Saturday, December 10, 2005
FireWire not dead, but it's on life support \| The Apple Core \| ZDNet.com I'm not sure if I'm quite buying this blog that Firewire on iBooks is going away. Now I'm hearing that FireWire is gone completely from the new Intel iBooks that are coming next month, but its loss should come as a surprise to no one, given Apple's moves of late. A little birdy told me that the new Intel PowerBooks will lose FireWire 400 completely and retain only one FireWire 800 port as a concession to video professionals. If Mac is iLife, and the updates to the iMac suggest that it largely is, what's the purpose of removing Firewire from iBooks? Firewire is far and away the most widely used (afaict) method of connecting DVcorders to computers. O'Grady conspiracy theorizes that this could be a concession to Intel, and it certainly forces would-be iBook buyers to up-buy (opposite end of "upsell", I guess) to the Powerbook, which makes sense, but iLife starts with "i"; it's supposed to be full of easily accessible, end-user apps. Removing Firewire effectively kills iMovie for iBook users. (As random context, I've heard a few say simply removing the monitor spanning feature from iBooks caused them to upbuy, and they weren't real happy when I pointed out a firmware hack that lets iBooks solve that obvious commercially-oriented crippling. This both shows, I hope, that the crippling works in that some buy the next offering on up and that it potentially locks out would-be Mac owners. I know part of my iBook G4 purchase, even though I already had an iBook 500, was driven by the sweet extra screen real estate when I'm working at home. I wouldn't've gone, obviously, to the Powerbook to get the feature.) Anyhow, iLife belongs with iBooks and that includes iMovie. The laptop scene is where the Mac is most competitive, and I'd hate to see it lose out with this move, not only in that the iBook gives less for the buck, but that a large piece of iLife would be rendered unaccessible for new Mac users, like freshmen in college (who seem to be awfully iBook friendly) who provide the new geneartions of Mac users. Firewire is part of the iBook's mission. It's not something where crippling, much less removal, makes any sense. posted by ruffin at 12/10/2005 01:34:00 PM
0 comments
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Operation Clambake present: Latest OC News! Google does evil: In the picture with large letters: 'Google didn't even notify me when they removed my website. Andreas Heldal-Lund'. Under the image they have wrongfully added that I am a former member. See the "24 September 2005" entry if it's not on the home page. Someone writes negatively about the Church of Scientology and its top scoring link on Google gets whacked -- so that it's not on Google at all! Not exactly good stuff from Google. It's the potential MS killer, but it's beginning to act a little like MS. posted by ruffin at 12/04/2005 09:59:00 AM
0 comments