Great News! Amazon scores more ebook exclusives

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

... support Linux is there are one, a lot of different flavors of the same core OS each of which could require it's own tweaked version of the app.

What? That's BS. You certainly don't need a new app for every Linux distribution.

So it's just a fact of life not anything else. It's part of the trade off for using Linux.

BS again. Look, the Kindle device already runs Linux natively. How difficult would it be to port that to Linux for PC? Exactly, not very.

[DiapDealer]

BS again. Look, the Kindle device already runs Linux natively. How difficult would it be to port that to Linux for PC? Exactly, not very.

I agree. Especially since the Kindle framework is Java running on Linux. Java... you know... that platform independent thingamabob.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

reasonable for use but I would say it's not as trivial as implied. If it was it would be done. Also what happens when a statically linked library that included in the compiled/tokenized app no longer function due to some change in the original branch/distro of that version of Linux?

And I think that is one of the primary points I was trying to make. It's a moving target. Add to that if some of the code used in the main app can even be ported to Linux or a given mobile device all due to those copyrights (aka license agreements) which dictate when and where the licensed code can be run.

As a developer, I've never experienced any issues legally speaking with porting code to Linux. Also, when it comes to statically linked code, there isn't too much of any issue with it no longer being able to be run. I still have and can run apps with static links from 10+ years back.

The reason it isn't done often, is because if there is a bug fix for any of the libraries used, you'll have to recompile the whole app to take advantage of them, and it can create binaries that are much bigger than dynamically linked ones.

[kjk]

The one interesting side effect of this announcement and subsequent brouhuaha...I'm actually kinda curious about these Einstein books now Probably never would have noticed them otherwise.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

As a developer, I've never experienced any issues legally speaking with porting code to Linux. Also, when it comes to statically linked code, there isn't too much of any issue with it no longer being able to be run. I still have and can run apps with static links from 10+ years back.

The reason it isn't done often, is because if there is a bug fix for any of the libraries used, you'll have to recompile the whole app to take advantage of them, and it can create binaries that are much bigger than dynamically linked ones.

WHile I too have been a developer, for, well, a while. But I have never done any development for Linux, some QNX and Solaris stuff but that was, cripes back in '90-'93 and even then it was mostly dBase III compatible code save for some comm stuff to move data from our branch offices from the -ix systems to the DOS/Win boxes in the branches. So for Linux I only speak as a user and what I've seen with the apps I used on my Nokia N800 and their Linux branch OS200x (seems to be called Maemo now even though that was just the dev environment originally). But it was quite often they, Nokia back when I was using the thing, broke compatibility for a wide swath of apps as OS updates and even versions were released. And as I recall it was really only on the UI part of the system not generally the core code for an app. But if the thing can't render then it is still bork'd. hehehe

Thanks for the claifications btw. It is sort of how I remembered and assumed things still worked, an OS is an OS after all, right? But my questioning about the statically linked libs was what is the code which is statically linked is rendered obsolete/nonfunctional with an OS update. Or even more fun, the self-induced break via user made "improvements" to a given lib. Even developers, well the less expereinced sorts, use the "I didn't do annnnyyyything" excuse. So there is the support overhead there.

Oh, I want add I am not trying to say it's not possible but that it, from an overhead POV, is likely not financially viable or justified to add Linux and all it's variations for a reader app.

About licensing, what about the whole limitations, and I am discussing handheld/portable OS devices here not the desktop, but the limitations concerning DRM content. Remember there are limitations to what software is allowed on a device to read other ebooks and exclusions for other DRM content. So this is part of what I am thinking. Of course I right now see a hole there given that there is a Android app. If it runs there in a mixed DRM environment then no reason it can't also port to Linux.

Hmmm, so maybe it's just a market forces sort of thing. In this case Amazon assumes that given the really affordable price of entry of $139 today, it's more in their interests to let users buy some sort of supported handheld device over porting the app.

And anyway, doesn't the Kindle OS actually run on top pf Linux? So yeah, I see it as odd but there must be a reason. Hmmm, oh well back to work for me burnt enough of the day already! thanks for the info.

[Hellmark]

Nokia was bad about breaking things, because they would have one API for one version, and next release of Maemo they would use another one, or do major changes and break support of what they did before. They required massive changes to apps between OS2005 to 2006, 2006 to 2007, and Diablo to Maemo5. I think the only time they didn't break things was from 2007 to 2008, but I am fuzzy on that because it was too long ago that I made that jump. I didn't include 2008 to Diablo, because Diablo was a minor revision.

Linux as a whole though, doesn't break things too often.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Exactly, if that. So 50% sounds like a good deal.

If I clean your windows and mow your lawn once can I have 50% of your income for the rest of your life?

[Joonbug1]

I don't think it's a good idea for any one store to get sole exclusives on books, especially ones from famous people. Readers and customers alike always benefit from having more than one option. This goes for not just books, but for any product or service.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by Joonbug1

I don't think it's a good idea for any one store to get sole exclusives on books, especially ones from famous people. Readers and customers alike always benefit from having more than one option. This goes for not just books, but for any product or service.

I agree. It would be better for the books to be available to everyone in whatever format they want to read them without having to fiddle with formats or apps.

That said, there is at least an imperfect solution for anyone who wants to read them and does not own a Kindle.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by kjk

The one interesting side effect of this announcement and subsequent brouhuaha...I'm actually kinda curious about these Einstein books now Probably never would have noticed them otherwise.

true. the letters seem interesting

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If I clean your windows and mow your lawn once can I have 50% of your income for the rest of your life?

Hmm... wouldn't it be 50% of the sale of that house and the right to sell it?

Luck;
Ken

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

If I clean your windows and mow your lawn once can I have 50% of your income for the rest of your life?

That's a very bad analogy. I'm not easily suspected to be usually in favor of publishers, but they do provide valuable services, you know.

[kennyc]

Don't seem like very interesting books.....

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Neither my ereader (Pocketbook) nor my Linux-based PC will officially support Amazon ebooks. So, yes, I'm obviously on the other side of that wall (and couldn't care less, just making a principle point here).

I use linux and I still support Amazon.

You may not dual boot, but that's always an option. Or, use a VM running Windows. Don't want to support MS even that much? Wine + Kindle for PC.

There are worse content locks than whatever Amazon used to write Kindle for PC. The two that constantly frustrate me? Anything that requires Silverlight or .Net. In my case, that's both Amazon and Netflix's streaming services, and EA Downloader (for Electronic Arts games).

They just don't run and there's _no_ work-around. I'm sure other people have other software that is impossible to run under linux. These days, anything that runs reasonably cleanly under Wine (including alternatives like PlayOnLinux or Crossover) is a "win" in my book.

Now, if you want to remove DRM while only running Linux, I'd be right with you (if you wanted to work up enough "care" to be pissed with Amazon). Then again, they're probably not too concerned about that .

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

What? That's BS. You certainly don't need a new app for every Linux distribution.

BS again. Look, the Kindle device already runs Linux natively. How difficult would it be to port that to Linux for PC? Exactly, not very.

I think the big issue (other than apathy for a tiny market segment) is concern that more Linux users would complain about any software released that implements DRM restrictions than would actually be grateful to have the software up and running.