In fact, the availability of source will probably help these programmers who do in-house software. Instead of companies having two choices (write it from scratch or buy a commercial product that has a load of extra or missing features) they can take an existing software project and adapt it to their needs. Then they have the choice of releasing their changes for the general improvement of the software, or keeping them in-house, of course.
Yes, seriously. You mean he doesn't have a Linux-powered time machine that he could use to go back to the creation of the computer and revolutionize everything? Then what is it all these Linux people are working towards?
which both only meet or fall short of the decade-old Mac and windows interfaces.
Most of your post was good, but there's a couple of problems here. First, that's a matter of personal opinion. I happen to like the flexibiltiy of the GNOME panels much better than anything Windows lets me do. Sure, the filemanager and other associated programs can still use some work, but those are being worked on.
Secondly, I don't think there really is a Windows interface, as such. Yes, all the programs look basically the same, but each one does things (to some degree or another) differently from the others. There's the standard widget set, but widgets are only a small part of the interface.
Ummm... I think you've got an invalid comparison going on here. Could you please explain what you mean by "better" programs? LICQ is, IMHO, better than ICQ because its more stable, less bloated, and more flexible.
I do admit that Linux doesn't have quite the variety of programs Windows does, but Windows has that many programs because everyone uses Windows. Also remember that the main Linux desktop environments (GNOME and KDE) are only now starting on their second major release. How many versions of Windows did it take Microsoft to get things right?
Well, what about getting every major company that's recently announced an open-source project of some kind to contribute to the defense? After all, they're part of the "Open Source movement" too. And I'm sure that a bunch of major computer companies suddenly standing up to the MPAA and saying "we don't think so!" would add quite a lot of legitimacy to our side of this case, just like the recent filing by Yahoo! and other ISPs will help the Napster case.
A traditionally decentralized group, computer geeks, have a modus operandi of operating under the radar screens of people like this.
Not all of us. I, for example, am completely invisible to radar altogether, and can therefor operate at any altitude I like with impunity...
What, he wasn't literally talking about a radar? Oh, never mind then. (Now, you laugh)
Seriously, you do make a good point. I'm betting that almost every geek's view on what they persist in incorrectly referring to as IP is different, but I'm also betting you'd be hard-pressed to find one with a decent knowledge of copyright law who says what they're doing is right or legal. They really do have no idea whatsoever what they're doing, and I'm getting an impression that they're very desperate.
Actually, I'd think contact with an alien species would be the least preferable of those scenarios. Remember that they'd probably be an advanced civilization coming into contact with a primitive one. We'd have to hope that they were different enough from humans to not follow our historical instinct in that situation: repress the natives. (No, I'm not referring to anything specifically) Or we'd have governments or various other orginizations afraid of their power and trying to quietly hide the aliens away or destroy them. (Yeah, right...)
Of course, this is a pessimistic scenario.
-RickHunter
Re:GNOME vs KDE Episode 18: Pointlessness
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2
And, as always, its the little things that make the interface. BTW, that alt-F2 thing works in GNOME, too. I use HelixGNOME as my UI, and I like it about as much as you like KDE. I'm guessing its just a matter of different tastes, which is why I think having both GNOME and KDE available is a good thing.
-RickHunter
Re:One good point -- too much C in open software
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
Computers are so fast these days that a GUI application written in Python/Perl/Tcl isn't noticeably slower than one written in C.
Overgeneralization. I know plenty of people who use Linux just because it means they can get more out of their older computers that they can't afford to replace. In their cases, even though they aren't running GNOME or KDE, having every GUI application written in a scripting language probably would lay a significant performance penalty on them. So sometimes it is better to code in a compiled language like C.Even on this machine, which isn't exactly slow, entering text into my PERL-based mail program is noticably slower than entering it into a compiled program.
-RickHunter
Re:I don't get it...is this a real problem?
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
I think its part of the "geek mentality" that gets debated on endlessly here on Slashdot. Geeks aren't one unit, but a bunch of "units" that agree on the big stuff... mostly. Then argue endlessly over the details... Usually. Although I'm sure there will be people who disagree.
Yes, it is something of a waste of time. But it also insures that there's never just one point of view and the alternatives are, at the very least, shouted about loudly. And sometimes it does produce something useful.
Personally, I think that having KDE and GNOME "competing" for the best UI can only be good in the long run. I currently like the GNOME UI, but who knows what'll happen a year from now?
About three hours ago. I opened an Xterm, su-ed to root, and typed two commands. Co-incidentally, one of the things upgraded were a few components of my HelixGNOME desktop. Now, does anyone want to guess what distro I'm running?
Yes, but they're the people with the money. They're also established, respectable corporate types, as opposed to us unwashed hackers. They also control most of the major media channels. If they start screaming about it, no-one asking them to back it up is going to get much attention. Then again, in a legal court, they probably would get asked to back it up and wouldn't be able to...
That's basically what I'm doing, too. And I think that'll be the most effective. If I recall correctly, most of the market for bleeding-edge technology is among the technically-literate (geeks), who are also generally the type to get concerned about copy protection. And remember that these are corporations. No matter how much they want control, money's their primary interest. If they won't make money from a given course, they won't take it.
No, no. You don't seem to understand the corporate mentality here. Its not really a loss of revenue they're talking about. Incidentally, that can be disproved. Instead, I think they're talking about a loss of revenue growth. But since it cannot be proved that the sudden interest in sharing MP3s didn't make their profit growth smaller, there's no real way to counter that claim.
Nah. They really are this evil. Although, in theory, the RIAA winning their case against Napster (in addition to previous legal cases) just screwed them over big-time. You see, Napster's licence agreement said that users agreed not to trade copywritten files, and that Napster wasn't responsible for any files the users did trade. The RIAA sued them anyway and won. Does anyone know how strong this precident would be for the validity of post-sale click-through licencing? (Which is already illegal?)
Of course, the thing for them to do would be to force distributors to make you sign a physical contract. But this would probably make people wary, and their "you don't REALLY own this" ploy would be more obvious. Or push the UCITA through, which would really let them screw consumers over.
I seem to recall a quote about the Internet being designed to route around damage. I think that, by this point, Sony definitely qualifies as damage. Now, any suggestions as to how they'll get routed around?
IBM's strategy? From what I've seen, it seem to be to diversify. Remember that they do work with Linux, which is in direct competition to their own operating systems (OS/2 and various server things). Then they make computers, both servers and home PCs, and do research and a lot of other stuff.
Of course, this is all from memory. Is there something I'm missing and/or wrong about?
The phrase "holy shit" comes to mind. This does explain why the software industry is pushing the UCITA so hard. Thank you for posting this. I must say, you deserve that +4 rating!
I thought so... Thanks, AC#2. (If I read your post correctly, you're saying you agree with me?) AC#1: Unless you're a copyright lawyer, I don't see how you're any more qualified than I am, and I've read quite a few works on copyright. Can you provide a link to back up your claim? Or any information at all to back it up? Just so I can see the relevant sections of law and interpret them for myself.
Actually, I do own the content, if I recall what I've read on copyright law correctly. The MPAA has been saying that I don't, but I've paid them money for a copy of a copyrighted work. I OWN that copy, but I cannot create additional copies, except as allowed by fair use legislation. So I can do whatever I want with my copy, including re-arrange it randomly and sell it to someone else (not keeping any copies for myself, of course). But I cannot duplicate it and start handing out copies at street corners.
At least, that's what the material I've read said. (I think it was in The Software Conspiracy, but I'm not certant) I also cannot remember whether it was the DMCA or UCITA that was trying to change this. I think it was the UCITA...
If someone can provide a link to copyright law that says otherwise...?
That's another evil thing about this case, and a couple of others. One of the MPAA's chief defensive arguments is that the CCA stuff was a trade secret, so use of it was illegal. But a trade secret gained through a legal means, like reverse-engineering, hs no legal protection at all. That's (in theory) why we have patents. To encourage companies to be a little more open with their data. So maybe they're trying to get legal protection while not having to show anyone their cards...?
This is a very well-written article. The only problem I could really see is that Mr. Goldstein seems to be focusing a bit too much on "DeCSS provde to the MPAA that their protection was inadequate." This is probably just my bias, but that sounds to me like a "script kiddie" thing. "Its perfectly legal... we were just proving their protection wasn't strong enough." To me, the bigger issue is that DeCSS allows me to use my property (in this case, view a DVD I've bought from a video store) however I choose. If I want to take the movie and randomly rearrange the frames, that's my right, because its my property.
And CSS is a lock imposed on my property to prevent me from using it except as the person I bought it from intended. If I want to rip some five-second clips from it to use in a review, I can do that too, under fair use. Except CSS doesn't allow me to, and its now illegal to even tell someone about something that'll let them break it. To me, the fact that the MPAA's protection wasn't strong enough isn't the issue. Its that they had protection at all.
Is it possible that the judge handed down the ruling that he did, with the wording that he did, specifically so it would get overturned? If he ruled for 2600, the MPAA would just throw more of their weight towards the appeals court until they finally squashed 2600 flat. However, if, instead, he handed down a decision like this that is obviously biased and illogical, and an appeals court overturned it, would the precident set would apply to a wider region and have more heft in higher appeals courts? Especially since the MPAA might, in this situation, view the case as a won thing and start throwing their weight elsewhere.
I don't know that much about these aspects of the American legal system, so could someone give me some feedback? Is this possible, or at all likely? Or is it more likely that the judge is as biased and illogical as he seems?
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, the availability of source will probably help these programmers who do in-house software. Instead of companies having two choices (write it from scratch or buy a commercial product that has a load of extra or missing features) they can take an existing software project and adapt it to their needs. Then they have the choice of releasing their changes for the general improvement of the software, or keeping them in-house, of course.
-RickHunter
Yes, seriously. You mean he doesn't have a Linux-powered time machine that he could use to go back to the creation of the computer and revolutionize everything? Then what is it all these Linux people are working towards?
-RickHunter
which both only meet or fall short of the decade-old Mac and windows interfaces.
Most of your post was good, but there's a couple of problems here. First, that's a matter of personal opinion. I happen to like the flexibiltiy of the GNOME panels much better than anything Windows lets me do. Sure, the filemanager and other associated programs can still use some work, but those are being worked on.
Secondly, I don't think there really is a Windows interface, as such. Yes, all the programs look basically the same, but each one does things (to some degree or another) differently from the others. There's the standard widget set, but widgets are only a small part of the interface.
-RickHunter
Ummm... I think you've got an invalid comparison going on here. Could you please explain what you mean by "better" programs? LICQ is, IMHO, better than ICQ because its more stable, less bloated, and more flexible.
I do admit that Linux doesn't have quite the variety of programs Windows does, but Windows has that many programs because everyone uses Windows. Also remember that the main Linux desktop environments (GNOME and KDE) are only now starting on their second major release. How many versions of Windows did it take Microsoft to get things right?
-RickHunter
Mmmmm.... Perjury charges...
Well, what about getting every major company that's recently announced an open-source project of some kind to contribute to the defense? After all, they're part of the "Open Source movement" too. And I'm sure that a bunch of major computer companies suddenly standing up to the MPAA and saying "we don't think so!" would add quite a lot of legitimacy to our side of this case, just like the recent filing by Yahoo! and other ISPs will help the Napster case.
-RickHunter
A traditionally decentralized group, computer geeks, have a modus operandi of operating under the radar screens of people like this.
Not all of us. I, for example, am completely invisible to radar altogether, and can therefor operate at any altitude I like with impunity...
What, he wasn't literally talking about a radar? Oh, never mind then. (Now, you laugh)
Seriously, you do make a good point. I'm betting that almost every geek's view on what they persist in incorrectly referring to as IP is different, but I'm also betting you'd be hard-pressed to find one with a decent knowledge of copyright law who says what they're doing is right or legal. They really do have no idea whatsoever what they're doing, and I'm getting an impression that they're very desperate.
-RickHunter
Actually, I'd think contact with an alien species would be the least preferable of those scenarios. Remember that they'd probably be an advanced civilization coming into contact with a primitive one. We'd have to hope that they were different enough from humans to not follow our historical instinct in that situation: repress the natives. (No, I'm not referring to anything specifically) Or we'd have governments or various other orginizations afraid of their power and trying to quietly hide the aliens away or destroy them. (Yeah, right...)
Of course, this is a pessimistic scenario.
-RickHunter
And, as always, its the little things that make the interface. BTW, that alt-F2 thing works in GNOME, too. I use HelixGNOME as my UI, and I like it about as much as you like KDE. I'm guessing its just a matter of different tastes, which is why I think having both GNOME and KDE available is a good thing.
-RickHunter
Computers are so fast these days that a GUI application written in Python/Perl/Tcl isn't noticeably slower than one written in C.
Overgeneralization. I know plenty of people who use Linux just because it means they can get more out of their older computers that they can't afford to replace. In their cases, even though they aren't running GNOME or KDE, having every GUI application written in a scripting language probably would lay a significant performance penalty on them. So sometimes it is better to code in a compiled language like C.Even on this machine, which isn't exactly slow, entering text into my PERL-based mail program is noticably slower than entering it into a compiled program.
-RickHunter
I think its part of the "geek mentality" that gets debated on endlessly here on Slashdot. Geeks aren't one unit, but a bunch of "units" that agree on the big stuff... mostly. Then argue endlessly over the details... Usually. Although I'm sure there will be people who disagree.
Yes, it is something of a waste of time. But it also insures that there's never just one point of view and the alternatives are, at the very least, shouted about loudly. And sometimes it does produce something useful.
Personally, I think that having KDE and GNOME "competing" for the best UI can only be good in the long run. I currently like the GNOME UI, but who knows what'll happen a year from now?
-RickHunter
About three hours ago. I opened an Xterm, su-ed to root, and typed two commands. Co-incidentally, one of the things upgraded were a few components of my HelixGNOME desktop. Now, does anyone want to guess what distro I'm running?
-RickHunter
Yes, but they're the people with the money. They're also established, respectable corporate types, as opposed to us unwashed hackers. They also control most of the major media channels. If they start screaming about it, no-one asking them to back it up is going to get much attention. Then again, in a legal court, they probably would get asked to back it up and wouldn't be able to...
-RickHunter
That's basically what I'm doing, too. And I think that'll be the most effective. If I recall correctly, most of the market for bleeding-edge technology is among the technically-literate (geeks), who are also generally the type to get concerned about copy protection. And remember that these are corporations. No matter how much they want control, money's their primary interest. If they won't make money from a given course, they won't take it.
-RickHunter
No, no. You don't seem to understand the corporate mentality here. Its not really a loss of revenue they're talking about. Incidentally, that can be disproved. Instead, I think they're talking about a loss of revenue growth. But since it cannot be proved that the sudden interest in sharing MP3s didn't make their profit growth smaller, there's no real way to counter that claim.
-RickHunter
Nah. They really are this evil. Although, in theory, the RIAA winning their case against Napster (in addition to previous legal cases) just screwed them over big-time. You see, Napster's licence agreement said that users agreed not to trade copywritten files, and that Napster wasn't responsible for any files the users did trade. The RIAA sued them anyway and won. Does anyone know how strong this precident would be for the validity of post-sale click-through licencing? (Which is already illegal?)
Of course, the thing for them to do would be to force distributors to make you sign a physical contract. But this would probably make people wary, and their "you don't REALLY own this" ploy would be more obvious. Or push the UCITA through, which would really let them screw consumers over.
-RickHunter
I seem to recall a quote about the Internet being designed to route around damage. I think that, by this point, Sony definitely qualifies as damage. Now, any suggestions as to how they'll get routed around?
-RickHunter
IBM's strategy? From what I've seen, it seem to be to diversify. Remember that they do work with Linux, which is in direct competition to their own operating systems (OS/2 and various server things). Then they make computers, both servers and home PCs, and do research and a lot of other stuff.
Of course, this is all from memory. Is there something I'm missing and/or wrong about?
-RickHunter
That is fair use, I hope, but I think that its only fair use as long as you don't use it to distribute the movie. Read: personal use only.
-RickHunter
The phrase "holy shit" comes to mind. This does explain why the software industry is pushing the UCITA so hard. Thank you for posting this. I must say, you deserve that +4 rating!
-RickHunter
I thought so... Thanks, AC#2. (If I read your post correctly, you're saying you agree with me?) AC#1: Unless you're a copyright lawyer, I don't see how you're any more qualified than I am, and I've read quite a few works on copyright. Can you provide a link to back up your claim? Or any information at all to back it up? Just so I can see the relevant sections of law and interpret them for myself.
-RickHunter
Thanks to both of you who replied. I'd just considered that as a possibility, and was wondering what others thought.
-RickHunter
Actually, I do own the content, if I recall what I've read on copyright law correctly. The MPAA has been saying that I don't, but I've paid them money for a copy of a copyrighted work. I OWN that copy, but I cannot create additional copies, except as allowed by fair use legislation. So I can do whatever I want with my copy, including re-arrange it randomly and sell it to someone else (not keeping any copies for myself, of course). But I cannot duplicate it and start handing out copies at street corners.
At least, that's what the material I've read said. (I think it was in The Software Conspiracy, but I'm not certant) I also cannot remember whether it was the DMCA or UCITA that was trying to change this. I think it was the UCITA...
If someone can provide a link to copyright law that says otherwise...?
-RickHunter
That's another evil thing about this case, and a couple of others. One of the MPAA's chief defensive arguments is that the CCA stuff was a trade secret, so use of it was illegal. But a trade secret gained through a legal means, like reverse-engineering, hs no legal protection at all. That's (in theory) why we have patents. To encourage companies to be a little more open with their data. So maybe they're trying to get legal protection while not having to show anyone their cards...?
-RickHunter
This is a very well-written article. The only problem I could really see is that Mr. Goldstein seems to be focusing a bit too much on "DeCSS provde to the MPAA that their protection was inadequate." This is probably just my bias, but that sounds to me like a "script kiddie" thing. "Its perfectly legal... we were just proving their protection wasn't strong enough." To me, the bigger issue is that DeCSS allows me to use my property (in this case, view a DVD I've bought from a video store) however I choose. If I want to take the movie and randomly rearrange the frames, that's my right, because its my property.
And CSS is a lock imposed on my property to prevent me from using it except as the person I bought it from intended. If I want to rip some five-second clips from it to use in a review, I can do that too, under fair use. Except CSS doesn't allow me to, and its now illegal to even tell someone about something that'll let them break it. To me, the fact that the MPAA's protection wasn't strong enough isn't the issue. Its that they had protection at all.
-RickHunter
Is it possible that the judge handed down the ruling that he did, with the wording that he did, specifically so it would get overturned? If he ruled for 2600, the MPAA would just throw more of their weight towards the appeals court until they finally squashed 2600 flat. However, if, instead, he handed down a decision like this that is obviously biased and illogical, and an appeals court overturned it, would the precident set would apply to a wider region and have more heft in higher appeals courts? Especially since the MPAA might, in this situation, view the case as a won thing and start throwing their weight elsewhere.
I don't know that much about these aspects of the American legal system, so could someone give me some feedback? Is this possible, or at all likely? Or is it more likely that the judge is as biased and illogical as he seems?
-RickHunter