Can we stop being childish and calling it "Treacherous Computing".
I much prefer the name "Trusted Computing" - it's got that chilling doublespeak, and obvious twist that it doesn't trust YOU. "Treacherous Computing" is just meaningless, and lame too.
You make a persuasive argument. I guess there's nowhere to turn to! (Not in the hardware stakes anyway... there's plenty of free software).
Can I ask why you're not worried about DRM?
Yes I know about Nintento's history. I know that even the Wii has region coding and other DRM but from everything I've heard/read, the Wii is pretty tame compared to Nintendo in the 80s, and also pretty tame compared to PS3, Xbox, and Windows.
Also, even if consoles are full to the brim with DRM, they won't threaten our liberties with all of our documents, movies, music and software, as DRM on the PC does. So I regard Windows DRM to be far more virulent.
Well, StarCraft 2 probably won't run on a Wii:(, but otherwise, yeah, a Wii is probably a good non-evil games machine. Dunno about PS3 though... it's all about Blu-ray.:x
Yes, developers need to switch to OGL immediately. I was using DirectX until recently, when I realised that DX10 was simply a part of their master Vista plan. Every piece of technology going into Vista is in some way part of this insidious plot and should be avoided by developers and content producers.
Having said that, what is the consumer to do in the mean time? As a gamer, I am torn between my hatred of Microsoft, and my desire to play any commercial games at all. The way I see it is, the mass gaming market is going to adopt Vista, and that's the way MS are going to force it down our throats. And I can't see any way out of it, save all developers immediately abandoning use of all Vista-only technology (and of course, Games for Windows).
I'll say this though: In the past I may have given in, if the games were good enough. But seriously, I don't care if it's Starcraft 2, I will not be getting it if it requires Vista.
Aw, you have to prove monetary damages? What about just, I installed it on my machine, it fscked it up, and I spent seven hours reinstalling and reconfiguring everything?
And off-topic, once you know it's got badass DRM on there, and you actually want to listen to the music, what do you do? I mean... the first thing that comes to mind is disable autorun, rip the CD, throw it away. It seems to me that all DRM does is encourage people to circumvent it.
Exactly. I think copyright is OK when you have one man creating his work, he deserves to be able to profit from it - maybe for the rest of his life time, maybe for a limited time. I don't know.
What I hate is when you see the grandson's family complaining that "oh, those nasty pirates are stealing our deserved income." What the hell? Since when do you deserve to get rich off something your grandfather created decades (centuries?) ago?
Copyright aside, DRM is inherently evil because it quite obviously has "side-effects" which go far beyond what copyright is supposed to protect. (Bought a new MP3 player? Buy all your music again! Bought a PSP? Buy your movies again on UMD!) Clearly these aren't just random side-effects - DRM was created to make this happen.
2. OK sorry, I must have been wrong about the licensing fee.
1. It is "forcing" in the same way that we are all "forced" to use Windows by their monopoly. (I use Linux but I can't get rid of Windows because software, notably games, keeps getting written for Windows!) The thing is, this scheme obviously does have advantages for consumers, which is why developers are sure to jump on the bandwagon. But once all the developers are ON the bandwagon, as usual, it'll be very difficult to get off again. At that point, MS will have all the control, as usual.
Once again, there is no immediate "bad side" here (if there was, nobody would use MS products). MS just get their way by providing short term coolness, with a long term lock-in or other negative consequence for the community as a whole. You have seen this in action too many times to deny it.
Of course it's an extortion scheme! It's Microsoft!
There is a difference between boxes saying that the game requires MS Windows (that's actually what the game requires), and MS forcing developers to pay a license fee and conform to their box designs and console-like software rules.
I just found it sad to see an article which uses the term "cross-platform" to refer to things that run on BOTH Windows and Xbox. What a sad world we live in where the term means things can run on more than one Microsoft platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we stop being childish and calling it "Treacherous Computing".
I much prefer the name "Trusted Computing" - it's got that chilling doublespeak, and obvious twist that it doesn't trust YOU. "Treacherous Computing" is just meaningless, and lame too.
You make a persuasive argument. I guess there's nowhere to turn to! (Not in the hardware stakes anyway... there's plenty of free software). Can I ask why you're not worried about DRM?
Yes I know about Nintento's history. I know that even the Wii has region coding and other DRM but from everything I've heard/read, the Wii is pretty tame compared to Nintendo in the 80s, and also pretty tame compared to PS3, Xbox, and Windows.
Also, even if consoles are full to the brim with DRM, they won't threaten our liberties with all of our documents, movies, music and software, as DRM on the PC does. So I regard Windows DRM to be far more virulent.
Well, StarCraft 2 probably won't run on a Wii :(, but otherwise, yeah, a Wii is probably a good non-evil games machine. Dunno about PS3 though... it's all about Blu-ray. :x
Yes, developers need to switch to OGL immediately. I was using DirectX until recently, when I realised that DX10 was simply a part of their master Vista plan. Every piece of technology going into Vista is in some way part of this insidious plot and should be avoided by developers and content producers.
Having said that, what is the consumer to do in the mean time? As a gamer, I am torn between my hatred of Microsoft, and my desire to play any commercial games at all. The way I see it is, the mass gaming market is going to adopt Vista, and that's the way MS are going to force it down our throats. And I can't see any way out of it, save all developers immediately abandoning use of all Vista-only technology (and of course, Games for Windows).
I'll say this though: In the past I may have given in, if the games were good enough. But seriously, I don't care if it's Starcraft 2, I will not be getting it if it requires Vista.
Aw, you have to prove monetary damages? What about just, I installed it on my machine, it fscked it up, and I spent seven hours reinstalling and reconfiguring everything?
And off-topic, once you know it's got badass DRM on there, and you actually want to listen to the music, what do you do? I mean... the first thing that comes to mind is disable autorun, rip the CD, throw it away. It seems to me that all DRM does is encourage people to circumvent it.
Exactly. I think copyright is OK when you have one man creating his work, he deserves to be able to profit from it - maybe for the rest of his life time, maybe for a limited time. I don't know.
What I hate is when you see the grandson's family complaining that "oh, those nasty pirates are stealing our deserved income." What the hell? Since when do you deserve to get rich off something your grandfather created decades (centuries?) ago?
Copyright aside, DRM is inherently evil because it quite obviously has "side-effects" which go far beyond what copyright is supposed to protect. (Bought a new MP3 player? Buy all your music again! Bought a PSP? Buy your movies again on UMD!) Clearly these aren't just random side-effects - DRM was created to make this happen.
2. OK sorry, I must have been wrong about the licensing fee. 1. It is "forcing" in the same way that we are all "forced" to use Windows by their monopoly. (I use Linux but I can't get rid of Windows because software, notably games, keeps getting written for Windows!) The thing is, this scheme obviously does have advantages for consumers, which is why developers are sure to jump on the bandwagon. But once all the developers are ON the bandwagon, as usual, it'll be very difficult to get off again. At that point, MS will have all the control, as usual. Once again, there is no immediate "bad side" here (if there was, nobody would use MS products). MS just get their way by providing short term coolness, with a long term lock-in or other negative consequence for the community as a whole. You have seen this in action too many times to deny it.
Of course it's an extortion scheme! It's Microsoft! There is a difference between boxes saying that the game requires MS Windows (that's actually what the game requires), and MS forcing developers to pay a license fee and conform to their box designs and console-like software rules. I just found it sad to see an article which uses the term "cross-platform" to refer to things that run on BOTH Windows and Xbox. What a sad world we live in where the term means things can run on more than one Microsoft platform.