Nothing stops him from building in back doors that give him access to everything
Wrong. What stops him is the risk of getting caught. We're talking about Open Source code here.
It's comparable to submitting an essay for marking having written "Screw you" across it. The difference is that the customer might not review the code right away, but there's a real risk that someone will at some point. Most programmers wouldn't want to put their reputation on the line like that.
It's true that a skilled malicious programmer might be able to conceal what she/he's doing, but even with this possibility I don't think it happens much in practice, outside programming competitions.
This doesn't address the issues of Flash/Silverlight being awful, though, it just provides a standard way to tie plugins into the browser.
Plugins will still be platform-dependent native-code, at the end of the day.
If Netflix had wanted to write their own plugin, they could/would have already done so.
I believe the reason Silverlight is used everywhere (NetFlix, LoveFilm, Film4oD, BlinkBox....) is that the dinosaurs who own the actual shows think that Silverlight DRM will save them from the evil pirates, so they insist on it being used, even if it does overhead Mac computers and not run on Linux (Wine doesn't count, nor does it perform even passably on older hardware).
I think jedidiah meant Flash is an instance of an undesirable plugin. In-browser media-playing is the way forward, and all this addition does is perhaps effect a shift away from Flash toward one or more other undesirable proprietary plugins.
Absolutely, but the job of the W3C is to resist this bullshit.
I can understand Netflix advocating it, given the pro-DRM tendencies of their puppet-masters, the content-owners. I also think they're wrong, and that all this obsession with DRM is just bullshit, but no matter.
No, the shameful part is the W3C approving it. It's their job to advance the open web. That's their whole reason for existing. Part of that duty is resisting pressure from corporations to subvert the open web. Endorsing DRM is most certainly a failure.
How does this affect open source browsers like Firefox? If something is open source you surely can't enforce any sort of DRM restrictions; someone can just build a hacked version of the browser.
As I understand it the thing they've just approved is some sort of 'standard' API with which Netflix etc. can tie their necessarily-proprietary, platform-specific, native-code, obfuscated-media-player plugin (DRM), into the browser (which may or may not itself be Open Source).
How this thing works technically, I don't know. I don't think it's just a C API.
Is this possibly the beginning of the end for open source browsers?
Why in the hell are they even THINKING of approving this bullshit?
Amen. 'They' (Netflix and co) need the web, not the other way round.
Please clarify 'premium'. Marketing bullshitters have made it totally meaningless.
I know little of the Neo Geo, but I vaguely recall it was expensive.
Agree that they'll probably last a while. Valve's been going strong for a while now, and if anyone can leverage the existing world of PC gaming to make a 'console', it's them. I wonder what the uptake rate will be like.
Nonsense. Ever tried to get a decent job as a programmer/software engineer? Without a respectable, relevant degree, you'll have your work cut out proving yourself, especially if you're young (and therefore presumably don't have a huge list of relevant achievements under your belt).
The company most well-known for its challenging recruitment process? Google. Go figure.
End-to-end cryptography won't stop "them" from seeing with whom you communicate, how often, where, and when.
You're right that this isn't addressed by crypto itself, but there are ways and means. Send random-sized empty (but then encrypted) messages to randomly-selected contacts, at random intervals. On receiving an empty message, discard it.
(I suspect this solution doesn't actually work, as the random messaging would produce a rectangular distribution, and my actual messages would be 'on top of that', and so might still be 'detectable', but I'm confident a slightly cleverer scheme could overcome this.)
I'm sure these issues have already been addressed in some sense. I don't know what this problem is called, but steganography comes to mind.
The way tepples explained it gives the impression that it depends on compilers having identical output, but this isn't the case; the test can be done with real-world compilers, if you use another layer of bootstrapping, so to speak, as Sneftel explained.
In practice, free software is controlled by a technocratic elite.
Sure, if you don't have any programming skill then you can't hack on Free code, but you can still pay someone else to add features/fix bugs/remove Bad Things. Generally not so with non-Free software, and even where it is possible, they always have the power to just say no.
Sure, you CAN control it, but the vast majority of the users do not care and will simply accept whats handed to them.
Competition between FOSS projects can alleviate this. If/when Gnome make a bunch of unpopular user-interface decisions, its users generally have the option to move to KDE or one of its other rivals.
It's not enough for software to be free - it has to be good for the masses. You have to think of and for the poor sods, or they will microwave the cat, so to speak.
Sure, I think you have a point when it comes to, say, user-interface decisions, but FOSS has proven pretty effective at keeping out code which is genuinely malicious/deliberately anti-user. DRM/inescapable advertising/etc don't survive in FOSS.
You've made no mention of crypto. Crypto is what stops 'them' getting to see your data, not software freedom. Non-Free/closed-source crypto can never be trusted, though.
It could all be free software and they could still spy on you.
Not if this Free software was implementing proper end-to-end crypto.
Of course, in practice there might be issues with trusting them to be running the code they say they're running.
Looks like you're right. I didn't realise AMD's Open Source driver was so good (or their proprietary driver so bad? I don't know how it compares to Windows).
Meanwhile, Intel have only an Open Source driver. Good for them. (I don't know that it's documented (I'm thinking BSD), but it's a good start.)
If I understand correctly, nouveau beats the equivalent Open Source driver for AMD's chips - nVidia might be thinking of this is as a way to stay well ahead of AMD when it comes to Open Source Linux drivers.
Let's not be short-sighted here: assuming SteamOS drives at least some notable level of adoption of Linux for gaming, nVidia will have an increased interest in being known as a good graphics-card choice on Linux.
They will stand to benefit by just looking serious about Linux, but more specifically: having good Open Source graphics drivers can only help, even if their proprietary drivers are good to begin with. It will be more readily bundled by distros, will be easier to install, will have reduced kernel compatibility trouble, will keep FOSS purists happy, and might be able to run on a broader range of platforms.
None of those are specific to SteamOS, but increased adoption makes them more relevant to nVidia's bottom-line
I don't mean democracy in terms of the way American government is organized and operates because as democracies go, it's not very democratic. Democracies necessarily require that the citizens are guaranteed a full set of civil rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, expression, and association
Nonsense. This is neither what the word democracy means, nor the source of its strength. What you're describing sounds like a constitutional republic. There's no constitution to restrict the powers of the government of the UK, for instance, but it seems to be a pretty well functioning democracy.
Democracy's strengths are that it generally does a good job of keeping out of power those who would slaughter their own people, and that it gives the people some sense of empowerment and sense of having a government that holds power legitimately.
A constitution on top changes things a little, but not vastly.
Is that not what I said? Yes, the telco gets the money.
I wasn't clear: in this specific case, I don't think the dial-up Internet provider is really a telco; it's just a small-time dial-up service run out of some company's basement. I don't imagine the company running 0845 123 2000 makes any more money on it than, say, a bank that uses an 0845 number for telephone banking.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing stops him from building in back doors that give him access to everything
Wrong. What stops him is the risk of getting caught. We're talking about Open Source code here.
It's comparable to submitting an essay for marking having written "Screw you" across it. The difference is that the customer might not review the code right away, but there's a real risk that someone will at some point. Most programmers wouldn't want to put their reputation on the line like that.
It's true that a skilled malicious programmer might be able to conceal what she/he's doing, but even with this possibility I don't think it happens much in practice, outside programming competitions.
This doesn't address the issues of Flash/Silverlight being awful, though, it just provides a standard way to tie plugins into the browser.
Plugins will still be platform-dependent native-code, at the end of the day.
If Netflix had wanted to write their own plugin, they could/would have already done so.
I believe the reason Silverlight is used everywhere (NetFlix, LoveFilm, Film4oD, BlinkBox....) is that the dinosaurs who own the actual shows think that Silverlight DRM will save them from the evil pirates, so they insist on it being used, even if it does overhead Mac computers and not run on Linux (Wine doesn't count, nor does it perform even passably on older hardware).
I think jedidiah meant Flash is an instance of an undesirable plugin. In-browser media-playing is the way forward, and all this addition does is perhaps effect a shift away from Flash toward one or more other undesirable proprietary plugins.
Absolutely, but the job of the W3C is to resist this bullshit.
I can understand Netflix advocating it, given the pro-DRM tendencies of their puppet-masters, the content-owners. I also think they're wrong, and that all this obsession with DRM is just bullshit, but no matter.
No, the shameful part is the W3C approving it. It's their job to advance the open web. That's their whole reason for existing. Part of that duty is resisting pressure from corporations to subvert the open web. Endorsing DRM is most certainly a failure.
I'm disappointed that TBL fails to see this.
How does this affect open source browsers like Firefox? If something is open source you surely can't enforce any sort of DRM restrictions; someone can just build a hacked version of the browser.
As I understand it the thing they've just approved is some sort of 'standard' API with which Netflix etc. can tie their necessarily-proprietary, platform-specific, native-code, obfuscated-media-player plugin (DRM), into the browser (which may or may not itself be Open Source).
How this thing works technically, I don't know. I don't think it's just a C API.
Is this possibly the beginning of the end for open source browsers?
Why in the hell are they even THINKING of approving this bullshit?
Amen. 'They' (Netflix and co) need the web, not the other way round.
Arguments on web sites don't make them swing. They are thinkers.
{{Citation needed}}
Also, you are implying that 'thinkers' are somehow above being swayed by argument.
Please clarify 'premium'. Marketing bullshitters have made it totally meaningless.
I know little of the Neo Geo, but I vaguely recall it was expensive.
Agree that they'll probably last a while. Valve's been going strong for a while now, and if anyone can leverage the existing world of PC gaming to make a 'console', it's them. I wonder what the uptake rate will be like.
Nonsense. Ever tried to get a decent job as a programmer/software engineer? Without a respectable, relevant degree, you'll have your work cut out proving yourself, especially if you're young (and therefore presumably don't have a huge list of relevant achievements under your belt).
The company most well-known for its challenging recruitment process? Google. Go figure.
End-to-end cryptography won't stop "them" from seeing with whom you communicate, how often, where, and when.
You're right that this isn't addressed by crypto itself, but there are ways and means. Send random-sized empty (but then encrypted) messages to randomly-selected contacts, at random intervals. On receiving an empty message, discard it.
(I suspect this solution doesn't actually work, as the random messaging would produce a rectangular distribution, and my actual messages would be 'on top of that', and so might still be 'detectable', but I'm confident a slightly cleverer scheme could overcome this.)
I'm sure these issues have already been addressed in some sense. I don't know what this problem is called, but steganography comes to mind.
The way tepples explained it gives the impression that it depends on compilers having identical output, but this isn't the case; the test can be done with real-world compilers, if you use another layer of bootstrapping, so to speak, as Sneftel explained.
Good point, I forgot about forks :-P
In practice, free software is controlled by a technocratic elite.
Sure, if you don't have any programming skill then you can't hack on Free code, but you can still pay someone else to add features/fix bugs/remove Bad Things. Generally not so with non-Free software, and even where it is possible, they always have the power to just say no.
Sure, you CAN control it, but the vast majority of the users do not care and will simply accept whats handed to them.
Competition between FOSS projects can alleviate this. If/when Gnome make a bunch of unpopular user-interface decisions, its users generally have the option to move to KDE or one of its other rivals.
It's not enough for software to be free - it has to be good for the masses. You have to think of and for the poor sods, or they will microwave the cat, so to speak.
Sure, I think you have a point when it comes to, say, user-interface decisions, but FOSS has proven pretty effective at keeping out code which is genuinely malicious/deliberately anti-user. DRM/inescapable advertising/etc don't survive in FOSS.
Indeed. One cannot just take Stallman's views on software and apply them to the state, then call him an anarchist.
If I were going to use the same broken reasoning, personally I'd opt for calling him an anarcho-communist. It seems a better fit.
You've made no mention of crypto. Crypto is what stops 'them' getting to see your data, not software freedom. Non-Free/closed-source crypto can never be trusted, though.
It could all be free software and they could still spy on you.
Not if this Free software was implementing proper end-to-end crypto.
Of course, in practice there might be issues with trusting them to be running the code they say they're running.
I'm hopeful that this means Google search results will suck less (like pre-2009 when the results were awesome)
You've given me no reason not to assume rose-tinted glasses are at work here.
Looks like you're right. I didn't realise AMD's Open Source driver was so good (or their proprietary driver so bad? I don't know how it compares to Windows).
Meanwhile, Intel have only an Open Source driver. Good for them. (I don't know that it's documented (I'm thinking BSD), but it's a good start.)
You could be right - they've not cared before.
If I understand correctly, nouveau beats the equivalent Open Source driver for AMD's chips - nVidia might be thinking of this is as a way to stay well ahead of AMD when it comes to Open Source Linux drivers.
Let's not be short-sighted here: assuming SteamOS drives at least some notable level of adoption of Linux for gaming, nVidia will have an increased interest in being known as a good graphics-card choice on Linux.
They will stand to benefit by just looking serious about Linux, but more specifically: having good Open Source graphics drivers can only help, even if their proprietary drivers are good to begin with. It will be more readily bundled by distros, will be easier to install, will have reduced kernel compatibility trouble, will keep FOSS purists happy, and might be able to run on a broader range of platforms.
None of those are specific to SteamOS, but increased adoption makes them more relevant to nVidia's bottom-line
Tempting.... tempting...
I don't mean democracy in terms of the way American government is organized and operates because as democracies go, it's not very democratic. Democracies necessarily require that the citizens are guaranteed a full set of civil rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, expression, and association
Nonsense. This is neither what the word democracy means, nor the source of its strength. What you're describing sounds like a constitutional republic. There's no constitution to restrict the powers of the government of the UK, for instance, but it seems to be a pretty well functioning democracy.
Democracy's strengths are that it generally does a good job of keeping out of power those who would slaughter their own people, and that it gives the people some sense of empowerment and sense of having a government that holds power legitimately.
A constitution on top changes things a little, but not vastly.
0845 numbers are revenue sharing, the number owner gets a cut of the revenue.
Do you have a source for this? I went Googling, and wasn't able to find much to support it
Is that not what I said? Yes, the telco gets the money.
I wasn't clear: in this specific case, I don't think the dial-up Internet provider is really a telco; it's just a small-time dial-up service run out of some company's basement. I don't imagine the company running 0845 123 2000 makes any more money on it than, say, a bank that uses an 0845 number for telephone banking.
pro-citizen business laws and requirements of native-owned majority shares.
More precisely, it's called protectionism , not pro-citizen.
I'm surprised the Wikipedia article doesn't go into detail about China specifically.
Grammer
I like to think I'm not normally a Grammar Nazi, but that made me twitch.
I don't know that you're right. Having skimmed these three threads, I get the impression the telcos are the ones who profit here.