Exactly. So what if the copy protection features
are optional? Like the parent post says, the MPAA (or whoever else) can simply release the next popular, ground-breaking
movie or media in a form that requires you to turn
on the copy-protect features.
Then since everyone (read, enough to make a difference) wants to see those movies or hear the
music, etc., eventually the opt-out feature will
fall out of use and vendors will just stop including it in newer HD's.
No, CPRM must be discarded entirely. No compromises will
suffice, because MPAA/RIAA has enough clueless
customer base to generate enough demand that any
compromising features such as opting-out will
fall out of common use, and vendors will stop
including them.
OTOH I don't see how this battle can be won, though. The MPAA/RIAA has clearly decided to fight
against copy-protection using this (flawed) way.
*Sigh* How greed can blind people. Even Micros~1
knows enough to leave places like Taiwan or China
alone when it comes to pirating Windows -- they
know very well that even a pirate installation of
Windows is more to their advantage than a non-pirate, non-Windows installation. Why can't
MPAA/RIAA get a clue and just leave things be?
It's not like they aren't already making a fortune
in spite of the current rampant music/movie piracy.
The only problem with this analogy is that there
is no viable alternative to MPAA/RIAA -- nothing
comparable to Linux vs. Windows, if you will.
Perhaps somebody should get the DoJ to go after
the MPAA/RIAA after they're done with MS:-)
---
In fact, they do. Just go to their webpage, fill
out your validation email, and a URL will be sent
to your email. Bookmark this URL -- you
can come back to it anytime in the future, and
it's
just one click away. The URL takes you directly to
the spamcop submission form that you can paste
fresh spam in. ---
If you watch TV or listen to the radio you are already dealing with ads. What makes the web different?
What makes the web different? Because I don't
watch TV, but I do surf the Net. That's the
difference. I don't watch TV mainly because (1)
ads that interrupt the programme, with no way of
fast-forwarding through, (2) most of the programmes on TV are mass-media recycled garbage
anyway. Takes way too long to find something
worthwhile to watch. On the Net, I can very quickly find the content I'm interested in (Google
is my good friend). And now they want to shove
ads down my throat? No way, Jose!
---
You say, 'sure, people can just turn off their audio', but finally audio feedback is important from a computer so you can't turn it off without missing something.
<sarcasm> Whoa?? You mean all this time I've
been missing content from ad-filled webpages?? No
wonder I find no interest in returning to those
sites! My/dev/audio is constantly playing Sibelius' symphonies -- you mean I might
actually have been missing some audio adverts? God forbid that I use my soundcard
for anything other than what the webmaster intended!!
</sarcasm>
---
Sure, you'll be without adds, but then half the websites out there won't work anymore because some people rely too much on Javascript.
Then I guess they've lost my business. I won't
even go to the site, period. What an innovative,
creative business strategy: alienate potential
customers by making it hard for them to see your
content unless they suck up to your
"requirements".
I've been ignoring sites that depend on Javascript. I hardly (if ever) turn on JavaScript:
I find that it adds no value whatsoever to the
content on the page I'm viewing, just useless
bells and whistles.
So far, I've yet to see a site that
absolutely cannot deliver their content
without JavaScript -- most of the time it's useless, annoying, resource-consuming bells and
whistles that I'm not interested in. Where's the
beef?? I don't care for these useless frills; I
want the real content. If you're so braindead as
to force your visitors to turn on Javascript when
you don't need to use it, then sorry, I
will never, ever return to your site again. Your
competitors will get my business.
---
Sorrry, CmdrTaco, but saying that using a sponsored browser is equal to giving up privacy is simply incorrect.
Exactly what I thought when I saw that sentence.
What is it with so-called free-as-in-speech advocates these days??
I mean, I don't like ads either, but calling ads
an invasion of privacy is totally nonsensical and
sounds like the kind of low FUD that MS spews.
Are we dropping to their level now?? Unless, of
course, Opera actually tracks whether
you click on the ads -- then the statement would be valid. But if that's the case
then, CmdrTaco, you should say so explicitly,
since the current wording seems to imply that
ads are, of themselves, an invasion of privacy.
Sorry, I don't mean to flame... but I think
Slashdot editors really should be careful about
what they say -- this site is no longer just a
fringe hobbyist site where you can afford to
screw up like that and people will understand.
Slashdot has grown into a significant voice in
the computing world, and as such, it'd do us a lot
more good if the editors exercise a bit of caution
about things like this.
---
Just curious... what are the other third
parties offering DSL besides Bell Sympatico? So
far, I've only found Magma, which is based in
Ottawa. Are there any others? ---
Re:Can you say easy to install boys and girls . .
on
Netscape 6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
*Ahem*
apt-get install mozilla
/usr/bin/mozilla &
Works for me. I know I shouldn't be feeding this troll, but the neatness of apt-get is too tempting to boast about. Debian rockz.:-)
---
I find it ironic that today's supposedly "modern"
and "scientific" age, which supposedly dispels
all those old, unfounded superstitions, still
go for this kinda nonsense. I mean, gimme a break,
this thing only looks like a skull because of the
angle we're seeing it from Earth! I betcha it will
look nothing like a skull were we to
travel closer to it and photograph it. And
somebody has already pointed out that even the
scientists who saw it thought nothing of it until
they looked at it from a particular angle.
Reminds me of those oh-so-profound calculations
that Bill Gates = 666. Yeah right. I fancy just
about anyone's name can be made into 666,
you just hafta find a suitable contortion and
strange way of calculation.
Isn't it odd that modern, so-called scientific,
man still finds fascination in such things?
---
True, true. It's just way too temptingly simple to actually think of MS as a single personality, and consider everyone involved with MS as "the dark side" or whatever you want to call it. Stereotyping is too easy. MS isn't just composed of identical drone employees that share the exact same mindset. Like the parent post says, in any large corporation, the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing. And usually dumb decisions result from this.
On another note, don't you find it... um... fascinating that MS seems to be responding to Slashdot a lot recently? IIRC this must be the 2nd story within the last 7 days that MS responded to Slashdot. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?:-P (OK, this one isn't to slashdot directly, but still, MS seems to be uncharacteristically responsive these days. Effect of being under scrutiny, perhaps?)
---
But man, if even MS is taking notice of slashdot, then... WoW!
Well, whatever you might think of MS, at least they notice complaints. And I think it's an awesomely good thing that Slashdot is beginning to be noticed by them (or noticed enough that they'd react).
---
*sigh* I can understand why the NSA wants to be able to monitor Internet traffic. National security and all that.
BUT.
There is wayyy too much room for abuse.
You have the problem of who guards the guardians. The backdoors are OK as long as the NSA can be trusted not to abuse them by exploiting them when not appropriate. But can you trust the guardians? Who guards the guardians?
You have the problem of leaked information -- how do you know whether some terrorist group or something like that has obtained leaked information about these backdoors? They could be abusing these backdoors to their own ends.
OK, the terrorist part may be overly paranoid. But what stops people from exploiting these backdoors to, say, violate your privacy by keeping logs of what websites you visit?
If things like this become too popular, we might see the day when we're required to only use software that has these backdoors...
I, for one, wouldn't want my software to be sending data to NSA or any other place without my knowing.
I'm glad that Open Source is where it's at today. It would be our worst nightmares if Open Source hadn't gained enough widespread acceptance and entities like the NSA lobby for outlawing Open Source software for "security reasons".
I mean, it's very conceivable that your local ISP will only grant you access if you install their proprietary software which contains who knows what kinds of backdoors. Good thing open source systems like Linux is so widely available, and not locked into any proprietary vendor, so that ISPs *have* to allow for users to not use their software.
Thank God for open source software...
OTOH, I think NSA is shooting themselves in the foot. Foreign goverments aren't gonna put up with this backdoor nonsense in *their* software. So open source is going to become even more attractive, which will be good for all of us.
---
Here's an idea: implement a gateway server between the "old EFnet" which uses the old, single-route protocol, and the "new EFnet" which uses a multi-route protocol. This will at least maintain some semblance of functionality as servers upgrade to the new protocol.
I think this will work because there will be a single route for communication between the "old" and the "new" sides; so at first, this will look like an addendum to the current tree-structured EFnet. Then as more and more of the servers upgrade, this "addendum" will grow and eventually the "old" side will shrink to zero, then we can remove the gateway server.
IMHO I think that the IRC protocol needs to be revised so that it allows for arbitrary network topology. The problem with the current setup is that one server dying often means the splitting off of a large branch of the network. The Internet itself won't exist if it had this kind of topology.
There must be some way of revising the IRC protocol so that there's at least two distinct paths from A to B in most cases. When one of the servers in a path goes down, the servers will just resync themselves to find an alternative connection path. This will greatly reduce the painfulness of netsplits, as netsplits won't happen very often with this strategy.
But of course, all this does it to provide more buffer in case of DoS problems. It doesn't really address the source of the problem... but IMHO trying to prevent/solve DoS problems on IRC is like trying to cure cancer that has spread to every other organ in your body...
---
Apparently some people here are confusing this system as a similar one to PGP/GPG, so here goes...
With PGP/GPG, you publish your public key and others use your public key to encrypt messages to you. The same key is used over and over again.
With this scheme, apparently they are using a one-time encryption method: I would presume a random key is created during message sending time, and after the timeout, the message and the key is destroyed. Now suppose a 3DES key is produced for *each* message. That's going to be *very* hard for people to listen in, 'cos after cracking the key for the first message, they've gotten nowhere with the other messages.
Of course, it's debatable whether this will actually increase the strength of the encryption in practice.
And, as somebody else has said, there's nothing to stop the recipient from making copies of the decoding key and the message indefinitely. I presume the timeout is implemented in whatever client program they're selling -- but as we all know, any rules enforced by software (including timeout rules) are easily bypassed.
So I'd say, the timeout factor isn't going to make too much of a difference, though the idea of using a different key for every message *might* make the encryption system stronger.
---
The problem with this is that today's philosophy
is the Feed-Me-I-Want-Instant-Gratification philosophy. The so-called "user-friendliness" of GUIs like Windows just reinforce this. (Sorry, I know this sounds like rabid anti-M$ zealot rant, but this applies to today's GUI design in general.)
I'm not saying we should go back to the "good ole days" with only a bare command-line prompt, but IMNSHO software should not be designed to try to be everything. (Wizards, anyone?) Software should be designed to provide the necessary tools to get things done, but it should never attempt to be smarter than the user. The user needs to learn how to use the tools.
Why are script kiddies so abundant these days?
'cos they're so used to the click-on-button-and-it-does-everything way that computers work these days. A friend once joked with me that World War III might be started by a kid pressing a single wrong button on the nuclear launch controls...
What we need IMNSHO is a change in philosophy. Yes I know easy GUI's are good and perhaps even necessary for people who want to get things done without worrying about manpages and editing conf files. But for teenagers? Give 'em a bare command prompt and let them figure out how to configure X manually. Kids these days need to learn that the world isn't an instant gratification vending machine. You need effort if you want value. ---
A word of warning, unless you're running NFS stuff, and you use Debian, just remove the nfs-common package from your system...I've simply
been turning portmap off (the service that's attacked), but running an update of the system always seems to get it turned back on.
I don't trust apt-get upgrade at all: sometimes it installs unneeded packages or stuff that you need to baby-sit (like a libc or Perl upgrade) to make sure everything goes OK. What I do is to run it in debug (no action) mode to find out what packages would be upgraded, and then manually select what I need or know is safe:
Spoof the source address of an outgoing ICMP packet, so that the firewall sends the reply to an external host, which then interprets the ICMP packet, and sends the reply in the same way. I know this wouldn't quite work as is, but with some effort, I'm sure somebody can find a feasible way to do it....
Just imagine... a sequence of ACK and NAK packets representing the bitstream of an incoming file from a blocked external host... Mmmmmm:-)
---
My experience at work also shows that tight schedules also cause problems. We all have access to the code of our peers but when we are
forced to ship the product quicker than as-soon-as-possible we don't take into account what the other programmer is doing. There are those
that design the tool that are supposed to prevent this, but if the requirements are lacking, then programmers will do things one way that will
cause problems when integrating it to a tool another way.
Yep, the IDY syndrome. (IDY = It's Due Yesterday!)
Another problem comes when requirements change. Just recently I was on a program that changed a few requirements near the end, and this
caused a major design change. With the tight schedule it was impossible to completely test the change to what it should be done. But
management seems to think things are some when you change a "simple" requirement and doesn't give a proper budget.
"Oh, surely adding this neato little pop-up talking paperclip won't take that much! The fundamental idea of a word processor is still the same! This feature won't cause any fundamental problems!"
The open source world doesn't worry too much about schedule. It is willing to produce something better than get the PR of a quick product. I
believe open source produces code quicker, but for the quality it seems slow, where closed source can produce quicker than the open source
because it hides the things that should have been fixed before the shipment. So this is only a perception that the closed source version was
produced quicker.
Well, this depends on which open source project you're talking about. Remember, a lot of the advantages of open source hinges on the large numbers of users/developers who will (not just can) look at the code. While large open source projects have this benefit, smaller projects often don't get enough attention. I mean, a project that only 4-5 people use won't get bugs fixed very quickly, 'cos bugs won't be found that fast. Of course, we all hope these little projects grow, but that doesn't always happen.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not trying to put down open source, I'm all for it. Just want to point out some things to we take for granted a little too often.)
---
I'd say, don't blame the language for it. If the script you wrote 3 weeks ago is unreadable, it probably means that when you wrote it, you didn't intend for it to be read 3 weeks later:-)
I like Perl that way, because the programmer gets to choose what style he/she wants to program in, and which corners he/she wants to cut. So, if I'm writing this on-the-spot data extraction script to be used on a couple 'o old personal data files, I'd probably cut a lot of corners. OTOH, if I'm writing a script for processing data entry for my boss, I'd make sure my coding style shapes up so that the resulting script is maintainable, in case something goes wrong and I get fired.:-)
Perl is the only language that allows you this kind of freedom without requiring obscene amounts of arcane workarounds. Most other languages, in their efforts to be "more maintainable", basically shoves a particular programming model down your throat. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I prefer the freedom Perl offers.
Of course, on another note, if you're working in a large 100-person software project, each with his/her own programming habits (good and bad), then you don't want Perl unless you have a strict, enforced coding convention. Otherwise you'll end up with 100 different coding styles that don't quite integrate with each other...
My point tho, is that this is a result of the individual programmers' decisions. Perl lets the programmer choose. If this is not a good thing for the problem at hand, look for another language. For personal programming, tho, I like this freedom.
---
Re:It will be interesting to look back in ten year
on
Qt Going GPL
·
· Score: 1
If this had happened two years ago, we'd probably be looking at one major desktop environment desk. Now we have two of roughly equal
popularity and quality... I can't say if that's a good thing or a bad thing, though.
I say this is a good thing. Competition prevents stagnation. 'Nuff said. Especially in the free software world, where profit is usually not a motivating factor.
I agree. Reminds me of the blatant ripoff of
Debian's homepage... sorry, I forgot the link and www.debian.org seems to be down at the moment so I can't search the list archives...:-(
I don't have a problem with people copying a design, as long as they give due credit, and state it up-front. Personally, though, I tend to lose respect for sites that are obvious imitations of other sites (in terms of appearance, that is). ---
Interesting point about the migration from
passive (push) media to more selective (pull)
media. I've always had a disdain for push media,
feeling that I'm being spoonfed with what somebody
else thinks is "good". I prefer pull media like
most of the Net[1] because if it's no good, you
can choose to go elsewhere. This means if a media
company wants to succeed, they'll have to compete
based on their merit than on what is basically a
captive audience.
[1] I say "almost" because there are some
pretty sad efforts on the Net (Web, in particular)
that are blatant attempts to make it into a push
media.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. So what if the copy protection features are optional? Like the parent post says, the MPAA (or whoever else) can simply release the next popular, ground-breaking movie or media in a form that requires you to turn on the copy-protect features. Then since everyone (read, enough to make a difference) wants to see those movies or hear the music, etc., eventually the opt-out feature will fall out of use and vendors will just stop including it in newer HD's.
No, CPRM must be discarded entirely. No compromises will suffice, because MPAA/RIAA has enough clueless customer base to generate enough demand that any compromising features such as opting-out will fall out of common use, and vendors will stop including them.
OTOH I don't see how this battle can be won, though. The MPAA/RIAA has clearly decided to fight against copy-protection using this (flawed) way. *Sigh* How greed can blind people. Even Micros~1 knows enough to leave places like Taiwan or China alone when it comes to pirating Windows -- they know very well that even a pirate installation of Windows is more to their advantage than a non-pirate, non-Windows installation. Why can't MPAA/RIAA get a clue and just leave things be? It's not like they aren't already making a fortune in spite of the current rampant music/movie piracy.
The only problem with this analogy is that there is no viable alternative to MPAA/RIAA -- nothing comparable to Linux vs. Windows, if you will. Perhaps somebody should get the DoJ to go after the MPAA/RIAA after they're done with MS :-)
---
In fact, they do. Just go to their webpage, fill out your validation email, and a URL will be sent to your email. Bookmark this URL -- you can come back to it anytime in the future, and it's just one click away. The URL takes you directly to the spamcop submission form that you can paste fresh spam in.
---
What makes the web different? Because I don't watch TV, but I do surf the Net. That's the difference. I don't watch TV mainly because (1) ads that interrupt the programme, with no way of fast-forwarding through, (2) most of the programmes on TV are mass-media recycled garbage anyway. Takes way too long to find something worthwhile to watch. On the Net, I can very quickly find the content I'm interested in (Google is my good friend). And now they want to shove ads down my throat? No way, Jose!
---
<sarcasm> /dev/audio is constantly playing Sibelius' symphonies -- you mean I might
actually have been missing some audio adverts? God forbid that I use my soundcard
for anything other than what the webmaster intended!!
Whoa?? You mean all this time I've been missing content from ad-filled webpages?? No wonder I find no interest in returning to those sites! My
</sarcasm>
---
Then I guess they've lost my business. I won't even go to the site, period. What an innovative, creative business strategy: alienate potential customers by making it hard for them to see your content unless they suck up to your "requirements".
I've been ignoring sites that depend on Javascript. I hardly (if ever) turn on JavaScript: I find that it adds no value whatsoever to the content on the page I'm viewing, just useless bells and whistles. So far, I've yet to see a site that absolutely cannot deliver their content without JavaScript -- most of the time it's useless, annoying, resource-consuming bells and whistles that I'm not interested in. Where's the beef?? I don't care for these useless frills; I want the real content. If you're so braindead as to force your visitors to turn on Javascript when you don't need to use it, then sorry, I will never, ever return to your site again. Your competitors will get my business.
---
Exactly what I thought when I saw that sentence. What is it with so-called free-as-in-speech advocates these days?? I mean, I don't like ads either, but calling ads an invasion of privacy is totally nonsensical and sounds like the kind of low FUD that MS spews. Are we dropping to their level now?? Unless, of course, Opera actually tracks whether you click on the ads -- then the statement would be valid. But if that's the case then, CmdrTaco, you should say so explicitly, since the current wording seems to imply that ads are, of themselves, an invasion of privacy.
Sorry, I don't mean to flame... but I think Slashdot editors really should be careful about what they say -- this site is no longer just a fringe hobbyist site where you can afford to screw up like that and people will understand. Slashdot has grown into a significant voice in the computing world, and as such, it'd do us a lot more good if the editors exercise a bit of caution about things like this.
---
Just curious... what are the other third parties offering DSL besides Bell Sympatico? So far, I've only found Magma, which is based in Ottawa. Are there any others?
---
*Ahem*
apt-get install mozilla
Works for me. I know I shouldn't be feeding this troll, but the neatness of apt-get is too tempting to boast about. Debian rockz. :-)
---
Reminds me of those oh-so-profound calculations that Bill Gates = 666. Yeah right. I fancy just about anyone's name can be made into 666, you just hafta find a suitable contortion and strange way of calculation.
Isn't it odd that modern, so-called scientific, man still finds fascination in such things?
---
On another note, don't you find it ... um... fascinating that MS seems to be responding to Slashdot a lot recently? IIRC this must be the 2nd story within the last 7 days that MS responded to Slashdot. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? :-P (OK, this one isn't to slashdot directly, but still, MS seems to be uncharacteristically responsive these days. Effect of being under scrutiny, perhaps?)
---
But man, if even MS is taking notice of slashdot, then ... WoW!
Well, whatever you might think of MS, at least they notice complaints. And I think it's an awesomely good thing that Slashdot is beginning to be noticed by them (or noticed enough that they'd react).
---
*sigh* I can understand why the NSA wants to be able to monitor Internet traffic. National security and all that.
BUT.
There is wayyy too much room for abuse.
I, for one, wouldn't want my software to be sending data to NSA or any other place without my knowing.
I'm glad that Open Source is where it's at today. It would be our worst nightmares if Open Source hadn't gained enough widespread acceptance and entities like the NSA lobby for outlawing Open Source software for "security reasons". I mean, it's very conceivable that your local ISP will only grant you access if you install their proprietary software which contains who knows what kinds of backdoors. Good thing open source systems like Linux is so widely available, and not locked into any proprietary vendor, so that ISPs *have* to allow for users to not use their software.
Thank God for open source software...
OTOH, I think NSA is shooting themselves in the foot. Foreign goverments aren't gonna put up with this backdoor nonsense in *their* software. So open source is going to become even more attractive, which will be good for all of us.
---
I think this will work because there will be a single route for communication between the "old" and the "new" sides; so at first, this will look like an addendum to the current tree-structured EFnet. Then as more and more of the servers upgrade, this "addendum" will grow and eventually the "old" side will shrink to zero, then we can remove the gateway server.
Think this is workable?
---
There must be some way of revising the IRC protocol so that there's at least two distinct paths from A to B in most cases. When one of the servers in a path goes down, the servers will just resync themselves to find an alternative connection path. This will greatly reduce the painfulness of netsplits, as netsplits won't happen very often with this strategy.
But of course, all this does it to provide more buffer in case of DoS problems. It doesn't really address the source of the problem... but IMHO trying to prevent/solve DoS problems on IRC is like trying to cure cancer that has spread to every other organ in your body...
---
With PGP/GPG, you publish your public key and others use your public key to encrypt messages to you. The same key is used over and over again.
With this scheme, apparently they are using a one-time encryption method: I would presume a random key is created during message sending time, and after the timeout, the message and the key is destroyed. Now suppose a 3DES key is produced for *each* message. That's going to be *very* hard for people to listen in, 'cos after cracking the key for the first message, they've gotten nowhere with the other messages.
Of course, it's debatable whether this will actually increase the strength of the encryption in practice.
And, as somebody else has said, there's nothing to stop the recipient from making copies of the decoding key and the message indefinitely. I presume the timeout is implemented in whatever client program they're selling -- but as we all know, any rules enforced by software (including timeout rules) are easily bypassed.
So I'd say, the timeout factor isn't going to make too much of a difference, though the idea of using a different key for every message *might* make the encryption system stronger.
---
I'm not saying we should go back to the "good ole days" with only a bare command-line prompt, but IMNSHO software should not be designed to try to be everything. (Wizards, anyone?) Software should be designed to provide the necessary tools to get things done, but it should never attempt to be smarter than the user. The user needs to learn how to use the tools.
Why are script kiddies so abundant these days? 'cos they're so used to the click-on-button-and-it-does-everything way that computers work these days. A friend once joked with me that World War III might be started by a kid pressing a single wrong button on the nuclear launch controls...
What we need IMNSHO is a change in philosophy. Yes I know easy GUI's are good and perhaps even necessary for people who want to get things done without worrying about manpages and editing conf files. But for teenagers? Give 'em a bare command prompt and let them figure out how to configure X manually. Kids these days need to learn that the world isn't an instant gratification vending machine. You need effort if you want value.
---
I don't trust apt-get upgrade at all: sometimes it installs unneeded packages or stuff that you need to baby-sit (like a libc or Perl upgrade) to make sure everything goes OK. What I do is to run it in debug (no action) mode to find out what packages would be upgraded, and then manually select what I need or know is safe:
---
Did you find the Crud Puppy in there?
:-P
With all due credit to UF.
---
Don't forget to renice it to a lower priority if you want your net connection to still be able to handle Quake :-)
---
Spoof the source address of an outgoing ICMP packet, so that the firewall sends the reply to an external host, which then interprets the ICMP packet, and sends the reply in the same way. I know this wouldn't quite work as is, but with some effort, I'm sure somebody can find a feasible way to do it....
Just imagine... a sequence of ACK and NAK packets representing the bitstream of an incoming file from a blocked external host... Mmmmmm :-)
---
Yep, the IDY syndrome. (IDY = It's Due Yesterday!)
"Oh, surely adding this neato little pop-up talking paperclip won't take that much! The fundamental idea of a word processor is still the same! This feature won't cause any fundamental problems!"
Well, this depends on which open source project you're talking about. Remember, a lot of the advantages of open source hinges on the large numbers of users/developers who will (not just can) look at the code. While large open source projects have this benefit, smaller projects often don't get enough attention. I mean, a project that only 4-5 people use won't get bugs fixed very quickly, 'cos bugs won't be found that fast. Of course, we all hope these little projects grow, but that doesn't always happen.
(Obligatory disclaimer: I am not trying to put down open source, I'm all for it. Just want to point out some things to we take for granted a little too often.)
---
I like Perl that way, because the programmer gets to choose what style he/she wants to program in, and which corners he/she wants to cut. So, if I'm writing this on-the-spot data extraction script to be used on a couple 'o old personal data files, I'd probably cut a lot of corners. OTOH, if I'm writing a script for processing data entry for my boss, I'd make sure my coding style shapes up so that the resulting script is maintainable, in case something goes wrong and I get fired. :-)
Perl is the only language that allows you this kind of freedom without requiring obscene amounts of arcane workarounds. Most other languages, in their efforts to be "more maintainable", basically shoves a particular programming model down your throat. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I prefer the freedom Perl offers.
Of course, on another note, if you're working in a large 100-person software project, each with his/her own programming habits (good and bad), then you don't want Perl unless you have a strict, enforced coding convention. Otherwise you'll end up with 100 different coding styles that don't quite integrate with each other...
My point tho, is that this is a result of the individual programmers' decisions. Perl lets the programmer choose. If this is not a good thing for the problem at hand, look for another language. For personal programming, tho, I like this freedom.
---
I say this is a good thing. Competition prevents stagnation. 'Nuff said. Especially in the free software world, where profit is usually not a motivating factor.
---
I don't have a problem with people copying a design, as long as they give due credit, and state it up-front. Personally, though, I tend to lose respect for sites that are obvious imitations of other sites (in terms of appearance, that is).
---
Interesting point about the migration from passive (push) media to more selective (pull) media. I've always had a disdain for push media, feeling that I'm being spoonfed with what somebody else thinks is "good". I prefer pull media like most of the Net[1] because if it's no good, you can choose to go elsewhere. This means if a media company wants to succeed, they'll have to compete based on their merit than on what is basically a captive audience.
[1] I say "almost" because there are some pretty sad efforts on the Net (Web, in particular) that are blatant attempts to make it into a push media.
---