Exactly, the RIAA would be justified if someone decided to put songs onto a CD, embed viruses in them to attack OS-X, Linux and Windows while also messing up standard CD-Players, and sporting the Sony or other RIAA-partner's name on it. 100K would be justified because it has the potential to be devastating. For this, 1 mil is probably less then they would have to pay in damages if someone got killed or injured by one of these.
You know that there are other free alternatives with GPL'd code that if Adobe would try to sue would only get around $50, and if suing worked so well, why do we still have DeCSS and other "illegal" technologies.
This might not be good for campuses that may experience network outages. With servers on campus, at least messages could be sent via the network rather then the internet, but now, if the internet is down, Live or Google goes down (possible for Live far-fetched though for Google) or MS (or possibly Google) decides to charge for a "premium" account that takes away features from the "free" counterpart. And also, if MS's or Google's web-mail system gets exposed to security venerabilities, it could be just as insecure as Outlook or IE.
Yes but only 3 days? There are some times that I dont get on the computer for 3 days although it is rarely, and other days that I just quickly check the news,/. or my e-mail. It should be at least 2 weeks to allow for vacation and other time when people would be away from the computer.
And the fact it uses a BSD like kernel which is way more stable then any NT kernel, and it has true permissions that are horribly emulated in UAC of Vista, so misbehaving applications can't install tons of spyware and the like.
In Ubuntu, I can use sudo or similar to run any application as root, and then it keeps me without having to enter my password for about a minute or so (it can be user configured) I can also use sudo bash which keeps me in a root environment for compiling software and the like, I can also create a root account and log in with it, with Linux I can customize just about anything I don't want with MS all I can do is hope that it is fixed in the next patch, service pack or Windows 7.
Sure its not "bricking" but its a Mac equivalent to a Blue Screen of Death, which although Windows is re-installable because your BIOS isn't broken it sure is a pain to do so. Computers with working hardware and a BIOS can never be truly "bricked" but they can come very close to being as useful as one.
One of the reasons that has put me off getting a Mac (besides the high price, and the fact that Ubuntu can act like a Mac on a $25 used desktop) is the fact that Apple has control over the hardware and software. If you need *insert application that is a given on Linux and Windows* you have to pay $100 to get it, or if your hardware isn't supported anymore, your out of luck. It wouldn't be such a bad problem if the average Mac laptop costs $1000 and $500 PC laptops that can run Linux fine are common. If Apple would allow OS-X to be used on ordinary hardware or make it less proprietary by open-sourcing the components under a better license (why do I need to put my primary billing address to sign up for an account just to download source code???) or open sourcing all of OS-X. Another reason I don't go out and buy a Mac is Apple's lack of interest in supporting Linux despite it being an "alternative OS" like OS-X is and more then capable of doing the same things that OS-X and XP do, yet there is no iTunes or other key apps for it, nor are they open-source so porting would be easy. I doubt that I will be getting a Mac soon and this story only keeps me from buying one, if Apple would make their hardware and software less proprietary, OS-X would grow and topple Vista in a heartbeat.
The same way that Ubuntu configures sudo. You type in your password and then for around a minute anything that you access via "sudo" doesn't need a password. Should I need to go past a dialog to open up a file that was on a CD? Vista had to do that (not my computer by the way). By putting security in the hands of the users, you are opening up the way to malware, how? Because malware authors can easily claim that it was not a "drive-by-download" as users had to click OK to the box. Windows needs to look at Linux and OS-X to see how a secure operating system can be done without driving the users nuts.
Not really, with Vista you get a slowed down computer, no new features, the same insecurity you get with XP plus with Vista you don't know whether or not the next update you get is a rootkit or not because the source isn't open. Right now Vista could be running a rootkit.... we just can't tell. At least with the Sony CDs it is easy to boycott Sony, but with MS when just about every computer you buy at a major store (Yes I know I can get Linux installed with Dell or other vendors but that is usually online) you are stuck with Vista (XP if you are lucky) and that is a $50 tax (at least from Dell's website) not to mention your computer is bogged down with adware and trialware and sometimes you don't even get a restore disc! And when you figure you can run Linux on a $300 desktop ($199 for the gPC but that has Linux pre-installed) that $50 is one-sixth of your purchase price. So no, the rootkitted CDs only proved that DRM was evil, Vista lets Sony, or *insert other MS partner here* take control of your PC without authorization, at least if you "pirated" the rootkitted CDs you didn't get the DRM....
But its not really Windows when it is "embedded Windows" sure there is "embedded Linux" but most programs for Linux can easily be recompiled or at most a few lines of code changed to make them usable on an embedded system. As for Linux has more work to do, historically, in the OS market, it doesn't matter if your OS is fast with nice code on it, people will just take what you give them, how else did DOS and Windows get so popular when most everyone in the tech industry knew that Macs and UNIX were much better. When you can make a $199 desktop that runs Linux just fine and much faster then Vista, people will buy it not caring if it is Linux or Windows, it just is a cheap computer. Now, there are a few things you can do in Windows that you can't do in Linux but the number is very small and mostly has to do with either a free replacement for some Windows software or making WINE or similar work well with it.
More and more people though are switching or at least looking at Linux and Macs now as solutions. Even the non-technical people agree that Vista is slow and bloated, they hate UAC and don't like how they changed everything to make it "new". People are cutting through the GUI only to find that all Vista is, is just a skin change on XP that runs slowly and has half the components renamed. Office 2007 is the same, people want the look of 2003, 2000 or '97 and hate the new look of 2007, they are switching to Open Office. Free software has matured much more rapidly then the propriatary software that is in the world today, Vista was a huge step backwards from XP in the areas that people want, speed, ease of use, and good driver support. Just because MS's "futuristic" skin for Vista looks nice, once used, people see that it is nothing better then XP and in many ways worse, when I can get a used computer for $25 with XP pre loaded that runs decent (although I wiped it for Ubuntu as soon as I figured it was booting OK) or you can get a computer for $999 that runs Vista halfway decent, people will go for the $25 option when figuring all they need to do is surf the web. watch movies and e-mail. Microsoft is falling... fast, Linux is the only OS that is going to take over besides OS-X which Apple won't let you use on anything Non-Mac.
But commercial OSes generally are walled gardens because many parts of it are not well documented and you generally can't get the source code to look it over.
The problem with these "smartphones" is that even though they look like a computer, have the same software of a computer and act like a computer, they are nothing but walled gardens at most (those running Linux aside) then you take Apple who releases "updates" to stop people from freeing their iPhones. Take all these together, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Whenever you visit a site you "download" the information. So what about YouTube and Google Video where you are "downloading" music videos and can rip them via speaker output (at not that great of quality) so is that now going to be illegal?
Yet MS products which give you just about 0% of control are still dominant so It is not surprising that most are Ubuntu, Debian or SUSE based because those give you better hardware detection, plus, Gentoo, LFS, Source Mage, and Arch Linux despite being great distros, lack commercial support that you can get from Red Hat, SUSE and Ubuntu. Also, the fact that you have to rebuild every update from scratch is a real pain on Gentoo, despite it being great for a home user, having 1-2 hours of 100% CPU usage in a business means that 1-2 hours employees can't work.
We need a much much much weaker copyright system. Already, due to "copyright infringement" the *IAA has managed to fine single mothers and college students outrageous amounts of money for supposedly "stealing songs" this has already harmed the emergence of P2P software as a way of distributing bandwidth better as simply a way of "illegally" distributing material. In technology, there is little innovation compared to what there should be due to software patents, outrageous licenses and copyright. We need to protect fair use and give the right to make backups and to share files and songs, without it, despite what the *IAA thinks, our economy of software, music and movies will collapse leaving the *IAA and artists without a penny. Our copyright system is broken, if it becomes hardly any stronger the USA will be right up there with China and other nations that are hostile to information sharing and become even more digitally shackled then we already are.
The fact though still remains that Windows is a proprietary, closed-source operating system. If it was open-source much like Linux or BSD, the bug would have been fixed sooner and you could patch your own system, if MS doesn't see it is a security threat it won't get patched. Also, who is to say that crackers haven't found the bug out earlier? If it was Linux, the potential would be very minor for widespread devastation due to differing kernel versions and different patches for different kernel versions. About the only way for a sure-fire attack on the Linux kernel is to attack a distro without any patches but even the most popular distro still has 3 versions still receving support (7.10, 7.04 and LTS) (Ubuntu) and that would make an attack very hard if only 2 of the 3 had it and a patch was released quickly. Its the danger of a propriatary operating system, you never know who knows what and even if you will receive a patch, Linux you can audit the code yourself and rely on the community if you so choose.
Not really... either you get good rates but horrible service outside your city, or you get great service anywhere in the US (its a big country) but get charged sky high rates for simple things such as texting.
Exactly, most people want to buy music "legaly" but when they can't rip CDs or get the downloads in the format they want (.ogg, MP3, AAC, WAV, FLAC) they will find it someplace else which is usually online.
How is that "outrageous behavior" at all? Copying CDs, DVDs and the like number 1 is protected under fair use for backups. Number 2, it should be a moral right and really should be embraced by the *IAA if they want to not go bankrupt. Most people won't buy a song, not even "illegally" download a song if they have no clue what the music is like, they had to hear it for free at some point or had a friend tell them about it. Think about radio, you can listen to all the free music you want in a DRM free format, record it if you like and share it with others and many many many people listen to the radio or Internet Radio. When it is easier to "illegally" download a song then to go through the hassle of buying it you have a problem. Sure "illegal" downloading will get people for the price and such, but most people want to spend the money if they can get it in their format with no DRM that means that I should be able to download a song in.ogg, MP3, FLAC, WAV, AAC and such, not just have to download an MP3 or WMA that can't be played on Linux legally in the US without "illegal" codecs. Not to mention how some MP3 players can't play say WAV and AAC so it makes no sence to distribute them as only WAV and AAC. People will buy as long as their rights aren't trampled. And most people I know, know how to rip CDs to their iPods and the CDs that don't rip they either rip them off of YouTube/Google Video or "illegally" download them.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, the RIAA would be justified if someone decided to put songs onto a CD, embed viruses in them to attack OS-X, Linux and Windows while also messing up standard CD-Players, and sporting the Sony or other RIAA-partner's name on it. 100K would be justified because it has the potential to be devastating. For this, 1 mil is probably less then they would have to pay in damages if someone got killed or injured by one of these.
You know that there are other free alternatives with GPL'd code that if Adobe would try to sue would only get around $50, and if suing worked so well, why do we still have DeCSS and other "illegal" technologies.
No, he wouldn't use technical jargon, he would start with how Linux is distributed over the internet, a series of tubes....
This might not be good for campuses that may experience network outages. With servers on campus, at least messages could be sent via the network rather then the internet, but now, if the internet is down, Live or Google goes down (possible for Live far-fetched though for Google) or MS (or possibly Google) decides to charge for a "premium" account that takes away features from the "free" counterpart. And also, if MS's or Google's web-mail system gets exposed to security venerabilities, it could be just as insecure as Outlook or IE.
Yes but only 3 days? There are some times that I dont get on the computer for 3 days although it is rarely, and other days that I just quickly check the news, /. or my e-mail. It should be at least 2 weeks to allow for vacation and other time when people would be away from the computer.
For me 75% of all BSOD were unbootable systems, the rest were wi-fi and other-type cards not being pressed in all the way
And the fact it uses a BSD like kernel which is way more stable then any NT kernel, and it has true permissions that are horribly emulated in UAC of Vista, so misbehaving applications can't install tons of spyware and the like.
In Ubuntu, I can use sudo or similar to run any application as root, and then it keeps me without having to enter my password for about a minute or so (it can be user configured) I can also use sudo bash which keeps me in a root environment for compiling software and the like, I can also create a root account and log in with it, with Linux I can customize just about anything I don't want with MS all I can do is hope that it is fixed in the next patch, service pack or Windows 7.
Sure its not "bricking" but its a Mac equivalent to a Blue Screen of Death, which although Windows is re-installable because your BIOS isn't broken it sure is a pain to do so. Computers with working hardware and a BIOS can never be truly "bricked" but they can come very close to being as useful as one.
One of the reasons that has put me off getting a Mac (besides the high price, and the fact that Ubuntu can act like a Mac on a $25 used desktop) is the fact that Apple has control over the hardware and software. If you need *insert application that is a given on Linux and Windows* you have to pay $100 to get it, or if your hardware isn't supported anymore, your out of luck. It wouldn't be such a bad problem if the average Mac laptop costs $1000 and $500 PC laptops that can run Linux fine are common. If Apple would allow OS-X to be used on ordinary hardware or make it less proprietary by open-sourcing the components under a better license (why do I need to put my primary billing address to sign up for an account just to download source code???) or open sourcing all of OS-X. Another reason I don't go out and buy a Mac is Apple's lack of interest in supporting Linux despite it being an "alternative OS" like OS-X is and more then capable of doing the same things that OS-X and XP do, yet there is no iTunes or other key apps for it, nor are they open-source so porting would be easy. I doubt that I will be getting a Mac soon and this story only keeps me from buying one, if Apple would make their hardware and software less proprietary, OS-X would grow and topple Vista in a heartbeat.
The same way that Ubuntu configures sudo. You type in your password and then for around a minute anything that you access via "sudo" doesn't need a password. Should I need to go past a dialog to open up a file that was on a CD? Vista had to do that (not my computer by the way). By putting security in the hands of the users, you are opening up the way to malware, how? Because malware authors can easily claim that it was not a "drive-by-download" as users had to click OK to the box. Windows needs to look at Linux and OS-X to see how a secure operating system can be done without driving the users nuts.
Not really, with Vista you get a slowed down computer, no new features, the same insecurity you get with XP plus with Vista you don't know whether or not the next update you get is a rootkit or not because the source isn't open. Right now Vista could be running a rootkit.... we just can't tell. At least with the Sony CDs it is easy to boycott Sony, but with MS when just about every computer you buy at a major store (Yes I know I can get Linux installed with Dell or other vendors but that is usually online) you are stuck with Vista (XP if you are lucky) and that is a $50 tax (at least from Dell's website) not to mention your computer is bogged down with adware and trialware and sometimes you don't even get a restore disc! And when you figure you can run Linux on a $300 desktop ($199 for the gPC but that has Linux pre-installed) that $50 is one-sixth of your purchase price. So no, the rootkitted CDs only proved that DRM was evil, Vista lets Sony, or *insert other MS partner here* take control of your PC without authorization, at least if you "pirated" the rootkitted CDs you didn't get the DRM....
Real geeks don't use Vista, just Unix, Linux and BSD
But its not really Windows when it is "embedded Windows" sure there is "embedded Linux" but most programs for Linux can easily be recompiled or at most a few lines of code changed to make them usable on an embedded system. As for Linux has more work to do, historically, in the OS market, it doesn't matter if your OS is fast with nice code on it, people will just take what you give them, how else did DOS and Windows get so popular when most everyone in the tech industry knew that Macs and UNIX were much better. When you can make a $199 desktop that runs Linux just fine and much faster then Vista, people will buy it not caring if it is Linux or Windows, it just is a cheap computer. Now, there are a few things you can do in Windows that you can't do in Linux but the number is very small and mostly has to do with either a free replacement for some Windows software or making WINE or similar work well with it.
More and more people though are switching or at least looking at Linux and Macs now as solutions. Even the non-technical people agree that Vista is slow and bloated, they hate UAC and don't like how they changed everything to make it "new". People are cutting through the GUI only to find that all Vista is, is just a skin change on XP that runs slowly and has half the components renamed. Office 2007 is the same, people want the look of 2003, 2000 or '97 and hate the new look of 2007, they are switching to Open Office. Free software has matured much more rapidly then the propriatary software that is in the world today, Vista was a huge step backwards from XP in the areas that people want, speed, ease of use, and good driver support. Just because MS's "futuristic" skin for Vista looks nice, once used, people see that it is nothing better then XP and in many ways worse, when I can get a used computer for $25 with XP pre loaded that runs decent (although I wiped it for Ubuntu as soon as I figured it was booting OK) or you can get a computer for $999 that runs Vista halfway decent, people will go for the $25 option when figuring all they need to do is surf the web. watch movies and e-mail. Microsoft is falling... fast, Linux is the only OS that is going to take over besides OS-X which Apple won't let you use on anything Non-Mac.
But commercial OSes generally are walled gardens because many parts of it are not well documented and you generally can't get the source code to look it over.
The problem with these "smartphones" is that even though they look like a computer, have the same software of a computer and act like a computer, they are nothing but walled gardens at most (those running Linux aside) then you take Apple who releases "updates" to stop people from freeing their iPhones. Take all these together, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Whenever you visit a site you "download" the information. So what about YouTube and Google Video where you are "downloading" music videos and can rip them via speaker output (at not that great of quality) so is that now going to be illegal?
Yet MS products which give you just about 0% of control are still dominant so It is not surprising that most are Ubuntu, Debian or SUSE based because those give you better hardware detection, plus, Gentoo, LFS, Source Mage, and Arch Linux despite being great distros, lack commercial support that you can get from Red Hat, SUSE and Ubuntu. Also, the fact that you have to rebuild every update from scratch is a real pain on Gentoo, despite it being great for a home user, having 1-2 hours of 100% CPU usage in a business means that 1-2 hours employees can't work.
We need a much much much weaker copyright system. Already, due to "copyright infringement" the *IAA has managed to fine single mothers and college students outrageous amounts of money for supposedly "stealing songs" this has already harmed the emergence of P2P software as a way of distributing bandwidth better as simply a way of "illegally" distributing material. In technology, there is little innovation compared to what there should be due to software patents, outrageous licenses and copyright. We need to protect fair use and give the right to make backups and to share files and songs, without it, despite what the *IAA thinks, our economy of software, music and movies will collapse leaving the *IAA and artists without a penny. Our copyright system is broken, if it becomes hardly any stronger the USA will be right up there with China and other nations that are hostile to information sharing and become even more digitally shackled then we already are.
The fact though still remains that Windows is a proprietary, closed-source operating system. If it was open-source much like Linux or BSD, the bug would have been fixed sooner and you could patch your own system, if MS doesn't see it is a security threat it won't get patched. Also, who is to say that crackers haven't found the bug out earlier? If it was Linux, the potential would be very minor for widespread devastation due to differing kernel versions and different patches for different kernel versions. About the only way for a sure-fire attack on the Linux kernel is to attack a distro without any patches but even the most popular distro still has 3 versions still receving support (7.10, 7.04 and LTS) (Ubuntu) and that would make an attack very hard if only 2 of the 3 had it and a patch was released quickly. Its the danger of a propriatary operating system, you never know who knows what and even if you will receive a patch, Linux you can audit the code yourself and rely on the community if you so choose.
Not really... either you get good rates but horrible service outside your city, or you get great service anywhere in the US (its a big country) but get charged sky high rates for simple things such as texting.
What OS are you on? If your on Linux, BSD or OS-X I doubt that you would encounter anything because most are for Windows.
Exactly, most people want to buy music "legaly" but when they can't rip CDs or get the downloads in the format they want (.ogg, MP3, AAC, WAV, FLAC) they will find it someplace else which is usually online.
How is that "outrageous behavior" at all? Copying CDs, DVDs and the like number 1 is protected under fair use for backups. Number 2, it should be a moral right and really should be embraced by the *IAA if they want to not go bankrupt. Most people won't buy a song, not even "illegally" download a song if they have no clue what the music is like, they had to hear it for free at some point or had a friend tell them about it. Think about radio, you can listen to all the free music you want in a DRM free format, record it if you like and share it with others and many many many people listen to the radio or Internet Radio. When it is easier to "illegally" download a song then to go through the hassle of buying it you have a problem. Sure "illegal" downloading will get people for the price and such, but most people want to spend the money if they can get it in their format with no DRM that means that I should be able to download a song in .ogg, MP3, FLAC, WAV, AAC and such, not just have to download an MP3 or WMA that can't be played on Linux legally in the US without "illegal" codecs. Not to mention how some MP3 players can't play say WAV and AAC so it makes no sence to distribute them as only WAV and AAC. People will buy as long as their rights aren't trampled. And most people I know, know how to rip CDs to their iPods and the CDs that don't rip they either rip them off of YouTube/Google Video or "illegally" download them.