...perhaps they can apply the same technology to display a warning message if the words "the attached file" appear in an outgoing message for which there is, in fact, no file attached. I'm quite sure that, uh...my colleagues...would find that feature most useful indeed.:)
While the computing industry certainly owes Metcalfe a debt of gratitude for Ethernet, I'd point out that this is the guy who's been telling us for years that the ONLY way the Internet's going to survive is to implement a pay-per-packet scheme.
Strangely, the rest of the marketplace hasn't seen things quite the same way.
I think the lesson here is similar: no amount of controversial punditry is going to change the fundamental truth that people are going to make decisions about their operating environment based on suitability to purpose--zealotry (whether open- or closed-source) isn't going to be the force that shapes the market.
While I'm certainly a big open-source advocate, I think it's at best questionable to make abandonware available in an uncoordinated fashion.
This doesn't stop the publisher from doing the Right Thing, however. It doesn't happen often, but every once in a while, a former publisher of software will do the right thing and make copyrighted works available at no charge after their commercial value is gone.
There are some examples of this actually happening. I started off my small-computer career using the venerable TRS-80 line of computers, which were actually decent machines for the day when outfitted with a third-party operating system. A number of applications (including source and binaries for my OS of choice in those days) have been made available by their copyright holders -- see http://www.research.di gital.com/SRC/personal/mann/trs80.html if you're interested in these specific examples.
I'd love to see terms written into a license agreement that allow unrestricted free distribution of the software either immediately or X years after the software is no longer sold and/or supported. I'm not, however, holding my breath, since the point of most license agreements is to disavow everything said elsewhere on the product's packaging.:)
While the article doesn't provide a lot of information to actually support the idea that TiVo doesn't have a problem with upgrade hacking, the fact is that TiVo has been one of the most hacker-tolerant consumer electronics companies I've ever seen. A lot of the credit rests with Richard Bullwinkle, the company's Internet spokesman/evangelist.
His recent comments on AVS Forum pretty clearly illustrate the attitude I'm talking about:
Well, I'm sure many of you have been waiting for anything I might say about the "hacking" of TiVo, so let me put on my best Yoda voice, and see if I can spread some wisdom.
First, let me give credit where credit is due. That was no easy task, and those guys are pretty stunning engineers to have gotten into the places they did in the first place.
Second, let me give a bit of warning -- more as a friend than a corporate entity. PLEASE BE CAREFUL. TiVo's are not designed to be opened. Anyone who has ever been inside a computer knows that power supplies for user-upgradeable equipment should be covered. TiVo's is not, because it is not designed to be user-upgradeable . I'm not worried about this from a legal perspective, because that little sticker that says "Risk of Electric Shock -- Do Not Open" covers me pretty well in the eyes of the law , but it would break my heart to hear of someone who hurt themselves going inside their TiVo.
Third, make backups. We already know of one thing that is going to affect you guys with the release of 2.0, and we would feel bad if we made your TiVo useless after we changed the software somehow, but we of course would take no financial responsibility for that. We want to keep you happy TiVo customers, but we will not risk relationships with partners or do any special testing to make sure hacked boxes work. The thing we will do that will affect you, that we already know about, is the same thing that makes 2x30 GB machines 60 hours instead of 72. In short, we have never created a box over 30 hours, and any receivers over 30 hours that are out there when we release our new software will have about 12 hours taken away. Any programs within that space will be deleted. Consider this fair warning.
Finally, please be cool about this. We have already taken down AVS with floods about the subject. You don't want to anger people and force them to take action about this.
By the way, as far as hacking goes, don't interfere with the TiVo service. Anyone who tries to steal it, copy it, or modify the way it works in a negative way will receive instant ramifications from TiVo. I don't mean to be a heavy, but that is what puts food on my family's table.
How is that for straight shooting? If you have questions, I will try to answer them here.
Without editorializing as to whether or not the feature removal was bottom-line-inspired, I'd point out that this highlights one of the real strengths of open source software: ultimately, the capabilities of the software *will* align with the interests of the user. It may take time to happen, but it will happen.
Contrast this with popular closed-source software: in some cases, a lot of effort has gone into making the software *less* useful to its end users in the name of protecting one revenue stream or another. AOL's Instant Messenger program is a good example: it's a useful program with a fairly good-sized list of features (and incompatibilities) aimed at ad revenue protection with no benefit whatsoever to the consumer.
Don't misunderstand: I'm not against ad-supported services (in fact, I work for a company whose business is ad-sponsored mobile communication). But the consumer needs to retain control--and I think that the flexibility offered by open source software by and large ensures that this is the case.
One point that I haven't seen mentioned yet in the discussion is the fact that TiVo (the company responsible for the software) has learned some lessons about customer communications that have thus far eluded most other consumer electronics companies. Have a look at Richard Bullwinkle's comments on the AVS Forum site to see what I'm talking about.
I'd also note is that TiVo has the best user interface I've yet seen on a piece of consumer video gear. And finally, the instruction manual is well-written and lavishly illustrated. My conclusion? TiVo Gets It.
The NIPC has determined that it is important not to release the source code publicly. We do, however, have measures in place to help ensure that the executable on our website is not compromised.
Thank you for contacting us.
NIPC Watch and Warning Unit
Phil Wherry wrote:
Good afternoon! I note with interest that you're providing tools to detect distributed denial-of-service attack daemons. I applaud your efforts to stem the recent tide of d-o-s attacks.
As a matter of sound security practice, however, it's considered unwise to run code downloaded from the Internet without appropriate precautions. Given that the code you're distributing requires root-level access to one's system, inspection and compilation of the source code strikes me as the appropriate level of due diligence.
So, to sum up: I'd like to run the find_ddos tool to reassure myself of the health of the systems I manage. But this won't be practical until and unless the source code for the utility is released. I think I'm not alone in wanting this level of assurance; please consider releasing the source!
The lights aren't actually halogen lights, but so-called "high-intensity discharge" lighting. It's basically a xenon arc lamp. Xenon arcs are also found in camera flash units--and the light seems subjectively to be the same color to me. I don't know if this is true of all HID-equipped cars or not, but the one that I drive has a fairly elaborate electronic leveling mechanism designed to keep the light out of the eyes of oncoming drivers; you can actually see the lights adjust up and down slightly in order to compensate for the effects of acceleration and deceleration.
Slashdot Mirror
-Phil
Strangely, the rest of the marketplace hasn't seen things quite the same way.
I think the lesson here is similar: no amount of controversial punditry is going to change the fundamental truth that people are going to make decisions about their operating environment based on suitability to purpose--zealotry (whether open- or closed-source) isn't going to be the force that shapes the market.
This doesn't stop the publisher from doing the Right Thing, however. It doesn't happen often, but every once in a while, a former publisher of software will do the right thing and make copyrighted works available at no charge after their commercial value is gone.
There are some examples of this actually happening. I started off my small-computer career using the venerable TRS-80 line of computers, which were actually decent machines for the day when outfitted with a third-party operating system. A number of applications (including source and binaries for my OS of choice in those days) have been made available by their copyright holders -- see http://www.research.di gital.com/SRC/personal/mann/trs80.html if you're interested in these specific examples.
I'd love to see terms written into a license agreement that allow unrestricted free distribution of the software either immediately or X years after the software is no longer sold and/or supported. I'm not, however, holding my breath, since the point of most license agreements is to disavow everything said elsewhere on the product's packaging. :)
Phil
Contrast this with popular closed-source software: in some cases, a lot of effort has gone into making the software *less* useful to its end users in the name of protecting one revenue stream or another. AOL's Instant Messenger program is a good example: it's a useful program with a fairly good-sized list of features (and incompatibilities) aimed at ad revenue protection with no benefit whatsoever to the consumer.
Don't misunderstand: I'm not against ad-supported services (in fact, I work for a company whose business is ad-sponsored mobile communication). But the consumer needs to retain control--and I think that the flexibility offered by open source software by and large ensures that this is the case.
Phil
I'd also note is that TiVo has the best user interface I've yet seen on a piece of consumer video gear. And finally, the instruction manual is well-written and lavishly illustrated. My conclusion? TiVo Gets It.
-Phil
FYI, here's the response I received:
The NIPC has determined that it is important not to release the source code publicly. We do, however, have measures in place to help ensure that the executable on our website is not compromised.
Thank you for contacting us.
NIPC Watch and Warning Unit
Phil Wherry wrote:
Good afternoon! I note with interest that you're providing tools to detect distributed denial-of-service attack daemons. I applaud your efforts to stem the recent tide of d-o-s attacks.
As a matter of sound security practice, however, it's considered unwise to run code downloaded from the Internet without appropriate precautions. Given that the code you're distributing requires root-level access to one's system, inspection and compilation of the source code strikes me as the appropriate level of due diligence.
So, to sum up: I'd like to run the find_ddos tool to reassure myself of the health of the systems I manage. But this won't be practical until and unless the source code for the utility is released. I think I'm not alone in wanting this level of assurance; please consider releasing the source!
Phil Wherry
psw@wherry.com
The lights aren't actually halogen lights, but so-called "high-intensity discharge" lighting. It's basically a xenon arc lamp. Xenon arcs are also found in camera flash units--and the light seems subjectively to be the same color to me. I don't know if this is true of all HID-equipped cars or not, but the one that I drive has a fairly elaborate electronic leveling mechanism designed to keep the light out of the eyes of oncoming drivers; you can actually see the lights adjust up and down slightly in order to compensate for the effects of acceleration and deceleration.