Why don't you just release a binary-only version with all the features and a crippled open-source one (which noone would use)? Most likely your company hasn't even thrown any funds at developing proper Linux-support, so 'fears about giving away important secrets' are a convenient excuse...
Da Warez D00d All of my releases are binary-only:)
this exists already. It's called the dumb PR/HR employee, more interested in loveletters from strangers than in network security. Sadly they are also the type most likely to grow exponentially as the internet becomes even more KEWL. we're doomed *sigh*
hmm... I'm fairly certain that when bandwidth increases in the future the differences between MB and GB won't matter much.
The bit that DOES matter is that nobody will want to pay for the subscription service, when people can just rename their Star_wars.mpg to Home_movie_31337.mpg . I doubt that the 'policing' that is being proposed goes further than looking at the titles of the films proposed. I'd be insane for them to try to d/l and watch each and every film to check whether it is copyrighted. The napster method is definely not the right one if you're trying to make money off people's downloads - you need a central server for that.
> However, it has long been hypothesized that no > matter how many times the data is written over, > there is still a discernable and recoverable > trace of the original information, nope. I suggest you read up on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. After a while the signal will be so faint that just reading the medium will destroy the data. This might take many more passes than 7 of course, but it's definetely not infinite!
> primarily as a forensic tool, and gets me > thinking -- how many passes of write-over-with > random-data are now required to securely delete > a file?"
the more interesting aspect is that if you've got such a great method of recovering partially deleted data, you can easily pack more data onto the medium by just writing more data over it. Retrieval will be *really* slow but this might change in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
wouldn't that completely destroy the original idea of open source, i.e. that you can add your own features and ideas? Da Warez D00d
Why don't you just release a binary-only version with all the features and a crippled open-source one (which noone would use)?
:)
Most likely your company hasn't even thrown any funds at developing proper Linux-support, so 'fears about giving away important secrets' are a convenient excuse...
Da Warez D00d
All of my releases are binary-only
Tell that the user support people who have to deal with them "Oh my. Something must be wrong with my Win98..." - problems... :)
Da Warez D00d
this exists already. It's called the dumb PR/HR employee, more interested in loveletters from strangers than in network security.
Sadly they are also the type most likely to grow exponentially as the internet becomes even more KEWL.
we're doomed *sigh*
Da Warez D00d
hmm... I'm fairly certain that when bandwidth increases in the future the differences between MB and GB won't matter much.
The bit that DOES matter is that nobody will want to pay for the subscription service, when people can just rename their Star_wars.mpg to Home_movie_31337.mpg . I doubt that the 'policing' that is being proposed goes further than looking at the titles of the films proposed. I'd be insane for them to try to d/l and watch each and every film to check whether it is copyrighted.
The napster method is definely not the right one if you're trying to make money off people's downloads - you need a central server for that.
Da Warez D00d
> However, it has long been hypothesized that no
> matter how many times the data is written over,
> there is still a discernable and recoverable
> trace of the original information,
nope. I suggest you read up on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. After a while the signal will be so faint that just reading the medium will destroy the data. This might take many more passes than 7 of course, but it's definetely not infinite!
Da Warez D00d
> primarily as a forensic tool, and gets me
> thinking -- how many passes of write-over-with
> random-data are now required to securely delete
> a file?"
the more interesting aspect is that if you've got such a great method of recovering partially deleted data, you can easily pack more data onto the medium by just writing more data over it.
Retrieval will be *really* slow but this might change in the future.
Da Warez D00d