Jesus. I mean, come on, it's not like my future income hinges on SCO's suit. Proprietary software is definitely where the money's at, but when McBride's extortion comes to a close, there will still be plenty of commercial software companies to work for.
The only company that's going to go out of business because of SCO is... SCO.
McBride may think he's on to something appealing to greed, but it's probably too little, too late.
Hey, if I can convince people to ask their questions to a cute animated icon instead of calling me away from my office, I'm all for it - anything to get people to use the help system they're provided with. It's frustrating to help people with problems they can solve on their own with a few seconds of reading.
How self-aggrandizing. "Xbox Independence Day?" What a load of crap. These people imagine themselves as some sort of digital revolutionaries. It's just code, people.
I'm kind of curious as to how much of Xbox Linux is about using a below-cost machine and how much of it is about fucking Microsoft. If you want Linux on a console, go buy a PS2. Microsoft just isn't interested in Linux.
Anyway, with people running around with attitudes like this, I start to agree with the idea of draconian DRM. I still hate the DMCA, mind you, but if you've got people determined to break your security just to ruin your business, then fuck 'em - lock everything down tighter than Fort Knox. Let's hope MS takes the time to design a truly secure Xbox next time.
You just bombed console gaming back to the days of the 3DO! Let me tell you, I'm looking forward to paying $799 for a console... aren't you?
We can talk all day about our rights to modify hardware, which I totally agree that we have, but yet we conveniently ignore MS' rights to protect their business model by any legal means. And, as someone already pointed out, it's not like most people who buy Xboxes for Linux are planning on buying games anyway - so why should they give a shit about you if you're not a paying customer?
The Xbox wasn't designed for hacking. It was designed to play games. MS' desire to protect their revenue stream from licensing is in direct conflict with people's desire to modify the hardware - but that's just tough. On this issue, I support neither the hackers nor MS - let them settle it amongst themselves. There's no real moral imperative on either side here; it's strictly a case of conflicting interests.
Anyway, how are the other hardware vendors in the gaming market any different or any more honest? Go ask Sony to give you a loader for any code you want - I'd love to hear what they'd tell you.
Dell and HP are where I'd expect Sun to have to push Java - do an end-run around MS and deal with the OEMs. Now, if MS were preventing the OEMs from bundling Java, that would be different - but they're specifically barred from doing that anymore, and IMO rightly so.
Isn't middleware more of a server issue nowadays anyway? And how hard is it to include a runtime with your software?
Sen. Hatch is a public servant. He surrenders some of his personal privacy to the citizens he serves. I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent for this in the areas of libel/slander; it shouldn't be too hard to apply it in this case.
Moreover, reading page sources hardly constitutes an invasion of privacy. It's a public server on the internet; no attempts are required to circumvent any sort of access control.
Senator Hatch just put his foot in his mouth, took aim, and shot at it. The only problem is, we're the only people who will remember when he's up for reelection. And I'm not going to be able to do a whole hell of a lot about his Senate campaign from here in Indiana.
I agree with you that it's pretty sad, but the purpose of OSS isn't to undermine proprietary software. It's simply a means for the community to collectively develop software for their own use and share their code with one another. OSS is about making software that fills a need - Microsoft-bashing is just some bullshit that pathetic fanboys do in their spare time.
Okay, let's suppose Microsoft and the rest of the PC software industry use Palladium anywhere they need a secure program. It'll provide developers with an area of memory I can't tamper with and a binary they know I can't alter.
What's the big problem with this?
So what if MS integrates Palladium all over their OS? If I don't trust them, I won't run their software. Moreover, what does MS really stand to gain from integrating Palladium into everything? The only areas where I really see it being advantageous to them are:
1. Product activation. Users wouldn't be able to disable the activation system. I have no problem with that; if you don't agree with activation, don't use Windows or Office.
2. Secure browser. This doesn't seem to be all that big a deal to me; we've already got software encryption, and the only real way to improve on it would be hardware authentication, which would require a lot more than just Palladium.
3. DRM. Like it or loathe it, we won't get media companies to distribute their products online without it. If MS can offer a premier content protection system to media companies, that would be a big win for them. I think this explains a lot. Additionally, the ability to control document distribution would be quite useful from a corporate security perspective.
4. Workstation security. Again, I don't see a revolutionary change over existing systems, unless you allow administrators to sign their own binaries.
In short, I just don't see how Palladium is going to let Microsoft "take control" of my PC. If Microsoft chooses to use this system to abuse their customers, they will lose those customers. They're smarter than that - expiring software or spyware updates will only upset their customers and cut off their revenue stream.
Personally, what I'd like to see would be an open implementation of Palladium on Linux. MS is under no obligation to write one, but perhaps it could alleviate some fears about the system.
The company providing that content wants to keep it safe, and so they mandate that their content can only be viewed in a secure app. That's certainly their right; the media companies have no obligation to provide unprotected content.
It's also anyone's right not to do business with that company. As such, living without new music/movies/etc. is the price of choosing to opt out of such systems. It may be less comfortable, but it's certainly not impossible, and for some people, it may be worth it. However, no one's forcing anyone to get their media from DRM-using providers.
Also, if enough customers demand content delivered on an open system, someone will come along to serve that market. Capitalism at work.
As for myself, Palladium doesn't really bother me that much - as long as I know what it's doing and what I'm using it for, I'm okay with it.
How exactly is MS going to control what will and won't run on a PC?
Is all that legacy software going to stop working all of a sudden? If not, then won't compilers still run on it? If a compiler works, wouldn't you still be able to run anything you want?
Palladium doesn't stop everything else from running - it just allows programs to take advantage of a secure operating environment.
So you'd rather the media companies refuse to provide their products to us on our computers, because there's no DRM for them to protect them with?
Geez, and people accuse Microsoft of stifling innovation... without DRM, we'll never see Internet music distribution (unless we steal said music, of course.)
Take a look at what Palladium really is and what it does, and then make an informed decision to opt in our out. Palladium isn't about controlling hardware; it's about allowing software to protect itself.
If you don't like DRM, don't use it - there'll always be open systems, as long as there are people who want them. However, don't be surprised when no one wants to release their content to a system which doesn't protect it.
There's nothing preventing you from running Linux, nor are you forced to buy hardware that only supports Windows.
It's a cost-return proposition. The hardware manufacturers have to determine what level of support to give each OS, based on how many potential customers it offers them. The simple fact is, Windows has more users, hence it gets the lion's share of support from IHVs.
If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and only buy from companies that support Linux. Sooner or later, if enough people do so, they'll come around.
Just make the chips blow out at higher clock rates. Be subtle enough about it (and keep it a secret) and you'll rake in the bucks from tweakers replacing toasted procs.
I doubt the losses from enthusiast overclocking are causing enough pain to Intel that they'd come up with new technology (at R&D expense) to fight it. Besides, if they wanted, they could even make some money partnering up with a 3rd party and selling unlocked procs and high-performance cooling with no warranty.;)
It might have been released as an SACD elsewhere, but the US version was just a standard CD, with the HDCD encoding on it. Nothing complicated, and I had no problem ripping it.
Slashdot Mirror
The stuff in black isn't code. It's more comments. Look very carefully; the */ doesn't come until the very end of the SCO section.
Please, let's not talk about anything getting vaporized in this thread... you'll jinx it.
Jesus. I mean, come on, it's not like my future income hinges on SCO's suit. Proprietary software is definitely where the money's at, but when McBride's extortion comes to a close, there will still be plenty of commercial software companies to work for.
The only company that's going to go out of business because of SCO is... SCO.
McBride may think he's on to something appealing to greed, but it's probably too little, too late.
Why do I immediately think of the old Monty Python sketch about the Brits developing a deadly joke?
Hey, if I can convince people to ask their questions to a cute animated icon instead of calling me away from my office, I'm all for it - anything to get people to use the help system they're provided with. It's frustrating to help people with problems they can solve on their own with a few seconds of reading.
Umm... anyone who passed freshman physics already knew that.
Newton's laws, baby.
Wrong book.
These were actually used in Airframe, which came out a little later. Right author though.
How self-aggrandizing. "Xbox Independence Day?" What a load of crap. These people imagine themselves as some sort of digital revolutionaries. It's just code, people.
I'm kind of curious as to how much of Xbox Linux is about using a below-cost machine and how much of it is about fucking Microsoft. If you want Linux on a console, go buy a PS2. Microsoft just isn't interested in Linux.
Anyway, with people running around with attitudes like this, I start to agree with the idea of draconian DRM. I still hate the DMCA, mind you, but if you've got people determined to break your security just to ruin your business, then fuck 'em - lock everything down tighter than Fort Knox. Let's hope MS takes the time to design a truly secure Xbox next time.
You just bombed console gaming back to the days of the 3DO! Let me tell you, I'm looking forward to paying $799 for a console... aren't you?
We can talk all day about our rights to modify hardware, which I totally agree that we have, but yet we conveniently ignore MS' rights to protect their business model by any legal means. And, as someone already pointed out, it's not like most people who buy Xboxes for Linux are planning on buying games anyway - so why should they give a shit about you if you're not a paying customer?
The Xbox wasn't designed for hacking. It was designed to play games. MS' desire to protect their revenue stream from licensing is in direct conflict with people's desire to modify the hardware - but that's just tough. On this issue, I support neither the hackers nor MS - let them settle it amongst themselves. There's no real moral imperative on either side here; it's strictly a case of conflicting interests.
Anyway, how are the other hardware vendors in the gaming market any different or any more honest? Go ask Sony to give you a loader for any code you want - I'd love to hear what they'd tell you.
Dell and HP are where I'd expect Sun to have to push Java - do an end-run around MS and deal with the OEMs. Now, if MS were preventing the OEMs from bundling Java, that would be different - but they're specifically barred from doing that anymore, and IMO rightly so.
Isn't middleware more of a server issue nowadays anyway? And how hard is it to include a runtime with your software?
Local H's "Pack Up the Cats" came out in 98, I think, and it was a pretty good concept album.
Sen. Hatch is a public servant. He surrenders some of his personal privacy to the citizens he serves. I'm pretty sure there's legal precedent for this in the areas of libel/slander; it shouldn't be too hard to apply it in this case.
Moreover, reading page sources hardly constitutes an invasion of privacy. It's a public server on the internet; no attempts are required to circumvent any sort of access control.
Senator Hatch just put his foot in his mouth, took aim, and shot at it. The only problem is, we're the only people who will remember when he's up for reelection. And I'm not going to be able to do a whole hell of a lot about his Senate campaign from here in Indiana.
Hmm...
I agree with you that it's pretty sad, but the purpose of OSS isn't to undermine proprietary software. It's simply a means for the community to collectively develop software for their own use and share their code with one another. OSS is about making software that fills a need - Microsoft-bashing is just some bullshit that pathetic fanboys do in their spare time.
You know, seeing as how they already have a gigantic frickin' laser, I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to say "No" to them....
"So, you see, the citizens have some concerns about the facility, and..."
(A switch is flipped, a quiet whirring is heard.)
"Umm... approval granted."
Okay, let's suppose Microsoft and the rest of the PC software industry use Palladium anywhere they need a secure program. It'll provide developers with an area of memory I can't tamper with and a binary they know I can't alter.
What's the big problem with this?
So what if MS integrates Palladium all over their OS? If I don't trust them, I won't run their software. Moreover, what does MS really stand to gain from integrating Palladium into everything? The only areas where I really see it being advantageous to them are:
1. Product activation. Users wouldn't be able to disable the activation system. I have no problem with that; if you don't agree with activation, don't use Windows or Office.
2. Secure browser. This doesn't seem to be all that big a deal to me; we've already got software encryption, and the only real way to improve on it would be hardware authentication, which would require a lot more than just Palladium.
3. DRM. Like it or loathe it, we won't get media companies to distribute their products online without it. If MS can offer a premier content protection system to media companies, that would be a big win for them. I think this explains a lot. Additionally, the ability to control document distribution would be quite useful from a corporate security perspective.
4. Workstation security. Again, I don't see a revolutionary change over existing systems, unless you allow administrators to sign their own binaries.
In short, I just don't see how Palladium is going to let Microsoft "take control" of my PC. If Microsoft chooses to use this system to abuse their customers, they will lose those customers. They're smarter than that - expiring software or spyware updates will only upset their customers and cut off their revenue stream.
Personally, what I'd like to see would be an open implementation of Palladium on Linux. MS is under no obligation to write one, but perhaps it could alleviate some fears about the system.
The company providing that content wants to keep it safe, and so they mandate that their content can only be viewed in a secure app. That's certainly their right; the media companies have no obligation to provide unprotected content.
It's also anyone's right not to do business with that company. As such, living without new music/movies/etc. is the price of choosing to opt out of such systems. It may be less comfortable, but it's certainly not impossible, and for some people, it may be worth it. However, no one's forcing anyone to get their media from DRM-using providers.
Also, if enough customers demand content delivered on an open system, someone will come along to serve that market. Capitalism at work.
As for myself, Palladium doesn't really bother me that much - as long as I know what it's doing and what I'm using it for, I'm okay with it.
How exactly is MS going to control what will and won't run on a PC?
Is all that legacy software going to stop working all of a sudden? If not, then won't compilers still run on it? If a compiler works, wouldn't you still be able to run anything you want?
Palladium doesn't stop everything else from running - it just allows programs to take advantage of a secure operating environment.
So you'd rather the media companies refuse to provide their products to us on our computers, because there's no DRM for them to protect them with?
Geez, and people accuse Microsoft of stifling innovation... without DRM, we'll never see Internet music distribution (unless we steal said music, of course.)
Take a look at what Palladium really is and what it does, and then make an informed decision to opt in our out. Palladium isn't about controlling hardware; it's about allowing software to protect itself.
If you don't like DRM, don't use it - there'll always be open systems, as long as there are people who want them. However, don't be surprised when no one wants to release their content to a system which doesn't protect it.
There's nothing preventing you from running Linux, nor are you forced to buy hardware that only supports Windows.
It's a cost-return proposition. The hardware manufacturers have to determine what level of support to give each OS, based on how many potential customers it offers them. The simple fact is, Windows has more users, hence it gets the lion's share of support from IHVs.
If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and only buy from companies that support Linux. Sooner or later, if enough people do so, they'll come around.
My guess?
The "tart" joke clicked and they ran with it.
Go Boilers... literally. ;)
Perhaps we can send them some of our trolls.
I wonder what they'd do with the Stephen King or Natalie Portman ones....
(And before anyone suggests we send them the goatse trolls, that's a different kind of movie studio.)
Just make the chips blow out at higher clock rates. Be subtle enough about it (and keep it a secret) and you'll rake in the bucks from tweakers replacing toasted procs.
;)
I doubt the losses from enthusiast overclocking are causing enough pain to Intel that they'd come up with new technology (at R&D expense) to fight it. Besides, if they wanted, they could even make some money partnering up with a 3rd party and selling unlocked procs and high-performance cooling with no warranty.
I thought Lateralus was an HDCD, not a SACD?
It might have been released as an SACD elsewhere, but the US version was just a standard CD, with the HDCD encoding on it. Nothing complicated, and I had no problem ripping it.