That's because car safety has emotional and financial strings attached. You don't see people getting truly upset about computers unless it is either costing them money in a way they can understand easily, or kids are getting into trouble. The issue of poor software design isn't one people can readily understand, just as a physical intruder is easier to understand than an electronic one.
Law or no law, I think you'd have a hard time finding a jury who wouldn't sympathise with the home owner, especially if they have small children. If someone willfully breaks into your home, they're asking for it. They have no right to be there.
I'd say a stranger in my house DOES pose a threat to my family. I don't know who this creep is, or what he intends. If my family is at stake you'd better believe I'm going to play safe. I might not shoot the instant I see him, but I'd sure take aim and if he tried to flinch without my permission he's history.
This might work business to business, where things need to stay current anyway in order to be efficient. But for individual users it will never work. They won't accept that. I know I sure as heck wouldn't. Won't sell it to me? Well, then I can look elsewhere or maybe even do it myself.
The do it yourself spirit is lacking right now in this country, because "time is money". If we cool off and take the attitude that "time spent working with my hands, learning something, and being with people I love is more important than money" things will change pretty darn quick. Stuff like this just might bring a resurgance in that attitude.
OK. The DeCSS cases aren't going well. Anyone surprised by that should stop for a minute and think. What did we expect?
We are aware of a legitimate use for this code: the playing of DVDs under Linux/BSD/etc. That is the reason this issue was originally raised. We all agree that it should be reasonable to expect to be able to play DVDs on whatever OS we choose.
However, just because WE hold that view doesn't mean other people do, and I'm not just talking about the MPAA. Another possible take on this is "Well, those guys choose to work outside the system. They have to accept the consequences of that decision."
Consider! The concept of open source is foreign to most, frightening to those who make their money off of IP. We defy all known economic laws and upset the system. The goals of good software for its own sake and community peer review, as well as creating a tool to do a job and giving it back to the community (think the stone soup senario) are not considered valid by them, and probably not even considered seriously. If they are considered they are probably rejected in favor of identifying us with the scum of the internet, crackers and pirates. Those groups they can understand, and the fact that we do stuff for free and the scum takes stuff for free are easy to get confused.
Many of us feel that code is free speech, and I have seen this idea in some of the transcripts of the various DeCSS court actions. That particular arguement, however valid some of us may find it, is sheer suicide legally. People know technology does amazing stuff; to most people this is sudomagical. The idea of it being speech doesn't make any more sense to most people than calling the blueprints for an F-16 speech. It's a hopeless arguement that will only distance the DeCSS defense from the courts.
Instead, (IANAL, yada yada) try arguing it with analogies they might understand. Point out that selling DVDs which can only be viewed with a CSS license is like selling a book that can only be read with a special set of glasses made by the book seller, where it is illegal to distribute any other brand of glasses without paying the publisher money. Argue that it should be fundamental to let people view a movie that has been properly paid for however they choose. Point out that copying a DVD is trivially possible in any number of ways which do not require DeCSS - the signal can merely be intercepted at the level of monitor input and digitally remastered from there. Point all this out, and then go on the offensive. Call hostile witnesses and ask them point blank under oath questions to show bias, such as "How does the MPAA feel about the act of viewing a legal copy of a DVD under a freely available DVD player?", "If your intent here was to safeguard your DVDs, why didn't you use a stronger encryption?" (That one should be good for about thirty more good quesitons as they try to explain it) "Did you intend this encryption to prevent viewing as well as copying by freely available players?", and finally "Did you deliberately set out to avoid having a legal, freely available DVD player for Linux?"
Start to make them look like the big corporate bully abusing power, rather than making us look further and further outside the mainstream. Don't wave geek principles in their face - they don't care and they don't share those principles. Make clear that the legit need exists, and put the MPAA in the position of deliberately trying to block the meeting of that need. Make them the villian. Because to the courts we look like the villian now.
If all else fails, we need to attack the same way we attack Microsoft - work completely independantly of them. If independant movies can be made using photo-quality computer rendering which rival the quality of professional ones, and done using open source tools, then we can teach Hollywood what Microsoft has been going through - show them what it means to have competition you can't starve out of business and can't kill. I know it's several generations away, and certainly in the case of open source it's a long ways off, but someday it just might happen. Get a few hundred independant creative movie artists, all working for the love of the job on a project, and we might even get an increase in the quality of movies. A dream for us, a nightmare for Hollywood. Right now only a dream. But ten years ago, so was Linux. All things are possible. If they keep throwing the courts at us, one day the may just push us too far. I am of the opinion that Microsoft helped get Linux started with poor products, and nasty business practices. Looks like the MPAA, and the RIAA for that matter, are doing the same thing. We know how to answer them, and when the technology levels and outrage levels reach the right pitch, they'll be wishing they had never said anything at all.
Isn't most of the bandwith on the internet is consumed by multimedia - images, music files, and the odd video? I have seldom encountered an html file larger than a meg, and even those are in my experience very rare.
Yes, it would be nice to make the internet move faster with current technology, and I would support this for people on very slow connections. It might also be a boon for servers that get hit hard and often (though I doubt it would stop the Slashdot effect;-) For the majority of single use internet concerns, however, I just don't see this doing a whole lot.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. More effective bandwith is a Good Thing.
Re:Be made a lot of good choices and still they're
on
Be Buyout Looms Closer
·
· Score: 1
"I would rather like to see some OSS company snap it up though I guess those don't have any $$$ left from the IPO craze."
That would be best, of course, but I think the IP issues are such that more than just Be would need to be purchased in order to go open source, even if they could find the cash.
As for WindowsXP, we'll see. That's not really a proven technology like BeOS is. Point taken about Dos, however.
Re:Be made a lot of good choices and still they're
on
Be Buyout Looms Closer
·
· Score: 2
Apple is able to get developers because they already have an assured paying customer base for OS X, one thing Be has never had to any significant degree. In 1984, Machintosh was IT for easy to use computers. They remained so for many years. That is when they developed their core user and developer base, an extremely loyal crowd. If Be had been around back then they would have succeeded on the PC platform. Possibly even defeated the Macs. Likewise, if Mac OS X had appeared yesterday on the market WITHOUT the already loyal crowd, they would have failed. People stick with what they know, unless they are compelled to move to something new by a truly revolutionary technology. That's what Mac was in 1984. Be is not that today. Be is, as far as the mass market (home and corporate desktop users) are concerned, doing what everyone else does, but doing it correctly. Not enough.
Open Source is a solution to this chicken-egg problem, because it attracts people for different reasons than just usability. Which is necessary in the early stages of the life of an OS, where usability compared to the competition is by definition limited.
As for Mac toppling Microsoft, the fact that they won't would have killed them except for the fact they had a loyal user base. Even with that user base Apple was dying until they brought Steve Jobs back.
Your last point, however, about OEM's, is absolutely correct and the point where we are in complete agreement. That control must be broken. That's what I'm hoping the government can do.
Re:Be made a lot of good choices and still they're
on
Be Buyout Looms Closer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"I don't see what OS could have done for them, since they had a robust, fast, OS that they could not even GIVE away. All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away."
It could have ensured that the current situation, the exact one developers feared, would never happen. If you have access to the guts of the system, even if Be Inc. vanishes you can still carry on. People are a lot more willing to develop for a live platform than a dead one, and in the traditional sense open source platforms do not die. They may have very few users and developers, but those few are free to do what they wish. That's why Open Source attracts so many people. It was obvious that Be would not uproot Microsoft Windows, and until it did that it was not a safe platform to work on. Open Source platforms are safe by definition, since they aren't tied to the fate of any one company. Even if one project totally dies it's code can be fertile ground for another project - check out the dillo web browser for an example. This is what free software developers want, and what Be can never be.
Frankly, I myself wish that Microsoft would buy Be, scrap the Dos based crap they currently use, build a compatibility API to allow Be to run older apps, and use BeOS as the next generation of Windows. At least then we might not have such stability problems with Windows releases. I know people think Microsoft buying Be is silly, but frankly if done right the thought is actually very attractive.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but a though came to me that was worth voicing:
Make the school machines SECURE by default. That means use secure shell for everything you can, use only the services that are needed, enforce tough passwords, keep backups (even cheap hardware is just fine for that) and if you can use stuff like OpenBSD firewalls and the Linux Intrusion Detection System.
The last thing the schools want to have to do is keep repairing the system after some bright student trashes it. Lock it down, and do it right. Maintain security updates. (Debian Linux is a good distribution for this, as well as having a nice and minimal default install.)
Given the odds are most of the hardware Mexico will be able to obtain will be out of date, here are some good tools to make a command line based linux distribution a little less frightening, and more importantly useful. It's surprising how much of an unnecessary luxury GUIs are for many things. Anyone with more experience or ideas, tack 'em on.
Desktop Shell:
Midnight Commander - command line mode
http://www.gnome.org/projects/mc/
Flash - An altered version of this might prove extremely useful for schools in setting up a basic, intuitive interface:
http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/flash/
Typing:
Gtypist - includes a spanish mode
http://www.gnu.org/software/gtypist/
Editors:
nano - The standard easy text editor.
http://www.nano-editor.org/
emacs - Scary but powerful - for advanced students
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
Typesetting:
teTex - fairly complete distribution of the TeX typesetting system; probably not necessary for most levels of education, but if formatted text is desirable this is definitely the none graphical way to make it.
http://www.tug.org/teTeX/
Development Environments:
Rhide - Borland like environment for use with gcc
http://home.lanet.lv/~pavenis/rhide.html
Mathematics:
I do not recommend the use of mathematical programs for educational purposes until there is no other reasonable way to solve the problem. However, a powerful and free computer algebra system does exist, and can be run from the command line, so if research projects or some such effort require it:
Maxima
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/maxima.html
Web Browser:
links - ncurses based browser. A nice piece of work. It will not do graphics, but will handle tables and frames.
http://links.sourceforge.net
Email:
mutt - mutt is very powerful. It can be configured to act similar to the pine email system in order to be slightly more friendly to new users.
http://www.mutt.org/
Well, since I've never been there I'll trust your apprasial of the situation (it fits with what I've heard before) but I can forsee some outcomes which might still allow a win for Open Source in Mexico:
With the world economy slowing down, there is a chance Mexico might be able to hire some Linux folks at lower prices, especially if they can find some who really care about this issue and are willing to price themselves competitively with the Windows folks in this case.
The next step is to have Microsoft audit all of Mexico's public institutions for license compilance. American corporations are getting that treatment - what makes you think Microsoft won't stoop to grabbing cash from Mexico? Then Mexico audits to find out where all the cash went and a few people who have been skimming the cream get it in the shorts...
The third is to get American corporations to donate their old hardware to causes like this. Linux can do fairly well on older hardware, and if they can be convinced that a bunch of educated Mexican computer nerds are just what they need to solve the eternal shortage of qualified computer people, they may just make a dent. (Plus if they can get a tax credit they like that too.)
A crutical factor is how much autonomy the schools have in something like this. If all schools must meet a national standard, and that standard is windows, we are So Outta Luck. (And so are they.)
I'm actually surprised that the politicians are interested in the details of the software to be installed at all. Are they actively in favor of Windows, or was it indifference that killed (or slowed, at least) the Linux effort? If it was indifference that might be a good sign, actually. Namely, if they don't care and we do, we might still make something happen. Does anyone have a feeling for this one?
The main issue here is momentum. If their established momentum is to install Windows, it is VERY hard to convince anyone to change stride in the middle of the program. Especially if Microsoft is dangling a few carrots such as jobs and training in front of some of the political leaders.
More power to these guys, but they have a tough road to fight.
Of course, if it's all the same too the administration one thing they could use is the QVWM/Abiword/Gnumeric/Mozilla combination and with proper themes most end users probably would be able to adjust fairly quickly, if they even notice at all. After all, what do most kids use computers in schools for, besides web browsing, word processing, email and the odd spreadsheet?
After the next major virus outbreak the government could be taking a look around, see the Open source systems standing and the Windows machines dead, and make some intelligent decisions about their future. It is still early enough for that.
Re:Yeah, but they use proprietary protocols...
on
Pizza Without Wires
·
· Score: 1
Great, now I'm hungry for a pizza.
Thanks so much...;-)
"Having the ability to zoom in and out on a high resolution monitor isn't enough. Neither is having a huge picture. They want both of these attributes in the same device. It makes it easier for a group to crowd around or for someone to do presentations with. They keep the detail and have it the size of a wall."
I agree that's very nice, but the price of this thing is enormously high for such a relatively small convenience. In a cost/benefit analysis I'd be very surprised if that would fly.
"Also (and I'm serious here) having big expensive toys that people look at and think "WOW THAT'S SO COOL" draws attention, which draws clients, which generates funds. Hey, they got posted on Slashdot, and now a million geeks know about their work. If even a fraction of them put any interest into the company, it will fund the "Highest Resolution Wall" project and pick up a few more participants. "
That's the only reason I can think might actually explain it, and the idea of that actually flying with a budget group is mind bending, to say the least. Maybe though.
This is an honest question, not a troll. I have been trying to think of what types of data display you could do on this type of screen that you couldn't do with more conventional technology. If it is sheer size you want projection technology can do that, and if you want fine grained imaging you can use high resolution computer monitors and zoom in and out. How does this really large, finely detailed display benefit the research? Again this is an honest question. The cost of this thing cannot be trivial. What do you see here that you can't see anywhere else?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology for it's own sweet sake. But I'm curious how this is cost justified. Those reasons/rationalizations could prove very useful. (I doubt anyone I am likely to work for would consider Quake sufficient motivation, now that the golden days of the dot coms are over. Maybe these guys are just the coolest folks on the planet:-) So, anybody have any ideas?
"I don't want to flame you here (you did say you are not a security expert), but usually worms are not just simple scripts (nor even non-word viruses); on unix-systems they may (and have) been scripts to be more portable, but there isn't anything simple in them either.
As to email being required... for decades (since first worms were created, early 80s?) worms have been able to use other network connections than email. That's the case with CR; variety is good for viruses and worms. Spreading using attachments is easy (some might say lame...) way to spread, but bit too obvious. Easy to implement, though, which is why it has been a popular approach. "
Thanks for not flaming me, it's appreciated. I expressed myself badly - I didn't mean they were simple to code. What I ment was that once people see things like ILOVEYOU or Melissa in action, it's fairly simple to devise countermeasures and alert people what to watch for. What I'm afraid of is something that isn't so easy to watch for or warn people to be on the lookout for. Despite the obviousness of the attachment viri and the repeated warnings, a lot of damage was done. My school had to shut down email for a while during a couple of the outbreaks. Something more subtle yet just as universal would be scary.
"I guess I just disagree with doomsday prophecies like this. Even though I don't want to appear like a MS-bashing zealot, I must say that Microsoft is now paying for putting security related issues on rather low priority for years. There's a lot that have been done by other companies and organizations (Java-security model by Sun, xBSD code inspections to build reasonably secure server OSes, etc. etc); Microsoft just didn't think potential risks were big enough. They have been proven wrong... and hopefully have started paying more attention."
I didn't really mean to sound like a doomsday prophet - I don't actually think what I described will come to pass. What I am saying is that there appears to be no fundamental reason it can't happen, if some nut takes the time and effort. That means we have to think more carefully about how we impliment the next generations of network and computer technology. We don't even want a remote chance for something like this to exist. Sort of like nuclear bombs - I don't think anyone would actually launch one, but you still want to make sure you can respond if they do.
As for Microsoft, I'm quite sure they are going to pay more attention, but at this point I'm not sure what they are going to do about it. There are already so many computers out there that have to be fixed and maintained, fixing their new stuff won't do a whole lot for quite a while. People use what works, and whatever it's faults Windows 95/98/Me does work for a lot of people. So they will be reluctant to fix bugs, because there is always the chance that it will break something. Also, Microsoft only keeps selling new version of their OS by adding more features. That is often at odds with security, but they need to make money. It's a problem.
The reason the media hasn't picked up on this is because the public just isn't interested.
Remember, hacker = bad in the public mind. Who defines who the hackers are? People with money.
Watergate was a popular cause, where the public interest was immediately and obviously involved. Corruption in the white house? Not only is it important, it's good for a zillion headlines.
It is not at all clear that the public at large would object to this arrest. Many will feel that this software has no business being written. Many will support the idea that electronic works should be protected in this fashion.
We see the dangers. But this is the public that eats, sleeps, and breaths mass media culture. They like marching to the beat of the loudest drum. Money allows corporations to beat loud drums.
The media could make an issue out of this, but mass media has the same problem the people at large do. Since their work is often in electronic form, they may see their bottom line threatened as well. That's not going to inspire them. They'll take risks, but it has to be something bigger than a hacker breaking encryption on ebooks. ebooks themselves aren't very big. For them this is just a non-story.
We care because we want to know when the encryption on something is weak. That's a technical concern the general public doesn't have. Corporations don't want to take the effort to be secure, and neither do most other people. It is much easier to attack anything that looks like a threat. That is what this looks like.
So don't expect help from mass media. They might play up the family man angle, but his general appeal is zero. As is ours, where matters like this are concerned. We insist on the real solution, which is too expensive and too much work, so we will be ignored.
I'm not saying we should go gentle into that good night, but we need to be realistic here. Convince the people who make the laws. Find compromises which meet everyones needs. Because nothing else will work. We aren't going to win a total victory. We don't have the public with us, and never will.
While I'd agree that he may be overly paranoid, I do share the opinion that the internet is extremely vulnerable right now, although not necessarily for the reasons he states.
I am not a professional security expert, but I do know my fellow computer users. They will take convenience over security every time until something Really Bad happens to their system. Then they will pay money to solve the problem, be alert for several months, and gradually relax as the problem doesn't reappear. Their knowledge of security may extend as far as knowing to update Norton Antivirus every once in a while.
We are fortunate that most virus writers are not the most skilled programmers in the world. Or, perhaps more likely, they have restrained themselves in order to avoid completely destroying their playground.
Think about this for a minute. It is easy to conceive of ways in which much more damage could be done to the internet than has already been done. If I recall correctly, the ILOVEYOU virus deleted jpgs from hard drives. The worst results I am aware of from this is a commerical image database being wiped out. Now, imagine what would have happened if dlls had been attacked as well. Unbootable computers, applications and system software destroyed beyond repair short of total reinstall, etc. Most Windows machines out there have no file permissions system set up. NT does, but how many DOS based systems are still out there, and still hold critical work?
The problem with security is not that we don't know what to do. The problem is that so many of us don't do anything. That is what alarms Gibson, and in that he is correct. There are so many machines not being properly managed that damage is inevitable. And all of us are impacted by this in one way or another, unless everyone you deal with has good security. If that is true, you are lucky. For me, it is not.
Up until now, we have delt mainly with simple scripts whose workings are obvious. However, here is some food for thought. Microsoft's servers are not invulnerable. Like any complex system, there are undoubtedly subtle and potentially dangerous bugs in the Windows code which will be obvious to anyone who can steal the source from the servers. If someone with or even without this code writes a truly powerful virus which attacks hundreds of subtle vulnerabilities simultaniously, knows how to hide the code in the depths of Windows, and destroys any system it can after reproducing itself, we are in deep S**t. Right now, most virus attacks involve the active cooperation of the email system - minimally some end user opening an attachment. So the measure of how widespread a virus becomes is often based on how many suckers read it. This is not, as it turns out, a big problem for the virus - it is easy to come up with email titles people will want to open. But if you remember the worm of 88, it didn't require the end users cooperation at all. What happens when all that is needed for a machine to die is for it to connect to the network unpatched? Imagine the chaos of half a million machines with all their work, programs, and system software gone. Gibson may have a right to be paranoid.
Of course you don't want anyone hurt or any serious damage done, but these things are great for science. They contain a lot of information about the early solar system that got chewed up on Earth a long time ago. Life on Mars nonwithstanding there are a lot of worthwhile questions which can be answered by meteors, such as what conditions were like when the planets were forming. (That's also one of the things moon rocks are good for...)
Plus, on a social note, now we don't get another round of asteroid movies. So much for seeing Jim Carrey climbing around on a metor and screaming as he gets stuck and rides it into Cleveland...
This idea is becoming a necessity which will not be abandoned. Journals themselves make this completely unavoidable. The physics community (probably because of their technical background) has long used postscript documents as a way of distributing and obtaining papers. Libraries, who are often the ones who are forced to handle the real costs, have fought this by using interlibrary loans and other sharing techniques.
The ONLY way for this to work is for established, respected scientists to publish major works in this fashion. Us young squrits, well understanding the issues at hand, have no impact on the way the scientific community operates. In a field where publications are your reputation, where you publish matters. This must gain the air of respectability. That will take time.
That time will be taken, however, because of the abuse journals have made of their reputations. I have faith in that. How long will be a question, but if some big name schools put their weight behind this it will help. I await developments with excitement.
Frankly, I think this is a waste of time. It doesn't address any fundamental problems. As has been pointed out time and again, standards are different everywhere. What's OK in Europe probably wouldn't make it in America. Who would enforce this?
More to the point, the whole idea of a "safe internet" basically sounds to me like parents who don't want to take the trouble to educate their kid what stuff to avoid and how to handle what they may inadvertantly run into. Too young? Then what are they doing on a computer? I have issues with young kids on computers at all (same with TV) but that's another post. If you are going to let your kid on the internet, make it a family activity. Get involved. Don't use the computer as a substitute for meaningful time with your kids. That's just begging for trouble, and.kids sounds like it would encourage it. I'd vote against it. And parents, PLEASE - don't take the path of least resistance raising a child. It will be the worst decision you will ever make.
"1) Sell a feature-added proprietary version of the software. Aladdin and Trolltech do this and are quite successful."
I must admit I very much admire their business approaches. If I recall correctly, Aladdin has a current release and an older GPL release, and as new verisons come out older ones are GPLed. Trolltech has several possible licenses, and they insist on money only when there is commerical software being developed. There are many advantages to these, both for the company and the consumer:
The consumer can be confident in the quality of the code, since it is open to examination and review. In the case of Trolltech, the current release is being studied all the time, and in Aladdin's case their current version will eventually be opened. In both cases this means that the code quality must be maintained.
The companies get continuous feedback from outside developers. Also, they get mindshare. Who can think of a better advertisement for QT than the KDE desktop and applications? A further advantage is that it discourages the creation of alternative open source products which might wipe out your product line. Rolling changes made to the GPL version back into the commerical one is a problem, but if the company simply uses the idea and codes it their own way, or talks to the developer and gets their permission to add it to all versions (reasonable for most people, since the code will stay GPL and will also help support further overall development of the product) it can work beautifully.
This may ultimately be the most viable way for companies to work with open source. It has been very successful with Trolltech and Aladdin, so hopefully that will attract more attention to this model.
"2) Sell proprietary addons to the software. The Kompany is doing this."
Also viable. For certain kinds of commerical applications such as end user deskop applications, this is almost certainly the way to go. I believe once the company has a fair number of businesses who are willing to pay for the latest and greatest option one is better, but otherwise this is a smart move.
"Conspicuously absent from this list are service/support, consulting, and reselling. I haven't seen any profitability for service/support yet. It might be possible, but I just haven't seen it. "
The problem with this is that in order for it to work you must have a large installed user base which is not capable of supporting itself. In other words, someone other than geeks and open source developers. If Microsoft wanted to, they could probably convert entirely to income from service contracts and live happly ever after, provided they improve the quality of their service.
"Besides which, it's a lousy incentive for quality."
True to a point, but if you're open source you have to toe the line or you will have someone forking to make a better version. Also, if you mess it up too much you might lose your users altogether. I don't think companies have to worry about not getting enough support requests once ordinary end users start using their software. Remember there are people out there who are scared of anything new. Just training them would be a goldmine, provided you do your job well.
"Consulting can be very profitable, and in fact, is where Cygnus made a heck of a lot of money. But consulting isn't generating revenue from the software. It's generating revenue from the consulting! The software merely acts as a glorified resume."
That's one way to look at it.
"I wish there was a way to make money directly off of Open Source without resorting to proprietary versions, extensions or addons. But I just don't see it yet. Bonds and other investments don't count, because they are not revenue. Likewise, I don't count donations to the "cause".
While this is a good gesture to make, I fear it will do little to resolve the fundamental issue at hand.
The cold fact is this - the US lawmakers could not care less about what the non-corporate computer world thinks of their laws. Our opinions don't matter to them.
Consider! There are at last count a few hundred MILLION americans. Most of them can vote, a major percentage of them DO vote. There are also thousands of issues waiting to be addressed, most of which are more emotionally relevant to people than computers. Most people in the world use computers only to get specific jobs done - they have no need to appreciate the whole picture. Consider how small the percentage of voters who are worried about this are relative to the rest of the population. Probably about the same number who stand to profit from the DMCA. The net result, when you throw money into the mix, is that we are irrelevant.
So our vote doesn't scare them. What about what Cox tried, encouraging people to move their operations elsewhere. From the government's point of view, that's probably just what they are looking for! They have Microsoft in the US, and lawsuits or no it isn't going anywhere. And Microsoft controls probably between fifty and seventy percent of all computing, depending on how you count. On desktops considerably more than that. The Microserfs both within and out of the company aren't going anywhere, and neither is their economic clout or control of personal computing. So what do they care if they lose a few independant thinkers? From their standpoint it makes security through obscurity easier. The fact that this isn't secure at all apparently doesn't mean much to them.
Consider how much damage things like the Love virus do, and yet no action is taken to fix the fundamental problem (Microsoft's security). If that didn't teach them that unknown security problems are a danger, nothing will. They (and the companies) just want the visible problems gone. They are both monopolies - they don't have to care about a small buch of techno-geeks. We are bad. We wave problems in the face of everyone and teach people how to destroy the system! We should be stopped!
All the people who wrote the DMCA are interested in is money and public image. They've got the crap beat out of us on both. We insist that people THINK about the problem and find real solutions. The people are lazy. Most think a login prompt is a major hassle. They don't want to have to think about whether they are really secure. They just want to get buy. Anyone shooting their mouth off about problems makes that impossible, and people have to work more. Ohh, we can't have that.
That battle, at least in the US, is hopeless. It's money and votes people are interested in, and we don't have either. Therefore, our opinions don't matter to the powers that be.
The once chance that things will improve might be if all the best computer people go somewhere else to work because of the stupid US legislation. Enough dumb rules, and it might just happen.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because car safety has emotional and financial strings attached. You don't see people getting truly upset about computers unless it is either costing them money in a way they can understand easily, or kids are getting into trouble. The issue of poor software design isn't one people can readily understand, just as a physical intruder is easier to understand than an electronic one.
Law or no law, I think you'd have a hard time finding a jury who wouldn't sympathise with the home owner, especially if they have small children. If someone willfully breaks into your home, they're asking for it. They have no right to be there.
I'd say a stranger in my house DOES pose a threat to my family. I don't know who this creep is, or what he intends. If my family is at stake you'd better believe I'm going to play safe. I might not shoot the instant I see him, but I'd sure take aim and if he tried to flinch without my permission he's history.
This might work business to business, where things need to stay current anyway in order to be efficient. But for individual users it will never work. They won't accept that. I know I sure as heck wouldn't. Won't sell it to me? Well, then I can look elsewhere or maybe even do it myself.
The do it yourself spirit is lacking right now in this country, because "time is money". If we cool off and take the attitude that "time spent working with my hands, learning something, and being with people I love is more important than money" things will change pretty darn quick. Stuff like this just might bring a resurgance in that attitude.
OK. The DeCSS cases aren't going well. Anyone surprised by that should stop for a minute and think. What did we expect?
We are aware of a legitimate use for this code: the playing of DVDs under Linux/BSD/etc. That is the reason this issue was originally raised. We all agree that it should be reasonable to expect to be able to play DVDs on whatever OS we choose.
However, just because WE hold that view doesn't mean other people do, and I'm not just talking about the MPAA. Another possible take on this is "Well, those guys choose to work outside the system. They have to accept the consequences of that decision."
Consider! The concept of open source is foreign to most, frightening to those who make their money off of IP. We defy all known economic laws and upset the system. The goals of good software for its own sake and community peer review, as well as creating a tool to do a job and giving it back to the community (think the stone soup senario) are not considered valid by them, and probably not even considered seriously. If they are considered they are probably rejected in favor of identifying us with the scum of the internet, crackers and pirates. Those groups they can understand, and the fact that we do stuff for free and the scum takes stuff for free are easy to get confused.
Many of us feel that code is free speech, and I have seen this idea in some of the transcripts of the various DeCSS court actions. That particular arguement, however valid some of us may find it, is sheer suicide legally. People know technology does amazing stuff; to most people this is sudomagical. The idea of it being speech doesn't make any more sense to most people than calling the blueprints for an F-16 speech. It's a hopeless arguement that will only distance the DeCSS defense from the courts.
Instead, (IANAL, yada yada) try arguing it with analogies they might understand. Point out that selling DVDs which can only be viewed with a CSS license is like selling a book that can only be read with a special set of glasses made by the book seller, where it is illegal to distribute any other brand of glasses without paying the publisher money. Argue that it should be fundamental to let people view a movie that has been properly paid for however they choose. Point out that copying a DVD is trivially possible in any number of ways which do not require DeCSS - the signal can merely be intercepted at the level of monitor input and digitally remastered from there. Point all this out, and then go on the offensive. Call hostile witnesses and ask them point blank under oath questions to show bias, such as "How does the MPAA feel about the act of viewing a legal copy of a DVD under a freely available DVD player?", "If your intent here was to safeguard your DVDs, why didn't you use a stronger encryption?" (That one should be good for about thirty more good quesitons as they try to explain it) "Did you intend this encryption to prevent viewing as well as copying by freely available players?", and finally "Did you deliberately set out to avoid having a legal, freely available DVD player for Linux?"
Start to make them look like the big corporate bully abusing power, rather than making us look further and further outside the mainstream. Don't wave geek principles in their face - they don't care and they don't share those principles. Make clear that the legit need exists, and put the MPAA in the position of deliberately trying to block the meeting of that need. Make them the villian. Because to the courts we look like the villian now.
If all else fails, we need to attack the same way we attack Microsoft - work completely independantly of them. If independant movies can be made using photo-quality computer rendering which rival the quality of professional ones, and done using open source tools, then we can teach Hollywood what Microsoft has been going through - show them what it means to have competition you can't starve out of business and can't kill. I know it's several generations away, and certainly in the case of open source it's a long ways off, but someday it just might happen. Get a few hundred independant creative movie artists, all working for the love of the job on a project, and we might even get an increase in the quality of movies. A dream for us, a nightmare for Hollywood. Right now only a dream. But ten years ago, so was Linux. All things are possible. If they keep throwing the courts at us, one day the may just push us too far. I am of the opinion that Microsoft helped get Linux started with poor products, and nasty business practices. Looks like the MPAA, and the RIAA for that matter, are doing the same thing. We know how to answer them, and when the technology levels and outrage levels reach the right pitch, they'll be wishing they had never said anything at all.
Isn't most of the bandwith on the internet is consumed by multimedia - images, music files, and the odd video? I have seldom encountered an html file larger than a meg, and even those are in my experience very rare.
;-) For the majority of single use internet concerns, however, I just don't see this doing a whole lot.
Yes, it would be nice to make the internet move faster with current technology, and I would support this for people on very slow connections. It might also be a boon for servers that get hit hard and often (though I doubt it would stop the Slashdot effect
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. More effective bandwith is a Good Thing.
"I would rather like to see some OSS company snap it up though I guess those don't have any $$$ left from the IPO craze."
That would be best, of course, but I think the IP issues are such that more than just Be would need to be purchased in order to go open source, even if they could find the cash.
As for WindowsXP, we'll see. That's not really a proven technology like BeOS is. Point taken about Dos, however.
Apple is able to get developers because they already have an assured paying customer base for OS X, one thing Be has never had to any significant degree. In 1984, Machintosh was IT for easy to use computers. They remained so for many years. That is when they developed their core user and developer base, an extremely loyal crowd. If Be had been around back then they would have succeeded on the PC platform. Possibly even defeated the Macs. Likewise, if Mac OS X had appeared yesterday on the market WITHOUT the already loyal crowd, they would have failed. People stick with what they know, unless they are compelled to move to something new by a truly revolutionary technology. That's what Mac was in 1984. Be is not that today. Be is, as far as the mass market (home and corporate desktop users) are concerned, doing what everyone else does, but doing it correctly. Not enough.
Open Source is a solution to this chicken-egg problem, because it attracts people for different reasons than just usability. Which is necessary in the early stages of the life of an OS, where usability compared to the competition is by definition limited.
As for Mac toppling Microsoft, the fact that they won't would have killed them except for the fact they had a loyal user base. Even with that user base Apple was dying until they brought Steve Jobs back.
Your last point, however, about OEM's, is absolutely correct and the point where we are in complete agreement. That control must be broken. That's what I'm hoping the government can do.
"I don't see what OS could have done for them, since they had a robust, fast, OS that they could not even GIVE away. All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away."
It could have ensured that the current situation, the exact one developers feared, would never happen. If you have access to the guts of the system, even if Be Inc. vanishes you can still carry on. People are a lot more willing to develop for a live platform than a dead one, and in the traditional sense open source platforms do not die. They may have very few users and developers, but those few are free to do what they wish. That's why Open Source attracts so many people. It was obvious that Be would not uproot Microsoft Windows, and until it did that it was not a safe platform to work on. Open Source platforms are safe by definition, since they aren't tied to the fate of any one company. Even if one project totally dies it's code can be fertile ground for another project - check out the dillo web browser for an example. This is what free software developers want, and what Be can never be.
Frankly, I myself wish that Microsoft would buy Be, scrap the Dos based crap they currently use, build a compatibility API to allow Be to run older apps, and use BeOS as the next generation of Windows. At least then we might not have such stability problems with Windows releases. I know people think Microsoft buying Be is silly, but frankly if done right the thought is actually very attractive.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but a though came to me that was worth voicing:
Make the school machines SECURE by default. That means use secure shell for everything you can, use only the services that are needed, enforce tough passwords, keep backups (even cheap hardware is just fine for that) and if you can use stuff like OpenBSD firewalls and the Linux Intrusion Detection System.
The last thing the schools want to have to do is keep repairing the system after some bright student trashes it. Lock it down, and do it right. Maintain security updates. (Debian Linux is a good distribution for this, as well as having a nice and minimal default install.)
Given the odds are most of the hardware Mexico will be able to obtain will be out of date, here are some good tools to make a command line based linux distribution a little less frightening, and more importantly useful. It's surprising how much of an unnecessary luxury GUIs are for many things. Anyone with more experience or ideas, tack 'em on.
Desktop Shell:
Midnight Commander - command line mode
http://www.gnome.org/projects/mc/
Flash - An altered version of this might prove extremely useful for schools in setting up a basic, intuitive interface:
http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/flash/
Typing:
Gtypist - includes a spanish mode
http://www.gnu.org/software/gtypist/
Editors:
nano - The standard easy text editor.
http://www.nano-editor.org/
emacs - Scary but powerful - for advanced students
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html
Typesetting:
teTex - fairly complete distribution of the TeX typesetting system; probably not necessary for most levels of education, but if formatted text is desirable this is definitely the none graphical way to make it.
http://www.tug.org/teTeX/
Development Environments:
Rhide - Borland like environment for use with gcc
http://home.lanet.lv/~pavenis/rhide.html
Mathematics:
I do not recommend the use of mathematical programs for educational purposes until there is no other reasonable way to solve the problem. However, a powerful and free computer algebra system does exist, and can be run from the command line, so if research projects or some such effort require it:
Maxima
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/maxima.html
Web Browser:
links - ncurses based browser. A nice piece of work. It will not do graphics, but will handle tables and frames.
http://links.sourceforge.net
Email:
mutt - mutt is very powerful. It can be configured to act similar to the pine email system in order to be slightly more friendly to new users.
http://www.mutt.org/
Well, since I've never been there I'll trust your apprasial of the situation (it fits with what I've heard before) but I can forsee some outcomes which might still allow a win for Open Source in Mexico:
With the world economy slowing down, there is a chance Mexico might be able to hire some Linux folks at lower prices, especially if they can find some who really care about this issue and are willing to price themselves competitively with the Windows folks in this case.
The next step is to have Microsoft audit all of Mexico's public institutions for license compilance. American corporations are getting that treatment - what makes you think Microsoft won't stoop to grabbing cash from Mexico? Then Mexico audits to find out where all the cash went and a few people who have been skimming the cream get it in the shorts...
The third is to get American corporations to donate their old hardware to causes like this. Linux can do fairly well on older hardware, and if they can be convinced that a bunch of educated Mexican computer nerds are just what they need to solve the eternal shortage of qualified computer people, they may just make a dent. (Plus if they can get a tax credit they like that too.)
A crutical factor is how much autonomy the schools have in something like this. If all schools must meet a national standard, and that standard is windows, we are So Outta Luck. (And so are they.)
I'm actually surprised that the politicians are interested in the details of the software to be installed at all. Are they actively in favor of Windows, or was it indifference that killed (or slowed, at least) the Linux effort? If it was indifference that might be a good sign, actually. Namely, if they don't care and we do, we might still make something happen. Does anyone have a feeling for this one?
The main issue here is momentum. If their established momentum is to install Windows, it is VERY hard to convince anyone to change stride in the middle of the program. Especially if Microsoft is dangling a few carrots such as jobs and training in front of some of the political leaders.
More power to these guys, but they have a tough road to fight.
Of course, if it's all the same too the administration one thing they could use is the QVWM/Abiword/Gnumeric/Mozilla combination and with proper themes most end users probably would be able to adjust fairly quickly, if they even notice at all. After all, what do most kids use computers in schools for, besides web browsing, word processing, email and the odd spreadsheet?
After the next major virus outbreak the government could be taking a look around, see the Open source systems standing and the Windows machines dead, and make some intelligent decisions about their future. It is still early enough for that.
Great, now I'm hungry for a pizza. Thanks so much... ;-)
"Having the ability to zoom in and out on a high resolution monitor isn't enough. Neither is having a huge picture. They want both of these attributes in the same device. It makes it easier for a group to crowd around or for someone to do presentations with. They keep the detail and have it the size of a wall."
I agree that's very nice, but the price of this thing is enormously high for such a relatively small convenience. In a cost/benefit analysis I'd be very surprised if that would fly.
"Also (and I'm serious here) having big expensive toys that people look at and think "WOW THAT'S SO COOL" draws attention, which draws clients, which generates funds. Hey, they got posted on Slashdot, and now a million geeks know about their work. If even a fraction of them put any interest into the company, it will fund the "Highest Resolution Wall" project and pick up a few more participants. "
That's the only reason I can think might actually explain it, and the idea of that actually flying with a budget group is mind bending, to say the least. Maybe though.
This is an honest question, not a troll. I have been trying to think of what types of data display you could do on this type of screen that you couldn't do with more conventional technology. If it is sheer size you want projection technology can do that, and if you want fine grained imaging you can use high resolution computer monitors and zoom in and out. How does this really large, finely detailed display benefit the research? Again this is an honest question. The cost of this thing cannot be trivial. What do you see here that you can't see anywhere else?
:-) So, anybody have any ideas?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology for it's own sweet sake. But I'm curious how this is cost justified. Those reasons/rationalizations could prove very useful. (I doubt anyone I am likely to work for would consider Quake sufficient motivation, now that the golden days of the dot coms are over. Maybe these guys are just the coolest folks on the planet
Bingo.
"I don't want to flame you here (you did say you are not a security expert), but usually worms are not just simple scripts (nor even non-word viruses); on unix-systems they may (and have) been scripts to be more portable, but there isn't anything simple in them either. As to email being required... for decades (since first worms were created, early 80s?) worms have been able to use other network connections than email. That's the case with CR; variety is good for viruses and worms. Spreading using attachments is easy (some might say lame...) way to spread, but bit too obvious. Easy to implement, though, which is why it has been a popular approach. " Thanks for not flaming me, it's appreciated. I expressed myself badly - I didn't mean they were simple to code. What I ment was that once people see things like ILOVEYOU or Melissa in action, it's fairly simple to devise countermeasures and alert people what to watch for. What I'm afraid of is something that isn't so easy to watch for or warn people to be on the lookout for. Despite the obviousness of the attachment viri and the repeated warnings, a lot of damage was done. My school had to shut down email for a while during a couple of the outbreaks. Something more subtle yet just as universal would be scary. "I guess I just disagree with doomsday prophecies like this. Even though I don't want to appear like a MS-bashing zealot, I must say that Microsoft is now paying for putting security related issues on rather low priority for years. There's a lot that have been done by other companies and organizations (Java-security model by Sun, xBSD code inspections to build reasonably secure server OSes, etc. etc); Microsoft just didn't think potential risks were big enough. They have been proven wrong... and hopefully have started paying more attention." I didn't really mean to sound like a doomsday prophet - I don't actually think what I described will come to pass. What I am saying is that there appears to be no fundamental reason it can't happen, if some nut takes the time and effort. That means we have to think more carefully about how we impliment the next generations of network and computer technology. We don't even want a remote chance for something like this to exist. Sort of like nuclear bombs - I don't think anyone would actually launch one, but you still want to make sure you can respond if they do. As for Microsoft, I'm quite sure they are going to pay more attention, but at this point I'm not sure what they are going to do about it. There are already so many computers out there that have to be fixed and maintained, fixing their new stuff won't do a whole lot for quite a while. People use what works, and whatever it's faults Windows 95/98/Me does work for a lot of people. So they will be reluctant to fix bugs, because there is always the chance that it will break something. Also, Microsoft only keeps selling new version of their OS by adding more features. That is often at odds with security, but they need to make money. It's a problem.
The reason the media hasn't picked up on this is because the public just isn't interested.
Remember, hacker = bad in the public mind. Who defines who the hackers are? People with money.
Watergate was a popular cause, where the public interest was immediately and obviously involved. Corruption in the white house? Not only is it important, it's good for a zillion headlines.
It is not at all clear that the public at large would object to this arrest. Many will feel that this software has no business being written. Many will support the idea that electronic works should be protected in this fashion.
We see the dangers. But this is the public that eats, sleeps, and breaths mass media culture. They like marching to the beat of the loudest drum. Money allows corporations to beat loud drums.
The media could make an issue out of this, but mass media has the same problem the people at large do. Since their work is often in electronic form, they may see their bottom line threatened as well. That's not going to inspire them. They'll take risks, but it has to be something bigger than a hacker breaking encryption on ebooks. ebooks themselves aren't very big. For them this is just a non-story.
We care because we want to know when the encryption on something is weak. That's a technical concern the general public doesn't have. Corporations don't want to take the effort to be secure, and neither do most other people. It is much easier to attack anything that looks like a threat. That is what this looks like.
So don't expect help from mass media. They might play up the family man angle, but his general appeal is zero. As is ours, where matters like this are concerned. We insist on the real solution, which is too expensive and too much work, so we will be ignored.
I'm not saying we should go gentle into that good night, but we need to be realistic here. Convince the people who make the laws. Find compromises which meet everyones needs. Because nothing else will work. We aren't going to win a total victory. We don't have the public with us, and never will.
While I'd agree that he may be overly paranoid, I do share the opinion that the internet is extremely vulnerable right now, although not necessarily for the reasons he states.
I am not a professional security expert, but I do know my fellow computer users. They will take convenience over security every time until something Really Bad happens to their system. Then they will pay money to solve the problem, be alert for several months, and gradually relax as the problem doesn't reappear. Their knowledge of security may extend as far as knowing to update Norton Antivirus every once in a while.
We are fortunate that most virus writers are not the most skilled programmers in the world. Or, perhaps more likely, they have restrained themselves in order to avoid completely destroying their playground.
Think about this for a minute. It is easy to conceive of ways in which much more damage could be done to the internet than has already been done. If I recall correctly, the ILOVEYOU virus deleted jpgs from hard drives. The worst results I am aware of from this is a commerical image database being wiped out. Now, imagine what would have happened if dlls had been attacked as well. Unbootable computers, applications and system software destroyed beyond repair short of total reinstall, etc. Most Windows machines out there have no file permissions system set up. NT does, but how many DOS based systems are still out there, and still hold critical work?
The problem with security is not that we don't know what to do. The problem is that so many of us don't do anything. That is what alarms Gibson, and in that he is correct. There are so many machines not being properly managed that damage is inevitable. And all of us are impacted by this in one way or another, unless everyone you deal with has good security. If that is true, you are lucky. For me, it is not.
Up until now, we have delt mainly with simple scripts whose workings are obvious. However, here is some food for thought. Microsoft's servers are not invulnerable. Like any complex system, there are undoubtedly subtle and potentially dangerous bugs in the Windows code which will be obvious to anyone who can steal the source from the servers. If someone with or even without this code writes a truly powerful virus which attacks hundreds of subtle vulnerabilities simultaniously, knows how to hide the code in the depths of Windows, and destroys any system it can after reproducing itself, we are in deep S**t. Right now, most virus attacks involve the active cooperation of the email system - minimally some end user opening an attachment. So the measure of how widespread a virus becomes is often based on how many suckers read it. This is not, as it turns out, a big problem for the virus - it is easy to come up with email titles people will want to open. But if you remember the worm of 88, it didn't require the end users cooperation at all. What happens when all that is needed for a machine to die is for it to connect to the network unpatched? Imagine the chaos of half a million machines with all their work, programs, and system software gone. Gibson may have a right to be paranoid.
Of course you don't want anyone hurt or any serious damage done, but these things are great for science. They contain a lot of information about the early solar system that got chewed up on Earth a long time ago. Life on Mars nonwithstanding there are a lot of worthwhile questions which can be answered by meteors, such as what conditions were like when the planets were forming. (That's also one of the things moon rocks are good for...)
Plus, on a social note, now we don't get another round of asteroid movies. So much for seeing Jim Carrey climbing around on a metor and screaming as he gets stuck and rides it into Cleveland...
This idea is becoming a necessity which will not be abandoned. Journals themselves make this completely unavoidable. The physics community (probably because of their technical background) has long used postscript documents as a way of distributing and obtaining papers. Libraries, who are often the ones who are forced to handle the real costs, have fought this by using interlibrary loans and other sharing techniques.
The ONLY way for this to work is for established, respected scientists to publish major works in this fashion. Us young squrits, well understanding the issues at hand, have no impact on the way the scientific community operates. In a field where publications are your reputation, where you publish matters. This must gain the air of respectability. That will take time.
That time will be taken, however, because of the abuse journals have made of their reputations. I have faith in that. How long will be a question, but if some big name schools put their weight behind this it will help. I await developments with excitement.
Frankly, I think this is a waste of time. It doesn't address any fundamental problems. As has been pointed out time and again, standards are different everywhere. What's OK in Europe probably wouldn't make it in America. Who would enforce this?
.kids sounds like it would encourage it. I'd vote against it. And parents, PLEASE - don't take the path of least resistance raising a child. It will be the worst decision you will ever make.
More to the point, the whole idea of a "safe internet" basically sounds to me like parents who don't want to take the trouble to educate their kid what stuff to avoid and how to handle what they may inadvertantly run into. Too young? Then what are they doing on a computer? I have issues with young kids on computers at all (same with TV) but that's another post. If you are going to let your kid on the internet, make it a family activity. Get involved. Don't use the computer as a substitute for meaningful time with your kids. That's just begging for trouble, and
"1) Sell a feature-added proprietary version of the software. Aladdin and Trolltech do this and are quite successful."
I must admit I very much admire their business approaches. If I recall correctly, Aladdin has a current release and an older GPL release, and as new verisons come out older ones are GPLed. Trolltech has several possible licenses, and they insist on money only when there is commerical software being developed. There are many advantages to these, both for the company and the consumer:
The consumer can be confident in the quality of the code, since it is open to examination and review. In the case of Trolltech, the current release is being studied all the time, and in Aladdin's case their current version will eventually be opened. In both cases this means that the code quality must be maintained.
The companies get continuous feedback from outside developers. Also, they get mindshare. Who can think of a better advertisement for QT than the KDE desktop and applications? A further advantage is that it discourages the creation of alternative open source products which might wipe out your product line. Rolling changes made to the GPL version back into the commerical one is a problem, but if the company simply uses the idea and codes it their own way, or talks to the developer and gets their permission to add it to all versions (reasonable for most people, since the code will stay GPL and will also help support further overall development of the product) it can work beautifully.
This may ultimately be the most viable way for companies to work with open source. It has been very successful with Trolltech and Aladdin, so hopefully that will attract more attention to this model.
"2) Sell proprietary addons to the software. The Kompany is doing this."
Also viable. For certain kinds of commerical applications such as end user deskop applications, this is almost certainly the way to go. I believe once the company has a fair number of businesses who are willing to pay for the latest and greatest option one is better, but otherwise this is a smart move.
"Conspicuously absent from this list are service/support, consulting, and reselling. I haven't seen any profitability for service/support yet. It might be possible, but I just haven't seen it. "
The problem with this is that in order for it to work you must have a large installed user base which is not capable of supporting itself. In other words, someone other than geeks and open source developers. If Microsoft wanted to, they could probably convert entirely to income from service contracts and live happly ever after, provided they improve the quality of their service.
"Besides which, it's a lousy incentive for quality."
True to a point, but if you're open source you have to toe the line or you will have someone forking to make a better version. Also, if you mess it up too much you might lose your users altogether. I don't think companies have to worry about not getting enough support requests once ordinary end users start using their software. Remember there are people out there who are scared of anything new. Just training them would be a goldmine, provided you do your job well.
"Consulting can be very profitable, and in fact, is where Cygnus made a heck of a lot of money. But consulting isn't generating revenue from the software. It's generating revenue from the consulting! The software merely acts as a glorified resume."
That's one way to look at it.
"I wish there was a way to make money directly off of Open Source without resorting to proprietary versions, extensions or addons. But I just don't see it yet. Bonds and other investments don't count, because they are not revenue. Likewise, I don't count donations to the "cause".
While this is a good gesture to make, I fear it will do little to resolve the fundamental issue at hand.
The cold fact is this - the US lawmakers could not care less about what the non-corporate computer world thinks of their laws. Our opinions don't matter to them.
Consider! There are at last count a few hundred MILLION americans. Most of them can vote, a major percentage of them DO vote. There are also thousands of issues waiting to be addressed, most of which are more emotionally relevant to people than computers. Most people in the world use computers only to get specific jobs done - they have no need to appreciate the whole picture. Consider how small the percentage of voters who are worried about this are relative to the rest of the population. Probably about the same number who stand to profit from the DMCA. The net result, when you throw money into the mix, is that we are irrelevant.
So our vote doesn't scare them. What about what Cox tried, encouraging people to move their operations elsewhere. From the government's point of view, that's probably just what they are looking for! They have Microsoft in the US, and lawsuits or no it isn't going anywhere. And Microsoft controls probably between fifty and seventy percent of all computing, depending on how you count. On desktops considerably more than that. The Microserfs both within and out of the company aren't going anywhere, and neither is their economic clout or control of personal computing. So what do they care if they lose a few independant thinkers? From their standpoint it makes security through obscurity easier. The fact that this isn't secure at all apparently doesn't mean much to them.
Consider how much damage things like the Love virus do, and yet no action is taken to fix the fundamental problem (Microsoft's security). If that didn't teach them that unknown security problems are a danger, nothing will. They (and the companies) just want the visible problems gone. They are both monopolies - they don't have to care about a small buch of techno-geeks. We are bad. We wave problems in the face of everyone and teach people how to destroy the system! We should be stopped!
All the people who wrote the DMCA are interested in is money and public image. They've got the crap beat out of us on both. We insist that people THINK about the problem and find real solutions. The people are lazy. Most think a login prompt is a major hassle. They don't want to have to think about whether they are really secure. They just want to get buy. Anyone shooting their mouth off about problems makes that impossible, and people have to work more. Ohh, we can't have that.
That battle, at least in the US, is hopeless. It's money and votes people are interested in, and we don't have either. Therefore, our opinions don't matter to the powers that be.
The once chance that things will improve might be if all the best computer people go somewhere else to work because of the stupid US legislation. Enough dumb rules, and it might just happen.