Open standards have been shown over and over to be essential in preventing abuse of power by companies with large market shares. This is why Microsoft has been trying to corrupt standards everywhere with "extentions" which they control - they know perfectly well that control of this type of standard can make or break control of a market. If AOL really does open up their standards for this communication protocal, and doesn't try the game of "extending" them, it will be a great benefit for consumers. AOL will not be able to play the lockout game, allowing choice. And choice, as has been said before, is the lifeblood of consumer welfare.
X and Berlin are the core graphical interface programs which allow graphics to be drawn on the screen, although that isn't even a sketch of the multitude of capabilities they offer. See their documentation for a detailed description.
Things like icewm, windowmaker, twm, enlightenment, qvwm, etc. are window managers, which provide basic functionality such as windows for applications, logout prompts, menus, etc. and run on top of something like X. (Right now, most run ONLY on top of X, but that may change.)
KDE and GNOME are desktop environments, not window managers. This means that they provide advanced hints for applications which allow for a common look and feel, and advanced interface features like the GNOME panels and menus and providing common functionality to programs that request it. KDE contains its own window manager, but GNOME requires a window manager in addition to itself to function properly.
Basically, X is the only viable alternative at the low level right now. In the case of window managers there are an enormous number of choices. Right now KDE and GNOME are the two major desktop environments.
Compatibility is largely a question of having the necessary libraries for KDE and GNOME applications. You can run KDE apps under GNOME, and vice versa, if your libraries are in place. At the window manager level there shouldn't be a problem - the applications are normally seperate from the window manager and work within its framework.
Hope that is of some help. Look around the internet for more complete listings - some good initial places to start are freshmeat.net and linuxberg.com
From what I have seen, KOffice is probably going to be the one to watch, at least for the immediate future. Lyx is my tool of choice for physics assignments, because they are about 95% math, but I like the frame capabilities that Kword is developing for DTP purposes. (With or without frames, inserting images in MS Word drives me crazy. I try to move it a little bit down the page and ZIP, gone to the middle of the next one. Grrr.) And the real question - what do I want to pay ($$) for my software? Being a broke college student, "free" has a nice sound. I'll live with a learning curve or limited features. Plus, once I've climbed those learning curves, I have skills I can use in the real world. (Whatever that is.) I've already done work installing dual boot Linux/Windows machines for my physics department. (We left Windows on because the machines are for student labs.) Learning curves are things to be climbed, not feared. That bugs me - people who are so clueless about different computers that they will sit down at a Macintosh after years of Windows and not know how to proceed. Time for the schools to begin to teach, not just computer usage, but FLEXIBLE computer usage. It will make a difference.
Concessions from who? Linux isn't controlled by any one individual or company. Who would Microsoft make a deal with? The key components are almost all GPL anyway, so if anyone were dumb enough to do something like that a new project would spring up and take the GPL code and develop it in a different (probably better) direction. Let Microsoft try it. I'm in the mood for a good laugh. They'll never stop open source and never control it. It was designed that way.
This will "scratch the itch" of consumer demand just enough to keep Corel or others from developing real Office competitors, but never really bring a the same level of functionality to Linux that the competing Microsoft OS would offer."
It might be enough, however, to enable a gradual shift of employees and files to Linux. As things stand now, a business would either have to switch cold turkey or install dual boot machines. For most end users this is far from ideal. Lesser features would result in grumbling and complaining, but if a switch could be made eventually over to FREE software, it would work. Plus the avoidance of Windows licensing costs and upgrade cycles is a nontrivial benefit. Personally, while I think that Office for Linux would speed the adoption of Linux in certain business environments, I would much rather KOffice and Abiword and Gnumeric continue to develop into powerful appliations. If Microsoft continues on its current path, its licensing costs and crazy terms should begin driving companies away at just about the time the free alternatives reach really usable stages. Abiword has a ways to go, Gnumeric is apparently further along but there is still work to do, and KOffice, while even now very interesting and capable of more than any other Open Source office project, has probably at least another year or more of heavy development before it reaches its prime. I eagerly await the first fully stable releases of KOffice, and while I suspect Abiword will be less capable than KWord, it seems reasonably lightweight and has a clean feel to it which is missing from many other word processors. These tools, once they reach 1.0 stages, will be extremely viable alternatives for word processing and other office tasks. For myself, I doubt I would ever buy Office for Linux, unless a family member insisted on it and I couldn't convince them to try the new tools. I can do most of what I want to do with free tools even now (StarOffice and Lyx) and the development of these exciting new possibilities is enough to convince me it is worth the wait.
I think a lot of us have been wondering what the judge is thinking when he considers CSS to be effective. I'm still not totally sure, but I post for consideration, from the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997 itself, their
DEFINITION OF EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURE- As used in this section, the term `effective technological measure' means information included with or an attribute applied to a transmission or a copy of a work in a digital format, or a portion thereof, so as to protect the rights of a copyright owner of such work or portion thereof under chapter one of this title and which--
`(1) encrypts or scrambles the work or a portion thereof in the absence of access information supplied by the copyright owner; or
`(2) includes attributes regarding access to or recording of the work that cannot be removed without degrading the work or a portion thereof.
I must be out of it. I thought effective ment scrambling that would RESIST attempts to crack it!
Because if it is that popular, it will be that popular with open standards, open code, and zilch price. And if anyone wants to enter the market with another OS, great! How many of us have a spare copy of FreeBSD or OpenBSD lying around, or are even curious about trying the new BeOS 5 and Solaris 8 (both will be free for personal use) when they come out? A computer market which is predominantly linux is not a market which is CONTROLLED by linux. Windows controls much of the consumer computer industry today, so much so that you see things like winmodems (ugh!) and other hardware built for Windows and which will run only under Windows. They also are perfectly willing to squash competition, screw up their licensing systems, charge absurd fees, etc, etc... Linux encourages competition, because 1) things would be really boring otherwise and 2) that's how you make better software. We thank VAlinux (http://www.valinux.com) for giving us preinstalled linux workstations (who doesn't want to be lazy sometimes) but I'm much happier with Penguin Computing out there (http://www.penguincomputing.com) to encourage one-upmanship between the two. A dominant operating system isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when all possibility of competition is gone. Many programs which are key end-user components of linux also run on versions of BSD, and BeOS borrows apps from linux as well. In this environment, which is ensured by open standards, Linux can never control the market. (Not to mention that not having a central distributor of Linux would make systematized control a little tough anyway.)
"Suppose they used an arbitrarily simple 'encryption' method, like putting an extra '1' in front of the binary to screw up the decoding process. If this was discovered, and someone put this info on the net, would they get arrested? I don't think so."
Unfortunately, that is exactly the issue at stake. Remember what the judge said:
"...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
Obviously the whole case hinges on the word "effectively" and what that word means in the legal world. By our definition of the word effective, CSS was not effective. Your "arbitrarily simple method" would not be effective. But if the court decides it SHOULD be effective, then apparently the law comes down hard on you. What if the player key was only to strip the extra 1 from the binary, but you couldn't legally do that without a license? That IS an extreme case, but how extreme remains to be seen. The vibes I've been getting from the legal proceedings and the laws being sited seem to indicate that the system is very much inclined to support the DVD industry. Maybe my instincts are wrong (please let them be wrong) but the quote from the judge above scares the crap out of me. If we are to fight a battle with the system itself, as well as the MPAA, then our only real hope is to get the Supreme Court to shoot some of this crap down. Or get Congress to take some effective action, although I consider Congress much less likely to do anything considering how much influence the industry has already shown they have by getting a lot of this crappy legislation through in the first place.
This, as far as I know, is the actual text for the UTICA. http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/ucitanc.htm Take a look - it's long, but those of us who ARE lawyers might be able to give us some valid opinions as to what we should expect. The Q&A they have on the NCCUSL site http://www.nccusl.org/pressrel/UCITAQA.HTM says warranty stuff now apples to ALL software.
Implied warranty of merchantability. An implied obligation that a computer program will be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used. UCITA makes this warranty applicable to all computer programs, thus expanding the scope to software currently governed by common law, which does not have this warranty. Section 403.
Does anyone know if the authors of this even know of the existance of free software? The warranty should only be enforcable if you actually PAY for the software. I paste that section (as well as all of Part 4) here for consideration.
PART 4
WARRANTIES
SECTION 401. WARRANTY AND OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NONINTERFERENCE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
(a) A licensor of information that is a merchant regularly dealing in information of the kind warrants that the information will be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or misappropriation, but a licensee that furnishes detailed specifications to the licensor and the method required for meeting the specifications holds the licensor harmless against any such claim that arises out of compliance with the specification or required method except for a claim that results from the failure of the licensor to adopt, or notify the licensee of, a noninfringing alternative of which the licensor had reason to know.
(b) A licensor warrants:
(1) for the duration of the license, that no person holds a rightful claim to, or interest in, the information which arose from an act or omission of the licensor, other than a claim by way of infringement or misappropriation, which will interfere with the licensee's enjoyment of its interest; and
(2) as to rights granted exclusively to the licensee, that within the scope of the license:
(A) to the knowledge of the licensor, any licensed patent rights are valid and exclusive to the extent exclusivity and validity are recognized by the law under which the patent rights were created; and
(B) in all other cases, the licensed informational rights are valid and exclusive for the information as a whole to the extent exclusivity and validity are recognized by the law applicable to the licensed rights in a jurisdiction to which the license applies.
(c) The warranties in this section are subject to the following rules:
(1) If the licensed informational rights are subject to a right of privileged use, collective administration, or compulsory licensing, the warranty is not made with respect to those rights.
(2) The obligations under subsections (a) and (b)(2) apply solely to informational rights arising under the laws of the United States or a State, unless the contract expressly provides that the warranty obligations extend to rights under the laws of other countries. Language is sufficient for this purpose if it states "The licensor warrants `exclusivity' `noninfringement' `in specified countries' `worldwide'", or words of similar import. In that case, the warranty extends to the specified country or, in the case of a reference to "worldwide" or the like, to all countries within the description, but only to the extent the rights are recognized under a treaty or international convention to which the country and the United States are signatories.
(3) The warranties under subsections (a) and (b)(2) are not made by a license that merely permits use, or convenants not to claim infringement because of the use, of rights under a licensed patent.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a warranty under this section may be disclaimed or modified only by specific language or by circumstances that give the licensee reason to know that the licensor does not warrant that competing claims do not exist or that the licensor purports to grant only the rights it may have. In an automated transaction, language is sufficient if it is conspicuous. Otherwise, language in a record is sufficient if it states "There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the information or against infringement", or words of similar import.
(e) Between merchants, a grant of a "quitclaim", or a grant in similar terms, grants the information or informational rights without an implied warranty as to infringement or misappropriation or as to the rights actually possessed or transferred by the licensor.
SECTION 402. EXPRESS WARRANTY.
(a) Subject to subsection (c), an express warranty by a licensor is created as follows:
(1) An affirmation of fact or promise made by the licensor to its licensee, including by advertising, which relates to the information and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the information to be furnished under the agreement will conform to the affirmation or promise.
(2) Any description of the information which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the information will conform to the description.
(3) Any sample, model, or demonstration of a final product which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the performance of the information will reasonably conform to the performance of the sample, model, or demonstration, taking into account differences that would appear to a reasonable person in the position of the licensee between the sample, model, or demonstration and the information as it will be used.
(b) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the licensor use formal words, such as "warranty" or "guaranty", or state a specific intention to make a warranty. However, an express warranty is not created by:
(1) an affirmation or prediction merely of the value of the information or informational rights;
(2) a display or description of a portion of the information to illustrate the aesthetics, appeal, suitability to taste, subjective quality, or the like of informational content; or
(3) a statement purporting to be merely the licensor's opinion or commendation of the information or informational rights.
(c) An express warranty or similar express contractual obligation, if any, exists with respect to published informational content covered by this [Act] to the same extent that it would exist if the published informational content had been published in a form that placed it outside this [Act]. However, if the warranty or similar express contractual obligation is breached, the remedies of the aggrieved party are those under this [Act] and the agreement.
SECTION 403. IMPLIED WARRANTY: MERCHANTABILITY OF COMPUTER PROGRAM.
(a) Unless the warranty is disclaimed or modified, a licensor that is a merchant with respect to computer programs of the kind warrants:
(1) to the end user that the computer program is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such computer programs are used;
(2) to the distributor that:
(A) the program is adequately packaged and labeled as the agreement requires; and
(B) in the case of multiple copies, the copies are within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality, and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
(3) that the program conforms to any promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
(b) Unless disclaimed or modified, other implied warranties with respect to computer programs may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
(c) No warranty is created under this section with respect to informational content, but an implied warranty may arise under Section 404.
(a) Unless the warranty is disclaimed or modified, a merchant that, in a special relationship of reliance with a licensee, collects, compiles, processes, provides, or transmits informational content warrants to that licensee that there is no inaccuracy in the informational content caused by the merchant's failure to perform with reasonable care.
(b) A warranty does not arise under subsection (a) with respect to:
(1) published informational content; or
(2) a person that acts as a conduit or provides no more than editorial services in collecting, compiling, distributing, processing, providing, or transmitting informational content that under the circumstances can be identified as that of a third person.
(c) The warranty under this section is not subject to the preclusion in Section 113(a) (1) on disclaiming obligations of diligence, reasonableness, or care.
SECTION 405. IMPLIED WARRANTY: LICENSEE'S PURPOSE; SYSTEM INTEGRATION.
(a) Unless the warranty is disclaimed or modified, if a licensor at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the computer information is required and that the licensee is relying on the licensor's skill or judgment to select, develop, or furnish suitable information, the following rules apply:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), there is an implied warranty that the information is fit for that purpose.
(2) If from all the circumstances it appears that the licensor was to be paid for the amount of its time or effort regardless of the fitness of the resulting information, the warranty under paragraph (1) is that the information will not fail to achieve the licensee's particular purpose as a result of the licensor's lack of reasonable effort.
(b) There is no warranty under subsection (a) with regard to:
(1) the aesthetics, appeal, suitability to taste, or subjective quality of informational content; or
(2) published informational content, but there may be a warranty with regard to the licensor's selection among published informational content from different providers.
(c) If an agreement requires a licensor to provide or select a system consisting of computer programs and goods, and the licensor has reason to know that the licensee is relying on the skill or judgment of the licensor to select the components of the system, there is an implied warranty that the components provided or selected will function together as a system.
(d) The warranty under this section is not subject to the preclusion in Section 113(a)(1) on disclaiming diligence, reasonableness, or care.
SECTION 406. DISCLAIMER OR MODIFICATION OF WARRANTY.
(a) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to disclaim or modify an express warranty must be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other. Subject to Section 301 with regard to parol or extrinsic evidence, the disclaimer or modification is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e), to disclaim or modify an implied warranty or any part of it, but not the warranty in Section 401, the following rules apply:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection:
(A) To disclaim or modify the implied warranty arising under Section 403, language must mention "merchantability" or "quality" or use words of similar import and, if in a record, must be conspicuous.
(B) To disclaim or modify the implied warranty arising under Section 404, language in a record must mention "accuracy" or use words of similar import.
(2) Language to disclaim or modify the implied warranty arising under Section 405 must be in a record and be conspicuous. It is sufficient to state "There is no warranty that this information, our efforts, or the system will fulfill any of your particular purposes or needs", or words of similar import.
(3) Language in a record is sufficient to disclaim all implied warranties if it individually disclaims each implied warranty or, except for the warranty in Section 401, if it is conspicuous and states "Except for express warranties stated in this contract, if any, this `information' `computer program' is provided with all faults, and the entire risk as to satisfactory quality, performance, accuracy, and effort is with the user", or words of similar import.
(4) A disclaimer or modification sufficient under [Article 2 or 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code] to disclaim or modify an implied warranty of merchantability is sufficient to disclaim or modify the warranties under Sections 403 and 404. A disclaimer or modification sufficient under [Article 2 or 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code] to disclaim or modify an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is sufficient to disclaim or modify the warranties under Section 405.
(c) Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties, but not the warranty under Section 401, are disclaimed by expressions like "as is" or "with all faults" or other language that in common understanding calls the licensee's attention to the disclaimer of warranties and makes plain that there are no implied warranties.
(d) If a licensee before entering into a contract has examined the information or the sample or model as fully as it desired or has refused to examine the information, there is no implied warranty with regard to defects that an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to the licensee.
(e) An implied warranty may also be disclaimed or modified by course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade.
(f) If a contract requires ongoing performance or a series of performances by the licensor, language of disclaimer or modification which complies with this section is effective with respect to all performances under the contract.
(g) Remedies for breach of warranty may be limited in accordance with this [Act] with respect to liquidation or limitation of damages and contractual modification of remedy.
SECTION 407. MODIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM. A licensee that modifies a computer program, other than by using a capability of the program intended for that purpose in the ordinary course, does not invalidate any warranty regarding performance of an unmodified copy but does invalidate any warranties, express or implied, regarding performance of the modified copy. A modification occurs if a licensee alters code in, deletes code from, or adds code to the computer program.
SECTION 408. CUMULATION AND CONFLICT OF WARRANTIES. Warranties, whether express or implied, must be construed as consistent with each other and as cumulative, but if that construction is unreasonable, the intention of the parties determines which warranty is dominant. In ascertaining that intention, the following rules apply:
(1) Exact or technical specifications displace an inconsistent sample or model or general language of description.
(2) A sample displaces inconsistent general language of description.
(3) Express warranties displace inconsistent implied warranties other than an implied warranty under Section 405(a).
SECTION 409. THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF WARRANTY.
(a) Except for published informational content, a warranty to a licensee extends to persons for whose benefit the licensor intends to supply the information or informational rights and which rightfully use the information in a transaction or application of a kind in which the licensor intends the information to be used.
(b) A warranty to a consumer extends to each individual consumer in the licensee's immediate family or household if the individual's use would have been reasonably expected by the licensor.
(c) A contractual term that excludes or limits the persons to which a warranty extends is effective except as to individuals described in subsection (b).
(d) A disclaimer or modification of a warranty or remedy which is effective against the licensee is also effective against third persons to which a warranty extends under this section.
The main point, I think, is correct. We should respect the laws, when the laws aren't totally nutty. Some patents, however, ARE nutty, and represent the software industry's taking advantage of a relatively non-tech savy patent office. I have heard that some company (forgot which) got some kind of patent which in one interpretation could threaten the legality of VNC, because it was a general patent of remote display from X windows or something like that. Not a lawyer, so I won't even bother with the specifics, but if patents are so strong they rule out free software which does the same thing the $$$ stuff does (never mind how or if they developed it independantly) there is a big problem. Look at the case of the gif format. As I understand it, the contention is that ALL applications that can decode gif images must pay to those who control gif. That's called insanity. It's even more unenforcable than the DVD thing. I doubt they'll ever be able to even FIND all the applications that use gif, and even if they really take a stab at it all they will do is drive everyone away from gif. (That trend is already underway.) Also, the time factor in the computer world is radically different that most other industries. If someone has a 10 year lock on a technology, he might as well have it forever. Before it becomes free some other standard would have taken over, the old technology will be so obsolite as to be useless, and the company with the newer format will just get another patent, and the cycle would continue. This is another thing we have to make clear to the public. Monopoly power granted by patents doesn't need to be long term in the computer industry to be effective.
Good idea for newbies. However, I find part of the graphic richness of linux to be the diversity of its graphical interfaces. Firewall Manager Pro 2.0 has a very different interface, emacs is different, etc, etc... but that makes it more enjoyable for me to use the system. If we go that route, we should offer the consistent user interface scheme as an option during initial configuration, so those of us that like a heterogeneous desktop won't be stuck clawing our way out of default consistency all the time.
Right on. I am always amused when I read news articles and stories about the "advanced" work being done on user interfaces. The so-called advanced interfaces seem to involve concepts like talking to the computer to get it to do things, having it give intelligent audio responses, etc, etc... I think they have a lot of other work to do first. When I installed Quicktime on the Windoze side of my system, it configured for IE but not Netscape. ARRRRGH! Thank you, Microsoft! Was that ever intelligent. And frankly I find audio response the most annoying of all computer feedback. If you do something stupid, and it only tells you on the screen, fine. That's nice and private, and doesn't cause anyone else to be annoyed. But if it blares out an "INCORRECT" or "ERROR" for the whole world to hear, it makes it worse. Plus that sort of interaction has a tendancy to play human. My computer ISN'T human. That's one of the reasons I like it! It obeys a consistent (albet complicated) set of rules. Don't make it say "Good morning!" and ask how I am doing. That's not a user interface, it's lunacy. People do that enough. The computer is a tool, and ease of use doesn't necessarily correspond to friendly. If people are afraid of computers, use a typewriter! Or just realize that it's not impossible, other people have done it, and sit down to discover the brave new world of menus and toolbars.
Does anyone know what all this legal fuss is actually trying to stop? Realistically speaking, if all these guys were worried about pirating or something (hard to believe, but I'll get there) it's too late. Pirating already occurs on large scales without the encryption codes being broken. Just see the press releases on http://www.mpaa.org/jack/ if in doubt. They seem to think the possibility of someone downloading a DVD movie off of the internet is a real possibility, and a major threat to profits. Uh, well, I don't know who their ISP is, but I sure don't have any speeds that would make downloading a mulit-gigabyte file worthwhile, or feasible. Granted the future may hold great promise, but they have to know that the breaking of encryption isn't going to make much difference. Can they actually be unaware, being the creaters of the system, that the codes make little difference to the copying process, if anyone wants to burn a DVD copy? It's like that video example they have under the Anti-Piracy link on their main page. The major organized operations are where the biggest problems occur, because they are the most organized. Do they seriously think that, if a 15 year old Norwegian boy and a few friends coding in their spare time can break it, any serious pirating organization couldn't? They use the period of three years the code went unbroken as evidence of it's strength. Does the non-appearance of the algorithum on the internet in that time mean that A) it wasn't broken, B) it was broken but not openly published on the internet, or C) no one cared enough to break it because it made no difference to the copying process? If anyone really wanted to break the algorithum I suspect they would find a way. If movie pirating is what they are afraid of, the practical approach is to attack the locations of the download. Don't try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. It won't do anything to stop illegal activity, and it will stop the Linux community from ever using DVD (or at least slow it down.) That's probably the funniest part of this whole deal. If these guys had paid any attention, they could have written a Linux driver and eliminated the reason for this whole farce. (Not to mention opening up a new market for legitimate video sales.) They are now going to see it bounce back into their face as a defense in this whole issue. They obviously can't think the reason to break encryption is to write a driver, or they could have headed off the breaking of the encryption (publicly anyway) by removing the reason to break it! What is the deal,anyway? Do they just have a blind spot when it comes to the existance of Linux, or do they have some other compelling reason to avoid our platform? Surely a driver would be less trouble than paying lawyers for all of this legal fuss. Just for that, we should come up with a better way they could store DVD data and present it for the defense as proof that they weren't putting all possible effort into the problem. I mean, if a bunch of spare timers are breaking their algorithums and writing better ones ourselves, maybe they need to look into some better security?
All this brings up rather interesting questions
on
DeCSS Author Arrested
·
· Score: 1
The fuss being raised over this breaking of DVD encryption raises a rather curious point. Why did they not provide some Linux drivers in the first place? The coding effort to create the drivers would seem to be much less than sending in the legal dogs to squash all the fuss this has created. Anyone with any computer sense should know that something like this was inevitable if they didn't provide at least closed source drivers to DVD for Linux. I mean, think about it. Linux, the one community of users that has more fundamental knowledge of how to work with computers than any other user group. Are these guys actually clueless enough to think that someone wouldn't eventually do this, or do they think it's worth all this effort just to make a statement? For heaven's sake, write the driver and be done with it! Those guys invented the encoding scheme for the DVD; they must have known it would be defeatable. Why did they deliberately exclude Linux? I would think the potential user base, while small compared to the Windows users, would be sufficient to justify the creation of a Linux driver. Why ignore the market, and create an environment ripe for the breaking of the encryption? Did they just not think about it, do they think it's worth all this just to defend an encoding scheme which does not protect DVDs even if not broken, or is there some other compelling reason to avoid Linux? Even now, when it has to be blindingly obvious that the Open Source community is interested in using DVD, they make no attempt to avoid all the fuss of people digging into the code by providing a driver. Even if the public believes the encryption is necessary for the pirating of DVD, they HAVE to know that it doesn't. It's their own industry! How could they not know that? The genie is already out of the bottle as far as illegal activity is concerned, anyway. The only activity that can be stopped now by all this effort is the use of the software in a Linux driver, or some other open use. Underground activity, whatever the heck it is they are worried about, will occur anyway. All the court rulings in the world couldn't stop anything now except use of the code to create drivers or other players. Why don't they make it a non-issue and write the driver? Any ideas? Another question. If a small group in Norway could break it, what's to prevent a determined group with actual illegal intentions to do the same thing? AND if illegal use was the intent, just about the dumbest thing I can think of to do would be to put it in open view on the internet. Just one more point. If a few spare time programmers are able to break this thing, and if there was any advantage to doing so, wouldn't it have been done long since by people who were intent on making illegal money off of illegal DVDs? Realistically, what are the chances that that Norway group performed an encryption-breaking feat that no other group of actually warped, pirating techies out there could have done? And a lot sooner, if there was any incentive? Helllllppp! Common sense, plese!
Ok, this looks to be the situation. The preliminary injunction doesn't mean a whole lot, as far as the ultimate decision. That's basically just the judge playing conservative, trying to make sure the least amount of harm is done. The real issue is how the issue of the legality of the hack is decided. That, we don't know. It could go either way. My point is, lets consider for a moment some other alternatives. I have seen post after post which state that the DVD coding under discussion is absurd as a means of security. Well then, let's top it. Let's come up with our own from of DVD encryption, one that will really work, and also any improvements we can offer to the general storage and access of data on the DVD. This shouldn't be a problem for the playing of older DVD forms, as those who already own whatever necessary licenses are necessary to the format could read old disks as well as new. BUT, if we can come up with a compellingly better way to work with DVDs, we might really begin to change the way the industry works. Offer better "security" with a better encryption, although that still won't prevent verbatum copying, and offer some significant performance improvements to the current format. The Linux community is almost certainly capable of that. DVD player makers with the license for the old encoding could provide capabilities for reading both formats, while advertising as a new feature the support of the new, better format. DVD movies could come out for a while in both formats, with the newer one offering better playback or some new features. Let's yank the rug out from under the whole issue of the lawsuit and reinvent a better wheel. If it does the job better than the current format, and doesn't have any licensing issues associated with it, we might have a chance to really make a difference in the industry. Maybe it would work, maybe it would not, but even if we couldn't get movie studios or whoever does movie DVDs to go for it we could use it for our own data storage and backup uses, giving Linux still another edge over Windows. Merely a suggestion, but it seems to me that if they won't let us use their buggy we should invent the automobile and see if we can take over the road. After all, we can't control what the court does. Lets stay calm, see how this plays out, and maybe think about some other ways than arguing legal issues to achieve our purpose. I'm not an expert on DVD, so I suppose their may be reasons I'm not aware of that this won't work. But it seems to me we would have little to lose by bringing the fight back to OUR home turf!
Slashdot Mirror
Open standards have been shown over and over to be essential in preventing abuse of power by companies with large market shares. This is why Microsoft has been trying to corrupt standards everywhere with "extentions" which they control - they know perfectly well that control of this type of standard can make or break control of a market. If AOL really does open up their standards for this communication protocal, and doesn't try the game of "extending" them, it will be a great benefit for consumers. AOL will not be able to play the lockout game, allowing choice. And choice, as has been said before, is the lifeblood of consumer welfare.
I think this is a reasonable summary:
X and Berlin are the core graphical interface programs which allow graphics to be drawn on the screen, although that isn't even a sketch of the multitude of capabilities they offer. See their documentation for a detailed description.
Things like icewm, windowmaker, twm, enlightenment, qvwm, etc. are window managers, which provide basic functionality such as windows for applications, logout prompts, menus, etc. and run on top of something like X. (Right now, most run ONLY on top of X, but that may change.)
KDE and GNOME are desktop environments, not window managers. This means that they provide advanced hints for applications which allow for a common look and feel, and advanced interface features like the GNOME panels and menus and providing common functionality to programs that request it. KDE contains its own window manager, but GNOME requires a window manager in addition to itself to function properly.
Basically, X is the only viable alternative at the low level right now. In the case of window managers there are an enormous number of choices. Right now KDE and GNOME are the two major desktop environments.
Compatibility is largely a question of having the necessary libraries for KDE and GNOME applications. You can run KDE apps under GNOME, and vice versa, if your libraries are in place. At the window manager level there shouldn't be a problem - the applications are normally seperate from the window manager and work within its framework.
Hope that is of some help. Look around the internet for more complete listings - some good initial places to start are freshmeat.net and linuxberg.com
From what I have seen, KOffice is probably going to be the one to watch, at least for the immediate future. Lyx is my tool of choice for physics assignments, because they are about 95% math, but I like the frame capabilities that Kword is developing for DTP purposes. (With or without frames, inserting images in MS Word drives me crazy. I try to move it a little bit down the page and ZIP, gone to the middle of the next one. Grrr.) And the real question - what do I want to pay ($$) for my software? Being a broke college student, "free" has a nice sound. I'll live with a learning curve or limited features. Plus, once I've climbed those learning curves, I have skills I can use in the real world. (Whatever that is.) I've already done work installing dual boot Linux /Windows machines for my physics department. (We left Windows on because the machines are for student labs.) Learning curves are things to be climbed, not feared. That bugs me - people who are so clueless about different computers that they will sit down at a Macintosh after years of Windows and not know how to proceed. Time for the schools to begin to teach, not just computer usage, but FLEXIBLE computer usage. It will make a difference.
Concessions from who? Linux isn't controlled by any one individual or company. Who would Microsoft make a deal with? The key components are almost all GPL anyway, so if anyone were dumb enough to do something like that a new project would spring up and take the GPL code and develop it in a different (probably better) direction. Let Microsoft try it. I'm in the mood for a good laugh. They'll never stop open source and never control it. It was designed that way.
This will "scratch the itch" of consumer demand just enough to keep Corel or others from developing real Office competitors, but never really bring a the same level of functionality to Linux that the competing Microsoft OS would offer."
It might be enough, however, to enable a gradual shift of employees and files to Linux. As things stand now, a business would either have to switch cold turkey or install dual boot machines. For most end users this is far from ideal. Lesser features would result in grumbling and complaining, but if a switch could be made eventually over to FREE software, it would work. Plus the avoidance of Windows licensing costs and upgrade cycles is a nontrivial benefit. Personally, while I think that Office for Linux would speed the adoption of Linux in certain business environments, I would much rather KOffice and Abiword and Gnumeric continue to develop into powerful appliations. If Microsoft continues on its current path, its licensing costs and crazy terms should begin driving companies away at just about the time the free alternatives reach really usable stages. Abiword has a ways to go, Gnumeric is apparently further along but there is still work to do, and KOffice, while even now very interesting and capable of more than any other Open Source office project, has probably at least another year or more of heavy development before it reaches its prime. I eagerly await the first fully stable releases of KOffice, and while I suspect Abiword will be less capable than KWord, it seems reasonably lightweight and has a clean feel to it which is missing from many other word processors. These tools, once they reach 1.0 stages, will be extremely viable alternatives for word processing and other office tasks. For myself, I doubt I would ever buy Office for Linux, unless a family member insisted on it and I couldn't convince them to try the new tools. I can do most of what I want to do with free tools even now (StarOffice and Lyx) and the development of these exciting new possibilities is enough to convince me it is worth the wait.
I think a lot of us have been wondering what the judge is thinking when he considers CSS to be effective. I'm still not totally sure, but I post for consideration, from the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997 itself, their
DEFINITION OF EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURE- As used in this section, the term `effective technological measure' means information included with or an attribute applied to a transmission or a copy of a work in a digital format, or a portion thereof, so as to protect the rights of a copyright owner of such work or portion thereof under chapter one of this title and which--
`(1) encrypts or scrambles the work or a portion thereof in the absence of access information supplied by the copyright owner; or
`(2) includes attributes regarding access to or recording of the work that cannot be removed without degrading the work or a portion thereof.
I must be out of it. I thought effective ment scrambling that would RESIST attempts to crack it!
Because if it is that popular, it will be that popular with open standards, open code, and zilch price. And if anyone wants to enter the market with another OS, great! How many of us have a spare copy of FreeBSD or OpenBSD lying around, or are even curious about trying the new BeOS 5 and Solaris 8 (both will be free for personal use) when they come out? A computer market which is predominantly linux is not a market which is CONTROLLED by linux. Windows controls much of the consumer computer industry today, so much so that you see things like winmodems (ugh!) and other hardware built for Windows and which will run only under Windows. They also are perfectly willing to squash competition, screw up their licensing systems, charge absurd fees, etc, etc... Linux encourages competition, because 1) things would be really boring otherwise and 2) that's how you make better software. We thank VAlinux (http://www.valinux.com) for giving us preinstalled linux workstations (who doesn't want to be lazy sometimes) but I'm much happier with Penguin Computing out there (http://www.penguincomputing.com) to encourage one-upmanship between the two. A dominant operating system isn't necessarily a problem. The problem is when all possibility of competition is gone. Many programs which are key end-user components of linux also run on versions of BSD, and BeOS borrows apps from linux as well. In this environment, which is ensured by open standards, Linux can never control the market. (Not to mention that not having a central distributor of Linux would make systematized control a little tough anyway.)
"Suppose they used an arbitrarily simple 'encryption' method, like putting an extra '1' in front of the binary to screw up the decoding process. If this was discovered, and someone put this info on the net, would they get arrested? I don't think so."
Unfortunately, that is exactly the issue at stake. Remember what the judge said:
"...even if DeCSS were intended and usable solely to permit the playing, and not the copying, of DVDs on Linux machines, the playing without a licensed CSS "player key'' would "circumvent a technological measure'' that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work and violate the statute in any case."
Obviously the whole case hinges on the word "effectively" and what that word means in the legal world. By our definition of the word effective, CSS was not effective. Your "arbitrarily simple method" would not be effective. But if the court decides it SHOULD be effective, then apparently the law comes down hard on you. What if the player key was only to strip the extra 1 from the binary, but you couldn't legally do that without a license? That IS an extreme case, but how extreme remains to be seen. The vibes I've been getting from the legal proceedings and the laws being sited seem to indicate that the system is very much inclined to support the DVD industry. Maybe my instincts are wrong (please let them be wrong) but the quote from the judge above scares the crap out of me. If we are to fight a battle with the system itself, as well as the MPAA, then our only real hope is to get the Supreme Court to shoot some of this crap down. Or get Congress to take some effective action, although I consider Congress much less likely to do anything considering how much influence the industry has already shown they have by getting a lot of this crappy legislation through in the first place.
This, as far as I know, is the actual text for the UTICA. http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucita/ucitanc.htm
Take a look - it's long, but those of us who ARE lawyers might be able to give us some valid opinions as to what we should expect. The Q&A they have on the NCCUSL site http://www.nccusl.org/pressrel/UCITAQA.HTM says warranty stuff now apples to ALL software.
Implied warranty of merchantability. An implied obligation that a computer program will be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used. UCITA makes this warranty applicable to all computer programs, thus expanding the scope to software currently governed by common law, which does not have this warranty. Section 403.
Does anyone know if the authors of this even know of the existance of free software? The warranty should only be enforcable if you actually PAY for the software. I paste that section (as well as all of Part 4) here for consideration.
PART 4
WARRANTIES
SECTION 401. WARRANTY AND OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NONINTERFERENCE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT.
(a) A licensor of information that is a merchant regularly dealing in information of the kind warrants that the information will be
delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or misappropriation, but a licensee that furnishes detailed specifications to the licensor and the method required for meeting the specifications holds the licensor harmless against any such claim that arises out of compliance with the specification or required method except for a claim that results from the failure of the licensor to adopt, or notify the licensee of, a noninfringing alternative of which the licensor had reason to know.
(b) A licensor warrants:
(1) for the duration of the license, that no person holds a rightful claim to, or interest in, the information which arose from an act or omission of the licensor, other than a claim by way of infringement or misappropriation, which will interfere with the licensee's enjoyment of its interest; and
(2) as to rights granted exclusively to the licensee, that within the scope of the license:
(A) to the knowledge of the licensor, any licensed patent rights are valid and exclusive to the extent exclusivity and validity are recognized by the law under which the patent rights were created; and
(B) in all other cases, the licensed informational rights are valid and exclusive for the information as a whole to the extent exclusivity and validity are recognized by the law applicable to the licensed rights in a jurisdiction to which the license applies.
(c) The warranties in this section are subject to the following rules:
(1) If the licensed informational rights are subject to a right of privileged use, collective administration, or compulsory licensing, the warranty is not made with respect to those rights.
(2) The obligations under subsections (a) and (b)(2) apply solely to informational rights arising under the laws of the United States or a State, unless the contract expressly provides that the warranty obligations extend to rights under the laws of other countries. Language is sufficient for this purpose if it states "The licensor warrants `exclusivity' `noninfringement' `in specified countries' `worldwide'", or words of similar import. In that case, the warranty extends to the specified country or, in the case of a reference to "worldwide" or the like, to all countries within the description, but only to the extent the rights are recognized under a treaty or international convention to which the country and the United States are signatories.
(3) The warranties under subsections (a) and (b)(2) are not made by a license that merely permits use, or convenants not to claim infringement because of the use, of rights under a licensed patent.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a warranty under this section may be disclaimed or modified only by specific language or by circumstances that give the licensee reason to know that the licensor does not warrant that competing claims do not exist or that the licensor purports to grant only the rights it may have. In an automated transaction, language is sufficient if it is conspicuous. Otherwise, language in a record is sufficient if it states "There is no warranty against interference with your enjoyment of the information or against infringement", or words of similar import.
(e) Between merchants, a grant of a "quitclaim", or a grant in similar terms, grants the information or informational rights without
an implied warranty as to infringement or misappropriation or as to the rights actually possessed or transferred by the licensor.
SECTION 402. EXPRESS WARRANTY.
(a) Subject to subsection (c), an express warranty by a licensor is created as follows:
(1) An affirmation of fact or promise made by the licensor to its licensee, including by advertising, which relates to the
information and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the information to be furnished under
the agreement will conform to the affirmation or promise.
(2) Any description of the information which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the
information will conform to the description.
(3) Any sample, model, or demonstration of a final product which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express
warranty that the performance of the information will reasonably conform to the performance of the sample, model, or
demonstration, taking into account differences that would appear to a reasonable person in the position of the licensee between
the sample, model, or demonstration and the information as it will be used.
(b) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the licensor use formal words, such as "warranty" or
"guaranty", or state a specific intention to make a warranty. However, an express warranty is not created by:
(1) an affirmation or prediction merely of the value of the information or informational rights;
(2) a display or description of a portion of the information to illustrate the aesthetics, appeal, suitability to taste, subjective
quality, or the like of informational content; or
(3) a statement purporting to be merely the licensor's opinion or commendation of the information or informational rights.
(c) An express warranty or similar express contractual obligation, if any, exists with respect to published informational content
covered by this [Act] to the same extent that it would exist if the published informational content had been published in a form
that placed it outside this [Act]. However, if the warranty or similar express contractual obligation is breached, the remedies of
the aggrieved party are those under this [Act] and the agreement.
SECTION 403. IMPLIED WARRANTY: MERCHANTABILITY OF COMPUTER PROGRAM.
(a) Unless the warranty is disclaimed or modified, a licensor that is a merchant with respect to computer programs of the kind
warrants:
(1) to the end user that the computer program is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such computer programs are used;
(2) to the distributor that:
(A) the program is adequately packaged and labeled as the agreement requires; and
(B) in the case of multiple copies, the copies are within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality, and
quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
(3) that the program conforms to any promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
(b) Unless disclaimed or modified, other implied warranties with respect to computer programs may arise from course of
dealing or usage of trade.
(c) No warranty is created under this section with respect to informational content, but an implied warranty may arise under
Section 404.
SECTION 404. IMPLIED WARRANTY: INFORMATIONAL CONTENT.
(a) Unless the warranty is disclaimed or modified, a merchant that, in a special relationship of reliance with a licensee, collects,
compiles, processes, provides, or transmits informational content warrants to that licensee that there is no inaccuracy in the
informational content caused by the merchant's failure to perform with reasonable care.
(b) A warranty does not arise under subsection (a) with respect to:
(1) published informational content; or
(2) a person that acts as a conduit or provides no more than editorial services in collecting, compiling, distributing, processing,
providing, or transmitting informational content that under the circumstances can be identified as that of a third person.
(c) The warranty under this section is not subject to the preclusion in Section 113(a) (1) on disclaiming obligations of diligence,
reasonableness, or care.
SECTION 405. IMPLIED WARRANTY: LICENSEE'S PURPOSE; SYSTEM INTEGRATION.
(a) Unless the warranty is disclaimed or modified, if a licensor at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular
purpose for which the computer information is required and that the licensee is relying on the licensor's skill or judgment to
select, develop, or furnish suitable information, the following rules apply:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2), there is an implied warranty that the information is fit for that purpose.
(2) If from all the circumstances it appears that the licensor was to be paid for the amount of its time or effort regardless of the
fitness of the resulting information, the warranty under paragraph (1) is that the information will not fail to achieve the licensee's
particular purpose as a result of the licensor's lack of reasonable effort.
(b) There is no warranty under subsection (a) with regard to:
(1) the aesthetics, appeal, suitability to taste, or subjective quality of informational content; or
(2) published informational content, but there may be a warranty with regard to the licensor's selection among published
informational content from different providers.
(c) If an agreement requires a licensor to provide or select a system consisting of computer programs and goods, and the
licensor has reason to know that the licensee is relying on the skill or judgment of the licensor to select the components of the
system, there is an implied warranty that the components provided or selected will function together as a system.
(d) The warranty under this section is not subject to the preclusion in Section 113(a)(1) on disclaiming diligence,
reasonableness, or care.
SECTION 406. DISCLAIMER OR MODIFICATION OF WARRANTY.
(a) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to disclaim or modify an
express warranty must be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other. Subject to Section 301 with regard to
parol or extrinsic evidence, the disclaimer or modification is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e), to disclaim or modify an implied warranty or any part of it,
but not the warranty in Section 401, the following rules apply:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection:
(A) To disclaim or modify the implied warranty arising under Section 403, language must mention "merchantability" or "quality"
or use words of similar import and, if in a record, must be conspicuous.
(B) To disclaim or modify the implied warranty arising under Section 404, language in a record must mention "accuracy" or use
words of similar import.
(2) Language to disclaim or modify the implied warranty arising under Section 405 must be in a record and be conspicuous. It
is sufficient to state "There is no warranty that this information, our efforts, or the system will fulfill any of your particular
purposes or needs", or words of similar import.
(3) Language in a record is sufficient to disclaim all implied warranties if it individually disclaims each implied warranty or,
except for the warranty in Section 401, if it is conspicuous and states "Except for express warranties stated in this contract, if
any, this `information' `computer program' is provided with all faults, and the entire risk as to satisfactory quality, performance,
accuracy, and effort is with the user", or words of similar import.
(4) A disclaimer or modification sufficient under [Article 2 or 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code] to disclaim or modify an
implied warranty of merchantability is sufficient to disclaim or modify the warranties under Sections 403 and 404. A disclaimer
or modification sufficient under [Article 2 or 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code] to disclaim or modify an implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose is sufficient to disclaim or modify the warranties under Section 405.
(c) Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties, but not the warranty under Section 401, are disclaimed
by expressions like "as is" or "with all faults" or other language that in common understanding calls the licensee's attention to the
disclaimer of warranties and makes plain that there are no implied warranties.
(d) If a licensee before entering into a contract has examined the information or the sample or model as fully as it desired or has
refused to examine the information, there is no implied warranty with regard to defects that an examination ought in the
circumstances to have revealed to the licensee.
(e) An implied warranty may also be disclaimed or modified by course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade.
(f) If a contract requires ongoing performance or a series of performances by the licensor, language of disclaimer or
modification which complies with this section is effective with respect to all performances under the contract.
(g) Remedies for breach of warranty may be limited in accordance with this [Act] with respect to liquidation or limitation of
damages and contractual modification of remedy.
SECTION 407. MODIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAM. A licensee that modifies a computer program, other
than by using a capability of the program intended for that purpose in the ordinary course, does not invalidate any warranty
regarding performance of an unmodified copy but does invalidate any warranties, express or implied, regarding performance of
the modified copy. A modification occurs if a licensee alters code in, deletes code from, or adds code to the computer
program.
SECTION 408. CUMULATION AND CONFLICT OF WARRANTIES. Warranties, whether express or implied, must
be construed as consistent with each other and as cumulative, but if that construction is unreasonable, the intention of the parties
determines which warranty is dominant. In ascertaining that intention, the following rules apply:
(1) Exact or technical specifications displace an inconsistent sample or model or general language of description.
(2) A sample displaces inconsistent general language of description.
(3) Express warranties displace inconsistent implied warranties other than an implied warranty under Section 405(a).
SECTION 409. THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF WARRANTY.
(a) Except for published informational content, a warranty to a licensee extends to persons for whose benefit the licensor
intends to supply the information or informational rights and which rightfully use the information in a transaction or application of
a kind in which the licensor intends the information to be used.
(b) A warranty to a consumer extends to each individual consumer in the licensee's immediate family or household if the
individual's use would have been reasonably expected by the licensor.
(c) A contractual term that excludes or limits the persons to which a warranty extends is effective except as to individuals
described in subsection (b).
(d) A disclaimer or modification of a warranty or remedy which is effective against the licensee is also effective against third
persons to which a warranty extends under this section.
The main point, I think, is correct. We should respect the laws, when the laws aren't totally nutty. Some patents, however, ARE nutty, and represent the software industry's taking advantage of a relatively non-tech savy patent office. I have heard that some company (forgot which) got some kind of patent which in one interpretation could threaten the legality of VNC, because it was a general patent of remote display from X windows or something like that. Not a lawyer, so I won't even bother with the specifics, but if patents are so strong they rule out free software which does the same thing the $$$ stuff does (never mind how or if they developed it independantly) there is a big problem. Look at the case of the gif format. As I understand it, the contention is that ALL applications that can decode gif images must pay to those who control gif. That's called insanity. It's even more unenforcable than the DVD thing. I doubt they'll ever be able to even FIND all the applications that use gif, and even if they really take a stab at it all they will do is drive everyone away from gif. (That trend is already underway.) Also, the time factor in the computer world is radically different that most other industries. If someone has a 10 year lock on a technology, he might as well have it forever. Before it becomes free some other standard would have taken over, the old technology will be so obsolite as to be useless, and the company with the newer format will just get another patent, and the cycle would continue. This is another thing we have to make clear to the public. Monopoly power granted by patents doesn't need to be long term in the computer industry to be effective.
Good idea for newbies. However, I find part of the graphic richness of linux to be the diversity of its graphical interfaces. Firewall Manager Pro 2.0 has a very different interface, emacs is different, etc, etc... but that makes it more enjoyable for me to use the system. If we go that route, we should offer the consistent user interface scheme as an option during initial configuration, so those of us that like a heterogeneous desktop won't be stuck clawing our way out of default consistency all the time.
Right on. I am always amused when I read news articles and stories about the "advanced" work being done on user interfaces. The so-called advanced interfaces seem to involve concepts like talking to the computer to get it to do things, having it give intelligent audio responses, etc, etc... I think they have a lot of other work to do first. When I installed Quicktime on the Windoze side of my system, it configured for IE but not Netscape. ARRRRGH! Thank you, Microsoft! Was that ever intelligent. And frankly I find audio response the most annoying of all computer feedback. If you do something stupid, and it only tells you on the screen, fine. That's nice and private, and doesn't cause anyone else to be annoyed. But if it blares out an "INCORRECT" or "ERROR" for the whole world to hear, it makes it worse. Plus that sort of interaction has a tendancy to play human. My computer ISN'T human. That's one of the reasons I like it! It obeys a consistent (albet complicated) set of rules. Don't make it say "Good morning!" and ask how I am doing. That's not a user interface, it's lunacy. People do that enough. The computer is a tool, and ease of use doesn't necessarily correspond to friendly. If people are afraid of computers, use a typewriter! Or just realize that it's not impossible, other people have done it, and sit down to discover the brave new world of menus and toolbars.
Does anyone know what all this legal fuss is actually trying to stop? Realistically speaking, if all these guys were worried about pirating or something (hard to believe, but I'll get there) it's too late. Pirating already occurs on large scales without the encryption codes being broken. Just see the press releases on http://www.mpaa.org/jack/ if in doubt. They seem to think the possibility of someone downloading a DVD movie off of the internet is a real possibility, and a major threat to profits. Uh, well, I don't know who their ISP is, but I sure don't have any speeds that would make downloading a mulit-gigabyte file worthwhile, or feasible. Granted the future may hold great promise, but they have to know that the breaking of encryption isn't going to make much difference. Can they actually be unaware, being the creaters of the system, that the codes make little difference to the copying process, if anyone wants to burn a DVD copy? It's like that video example they have under the Anti-Piracy link on their main page. The major organized operations are where the biggest problems occur, because they are the most organized. Do they seriously think that, if a 15 year old Norwegian boy and a few friends coding in their spare time can break it, any serious pirating organization couldn't? They use the period of three years the code went unbroken as evidence of it's strength. Does the non-appearance of the algorithum on the internet in that time mean that A) it wasn't broken, B) it was broken but not openly published on the internet, or C) no one cared enough to break it because it made no difference to the copying process? If anyone really wanted to break the algorithum I suspect they would find a way. If movie pirating is what they are afraid of, the practical approach is to attack the locations of the download. Don't try to stuff the genie back in the bottle. It won't do anything to stop illegal activity, and it will stop the Linux community from ever using DVD (or at least slow it down.) That's probably the funniest part of this whole deal. If these guys had paid any attention, they could have written a Linux driver and eliminated the reason for this whole farce. (Not to mention opening up a new market for legitimate video sales.) They are now going to see it bounce back into their face as a defense in this whole issue. They obviously can't think the reason to break encryption is to write a driver, or they could have headed off the breaking of the encryption (publicly anyway) by removing the reason to break it! What is the deal,anyway? Do they just have a blind spot when it comes to the existance of Linux, or do they have some other compelling reason to avoid our platform? Surely a driver would be less trouble than paying lawyers for all of this legal fuss. Just for that, we should come up with a better way they could store DVD data and present it for the defense as proof that they weren't putting all possible effort into the problem. I mean, if a bunch of spare timers are breaking their algorithums and writing better ones ourselves, maybe they need to look into some better security?
The fuss being raised over this breaking of DVD encryption raises a rather curious point. Why did they not provide some Linux drivers in the first place? The coding effort to create the drivers would seem to be much less than sending in the legal dogs to squash all the fuss this has created. Anyone with any computer sense should know that something like this was inevitable if they didn't provide at least closed source drivers to DVD for Linux. I mean, think about it. Linux, the one community of users that has more fundamental knowledge of how to work with computers than any other user group. Are these guys actually clueless enough to think that someone wouldn't eventually do this, or do they think it's worth all this effort just to make a statement? For heaven's sake, write the driver and be done with it! Those guys invented the encoding scheme for the DVD; they must have known it would be defeatable. Why did they deliberately exclude Linux? I would think the potential user base, while small compared to the Windows users, would be sufficient to justify the creation of a Linux driver. Why ignore the market, and create an environment ripe for the breaking of the encryption? Did they just not think about it, do they think it's worth all this just to defend an encoding scheme which does not protect DVDs even if not broken, or is there some other compelling reason to avoid Linux? Even now, when it has to be blindingly obvious that the Open Source community is interested in using DVD, they make no attempt to avoid all the fuss of people digging into the code by providing a driver. Even if the public believes the encryption is necessary for the pirating of DVD, they HAVE to know that it doesn't. It's their own industry! How could they not know that? The genie is already out of the bottle as far as illegal activity is concerned, anyway. The only activity that can be stopped now by all this effort is the use of the software in a Linux driver, or some other open use. Underground activity, whatever the heck it is they are worried about, will occur anyway. All the court rulings in the world couldn't stop anything now except use of the code to create drivers or other players. Why don't they make it a non-issue and write the driver? Any ideas? Another question. If a small group in Norway could break it, what's to prevent a determined group with actual illegal intentions to do the same thing? AND if illegal use was the intent, just about the dumbest thing I can think of to do would be to put it in open view on the internet. Just one more point. If a few spare time programmers are able to break this thing, and if there was any advantage to doing so, wouldn't it have been done long since by people who were intent on making illegal money off of illegal DVDs? Realistically, what are the chances that that Norway group performed an encryption-breaking feat that no other group of actually warped, pirating techies out there could have done? And a lot sooner, if there was any incentive? Helllllppp! Common sense, plese!
Ok, this looks to be the situation. The preliminary injunction doesn't mean a whole lot, as far as the ultimate decision. That's basically just the judge playing conservative, trying to make sure the least amount of harm is done. The real issue is how the issue of the legality of the hack is decided. That, we don't know. It could go either way. My point is, lets consider for a moment some other alternatives. I have seen post after post which state that the DVD coding under discussion is absurd as a means of security. Well then, let's top it. Let's come up with our own from of DVD encryption, one that will really work, and also any improvements we can offer to the general storage and access of data on the DVD. This shouldn't be a problem for the playing of older DVD forms, as those who already own whatever necessary licenses are necessary to the format could read old disks as well as new. BUT, if we can come up with a compellingly better way to work with DVDs, we might really begin to change the way the industry works. Offer better "security" with a better encryption, although that still won't prevent verbatum copying, and offer some significant performance improvements to the current format. The Linux community is almost certainly capable of that. DVD player makers with the license for the old encoding could provide capabilities for reading both formats, while advertising as a new feature the support of the new, better format. DVD movies could come out for a while in both formats, with the newer one offering better playback or some new features. Let's yank the rug out from under the whole issue of the lawsuit and reinvent a better wheel. If it does the job better than the current format, and doesn't have any licensing issues associated with it, we might have a chance to really make a difference in the industry. Maybe it would work, maybe it would not, but even if we couldn't get movie studios or whoever does movie DVDs to go for it we could use it for our own data storage and backup uses, giving Linux still another edge over Windows. Merely a suggestion, but it seems to me that if they won't let us use their buggy we should invent the automobile and see if we can take over the road. After all, we can't control what the court does. Lets stay calm, see how this plays out, and maybe think about some other ways than arguing legal issues to achieve our purpose. I'm not an expert on DVD, so I suppose their may be reasons I'm not aware of that this won't work. But it seems to me we would have little to lose by bringing the fight back to OUR home turf!