I think TiVos firmware lockout is less about making sure that no one can hack on their boxen than it is about controlling their support costs.
They're doing mainstream consumer electronics that's continuously maintained by their self-upgrade process. Would *you* want to support that if you allowed firmware hacking??? Ugh!
They've released some of their kernel patches at least. Would I like hacking my TiVo to be easier? Not sure -- it's never been worth it to me to do what hacking is currently possible.
Coincidentally, I was just re-reading ESR's The Magic Cauldron. He analyzes several open source models as profitable business models and specifically discusses when open sourcing code makes more money that closed source.
As he points out (perhaps in one of this other essays) There are a lot of OSS types who just plain think it's better, not just (or not even) more morally correct.
From my perspective, that the "Johnnie-come-latelys" are all trying to "jump on the bandwagon" means someone has figured out not that open source is socially better or more altruistic or better in the long run, but that it's just better.
I wonder if results would change if BoA allowed people to upload their own custom "security image".
I wonder how much BoA did this for "feel good" or CYA reasons.
How effective a security implementation must be for it to be deployed. I'm sure there's some kind of cost/benefit analysis going on. I wonder what the factors going into it are (legal costs, PR costs,...?) If this saves 10% of folks...
It looks like the excluded the overly security conscious:
"The three potential participants (3%) who refused to sign
the consent form cited privacy concerns and the terms under
which they would be observed. It is possible that other
excluded participants lied to protect their privacy: we have
no way of knowing if participants truly forgot their passwords
or if they were simply uncomfortable providing their
passwords during the study."
I'm not sure what effect this has on the results, however.
Obviously, entities people dislike are suspected of having a hidden agenda when they suddently change behavior and do something they've historically opposed. When the spyware folks started making anti-spyware statements people were suspicious. Likewise when the anti-OSS folks start releasing OSS. This kind of suspicion is quite reasonable.
This doesn't mean that there isn't a "good" explanation -- just that people are skeptical.
In support of suspicion: Why is the US Dept. of Homeland Security involved in kiddy porn? Could there be some application beyond kiddy porn that might interest them?
It's a fairly common tactic to establish a precedent for a questionable tactic by using it against an unquestionable evil. I think that's what worries people about this.
Just last night I was discussing re-installing my wife's WinXP computer. Amongst other problems it's locking up about every 6 hours and requires a hard reset.
Quoth me: "Yeah, that's why I don't like Windows" Quoth she: "So, why aren't I using Linux?"
Hmmm, good question...
Firefox....check Thunderbird....check PDF viewer....check Word....OpenOffice is an acceptable substitute (now) Quicken....I might be able to do something with this.
So, it seems that since she's already using this software on Windows and I can go to Linux without changing behvior then she's all for Linux. She's just tired of Windows being Windows.
Anyone care to guess how "easy" this transition would be if she were on Outlook Express/IE?
That, to me, sounds like a reson to have more FOSS running on Windows.
Taking extreme positions to try to force an "all or nothing" usage pattern is self-defeating.
If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows...by porting software to Windows, we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage
Wow, is that a Microsoftish statement or what?
Flame me if you will, but the reason I'm a fan of FOSS is that it lets me solve the problems I want to solve. I'm not on the FOSS bandwagon because it's against Microsoft. *Most* of the FOSS I use I'll never peek under the covers -- I just know that it's more valuable to me if I can.
This kind of "we can't do what our 'customers' want because that would help our competitor" thinking is *exactly* why I *DON'T* like Microsoft.
If you put up impediments to someone using your software in a way you don't personally like then you're interfering with the "F" part.
So, are you really for "Freedom" or not? Is it only Freedom if it's Freedom done your way?
> If they say stuff like, it is a "standard contract", everybody makes the same here. Tell them they are lieing and there is no such thing as a standard contract. In business world you have to know, everthing is up for negotiation.
I *did* work for a start-up where we were all paid the same.
When I was hiring there, someone taking the "you are a liar" approach would have ended the negeotiations immediately.
I got some *excellent* experience there that helped me jump whole salary levels later. The work environment was pretty cool, too.
Look at the whole package and make your choice. Salary is the easiest to measure but not the only important part of a job decision.
Checking out the MIT campus map, it looks like most of the primarily classroom buildings have wireless access whereas many/most of the primarily lab buildings do not.
Of course, it's possible that many of the labs have set up their own wireless access. They were often computationally semi-independent when I was there 10 years ago.
Strangely enough, the athletic center doesn't have wirless access. That makes it pretty hard to uphold our geek reputation. What are we going to do, excercise?
> Why? Is programming talent scarce? It seems to me that it's not. Not even hardly; leaving code monkeys out of it, good programmers are 99 cents a pound.
Please send some of them my way. We're hiring and it seems like we have to go through a lot of hamburger to find the good stuff.
On the other, perhaps we're talking about different things. I'm not looking for people who can crank code. I'm looking for people who can figure out what code to crank what code not to.
Value add is in solving someone's problem, not KLOCs
I just got one Saturday. Perhaps I got taken, it seems decent to me. They used the components I would have were I building one for a similar price (I didn't expect 2 case fans and round IDE cables). WD hard drive, NEC DVDRW, NVidia chipset motherboard. Seems solid, everything works. We'll see in a year.
There price was good enough that several pieces could burn out and I'd still be ahead.
I can imagine a situation where a corrupted/corruptable individual works hard to gain legitimate comitt access to certian tools that are widespread. GCC, the kernel, a shell or two, OpenSSL. That person starts making small changes that when aggregated expose a large exploit but when examined piece-mail are completely benign, or even benficical.
You seem to be postulating an intentional vulnerability (at least) an order of magnitude more complex than the ostensible purpose of the code. If we have developers that can do this, I'll personally write them a check just out of appreciation, or send a donation in small, well-used US currency.
What's the motive? Another poster said that you have to trust someone, some time. While that may be both true and overly simplistic, how would our hypothetical Uberhacker benefit from their hack? Evidence suggests that there are plenty of easier targets for financial gain. I could see the allegedly "original" hacker motivation, "to see if I can", but it still seems unlikely.
To remain undetected would require a conspiracy of all those sufficiently clever to recognize the hack.
Lastly, anything that complex would most likely be very failure prone. What if one of us less gifted programmers went in and "cleaned up" a bit.
-- (...And Dewey wanders away, still muttering to himself...)
> unless someone's released "Windows XP Car edition" or similar I really don't see this as all that useful
Forget the actual application for now. What this does is move development of in-car computing into the "garage-hacker" domain. It will be interesting to see what their "to be announced" LCD touch screen looks like.
1. Good amospheric model. Flying an airplane is cake in silky smooth air, and the sims probably do a pretty good job of simulating it. I've found that air about 4 times in the last 112 hours. It's dealing with all the little things throwing you off that takes the skill.
2. Control force feedback. In the little planes I've flown it's very important. VERY.
3. Visuals. Need more monitors, or a head-tracker set of VR goggles.
4. Sound. I can close my eyes and tell you if we're climbing or diving. There's all sorts of noises that tip you off in little airplanes.
I also have found that flying the simulator doesn't help you fly a real airplane. However, flying a real airplane *really* helps you fly a simulator.
As for complexity: Yeah, the LA basin does take the cake, but FS2K makes up with it because you have to control your whole panel with one little mouse. It's *so* much easier when you have all the switches and knobs.:)
<flame bait type="blatant">Perhaps a 747 is easier. I've heard all they do it sit up front and set the auto-pilot</flame bait>
>> I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic
> Perhaps, if you're doing something `wierd'. But 99% of the time, you're not likely to notice anything `wrong' with MSFS's flight model.
I've noticed.
The "weird" thing I was doing was taking off from Spencer, MA (http://www.airnav.com/airport/60m). I've done this at least a few hundred times in a 1974 Cessna 172. If MSFS were real I'd be wrapped around a tree. This is very strange because almost no real-world airplane performs as well as the sims.
All planes are slightly different (and few live up to "book" values), but this was quite noticable and makes me wonder what else is different. I've had similar reports from friends who fly other models that they also offer.
I believe the box of FS I have has the motto "As Real as It Gets". Hmmm.
> However, teachers would often be left to admin their own machines in schools I've seen....They won't call an admin because there is only like one or two per county and it's a hassle to get an appointment.
Actually, I think this is one of the benefits of Linux. Linux tends to keep working when you've got it set up right.
Whenever I've had to support less-than-expert users on Windows machines I spend my time fixing what they've broken.
With Linux I spend my time putting in new stuff for them to use.
They'll need fewer admins. Yes, that flexibility to install whatever software is kinda nice on Windows, until you have to clean up corrupted registries, deal with system instability...
Slashdot Mirror
I think TiVos firmware lockout is less about making sure that no one can hack on their boxen than it is about controlling their support costs.
They're doing mainstream consumer electronics that's continuously maintained by their self-upgrade process. Would *you* want to support that if you allowed firmware hacking??? Ugh!
They've released some of their kernel patches at least. Would I like hacking my TiVo to be easier? Not sure -- it's never been worth it to me to do what hacking is currently possible.
Coincidentally, I was just re-reading ESR's The Magic Cauldron. He analyzes several open source models as profitable business models and specifically discusses when open sourcing code makes more money that closed source.
As he points out (perhaps in one of this other essays) There are a lot of OSS types who just plain think it's better, not just (or not even) more morally correct.
From my perspective, that the "Johnnie-come-latelys" are all trying to "jump on the bandwagon" means someone has figured out not that open source is socially better or more altruistic or better in the long run, but that it's just better.
Obviously, entities people dislike are suspected of having a hidden agenda when they suddently change behavior and do something they've historically opposed. When the spyware folks started making anti-spyware statements people were suspicious. Likewise when the anti-OSS folks start releasing OSS. This kind of suspicion is quite reasonable.
This doesn't mean that there isn't a "good" explanation -- just that people are skeptical.
In support of suspicion: Why is the US Dept. of Homeland Security involved in kiddy porn? Could there be some application beyond kiddy porn that might interest them?
It's a fairly common tactic to establish a precedent for a questionable tactic by using it against an unquestionable evil. I think that's what worries people about this.
Just last night I was discussing re-installing my wife's WinXP computer. Amongst other problems it's locking up about every 6 hours and requires a hard reset.
Quoth me: "Yeah, that's why I don't like Windows"
Quoth she: "So, why aren't I using Linux?"
Hmmm, good question...
Firefox....check
Thunderbird....check
PDF viewer....check
Word....OpenOffice is an acceptable substitute (now)
Quicken....I might be able to do something with this.
So, it seems that since she's already using this software on Windows and I can go to Linux without changing behvior then she's all for Linux. She's just tired of Windows being Windows.
Anyone care to guess how "easy" this transition would be if she were on Outlook Express/IE?
That, to me, sounds like a reson to have more FOSS running on Windows.
Taking extreme positions to try to force an "all or nothing" usage pattern is self-defeating.
Wow, is that a Microsoftish statement or what?
Flame me if you will, but the reason I'm a fan of FOSS is that it lets me solve the problems I want to solve. I'm not on the FOSS bandwagon because it's against Microsoft. *Most* of the FOSS I use I'll never peek under the covers -- I just know that it's more valuable to me if I can.
This kind of "we can't do what our 'customers' want because that would help our competitor" thinking is *exactly* why I *DON'T* like Microsoft.
If you put up impediments to someone using your software in a way you don't personally like then you're interfering with the "F" part.
So, are you really for "Freedom" or not? Is it only Freedom if it's Freedom done your way?
--
Dewey
> If they say stuff like, it is a "standard contract", everybody makes the same here. Tell them they are lieing and there is no such thing as a standard contract. In business world you have to know, everthing is up for negotiation.
I *did* work for a start-up where we were all paid the same.
When I was hiring there, someone taking the "you are a liar" approach would have ended the negeotiations immediately.
I got some *excellent* experience there that helped me jump whole salary levels later. The work environment was pretty cool, too.
Look at the whole package and make your choice. Salary is the easiest to measure but not the only important part of a job decision.
Checking out the MIT campus map, it looks like most of the primarily classroom buildings have wireless access whereas many/most of the primarily lab buildings do not.
Of course, it's possible that many of the labs have set up their own wireless access. They were often computationally semi-independent when I was there 10 years ago.
Strangely enough, the athletic center doesn't have wirless access. That makes it pretty hard to uphold our geek reputation. What are we going to do, excercise?
> Why? Is programming talent scarce? It seems to me that it's not. Not even hardly; leaving code monkeys out of it, good programmers are 99 cents a pound.
Please send some of them my way. We're hiring and it seems like we have to go through a lot of hamburger to find the good stuff.
On the other, perhaps we're talking about different things. I'm not looking for people who can crank code. I'm looking for people who can figure out what code to crank what code not to.
Value add is in solving someone's problem, not KLOCs
OK, I'll bite
I just got one Saturday. Perhaps I got taken, it seems decent to me. They used the components I would have were I building one for a similar price (I didn't expect 2 case fans and round IDE cables). WD hard drive, NEC DVDRW, NVidia chipset motherboard. Seems solid, everything works. We'll see in a year.
There price was good enough that several pieces could burn out and I'd still be ahead.
You seem to be postulating an intentional vulnerability (at least) an order of magnitude more complex than the ostensible purpose of the code. If we have developers that can do this, I'll personally write them a check just out of appreciation, or send a donation in small, well-used US currency.
What's the motive? Another poster said that you have to trust someone, some time. While that may be both true and overly simplistic, how would our hypothetical Uberhacker benefit from their hack? Evidence suggests that there are plenty of easier targets for financial gain. I could see the allegedly "original" hacker motivation, "to see if I can", but it still seems unlikely.
To remain undetected would require a conspiracy of all those sufficiently clever to recognize the hack.
Lastly, anything that complex would most likely be very failure prone. What if one of us less gifted programmers went in and "cleaned up" a bit.
--
(...And Dewey wanders away, still muttering to himself...)
This fellow was hired.
Professor wins "genius" grant
Apparantly, he's not an ass, but certainly from a non-traditional background.
> unless someone's released "Windows XP Car edition" or similar I really don't see this as all that useful
Forget the actual application for now. What this does is move development of in-car computing into the "garage-hacker" domain. It will be interesting to see what their "to be announced" LCD touch screen looks like.
If he lost his ego he'd probably not be writing this software at all.
Things I believe most simulators lack:
:)
1. Good amospheric model. Flying an airplane is cake in silky smooth air, and the sims probably do a pretty good job of simulating it. I've found that air about 4 times in the last 112 hours. It's dealing with all the little things throwing you off that takes the skill.
2. Control force feedback. In the little planes I've flown it's very important. VERY.
3. Visuals. Need more monitors, or a head-tracker set of VR goggles.
4. Sound. I can close my eyes and tell you if we're climbing or diving. There's all sorts of noises that tip you off in little airplanes.
I also have found that flying the simulator doesn't help you fly a real airplane. However, flying a real airplane *really* helps you fly a simulator.
As for complexity: Yeah, the LA basin does take the cake, but FS2K makes up with it because you have to control your whole panel with one little mouse. It's *so* much easier when you have all the switches and knobs.
<flame bait type="blatant">Perhaps a 747 is easier. I've heard all they do it sit up front and set the auto-pilot</flame bait>
>> I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic
> Perhaps, if you're doing something `wierd'. But 99% of the time, you're not likely to notice anything `wrong' with MSFS's flight model.
I've noticed.
The "weird" thing I was doing was taking off from Spencer, MA (http://www.airnav.com/airport/60m). I've done this at least a few hundred times in a 1974 Cessna 172. If MSFS were real I'd be wrapped around a tree. This is very strange because almost no real-world airplane performs as well as the sims.
All planes are slightly different (and few live up to "book" values), but this was quite noticable and makes me wonder what else is different. I've had similar reports from friends who fly other models that they also offer.
I believe the box of FS I have has the motto "As Real as It Gets". Hmmm.
> However, teachers would often be left to admin their own machines in schools I've seen....They won't call an admin because there is only like one or two per county and it's a hassle to get an appointment.
Actually, I think this is one of the benefits of Linux. Linux tends to keep working when you've got it set up right.
Whenever I've had to support less-than-expert users on Windows machines I spend my time fixing what they've broken.
With Linux I spend my time putting in new stuff for them to use.
They'll need fewer admins. Yes, that flexibility to install whatever software is kinda nice on Windows, until you have to clean up corrupted registries, deal with system instability...
--
Dewey