I think the point of writing their own proprietary algorithm was so they could patent it, and license the algorithm to people who wish to make DVD players and sell them.
You can't patent a decoding key, but you can patent the method for using a key.
It's a revenue stream, really. It's not about security, or piracy, or anything like that.
To use something like AES to encrypt the DVDs wouldn't cost them a dime, but it doesn't earn them more bucks either, so it would never happen.
So, why try to protect the algorithm at all? Patents only last 17 years, right? DVDs might last much longer than that. It might become legal to make "after market" (invent your own term) DVD players (aka: xine) and sell them for profit when the patent runs up, and that gives whoever does it access to a tremendous library of media, which they didn't fork out a dime for.
Which means, round about 2010 we should see a DVD2 standard, with a whole new algorithm, and a whole new patent, and a whole new trip around the merry-go-round.
In adition to the other good advice here, I'd bring up that a benchmarking program like PCMark2002 can sometimes point you in the direction of a problem. (http://www.futuremark.com/)
If your computer's memory score just tanked when compared to your baseline benchmark, you might wanna test the ram first.:)
Don't forget! Whoever develops the replacement for oil, not only is no longer dependant on oil, but has a new export!
Not only will we NOT be buying oil from middle east countries, we will be SELLING a clean, cheap oil replacement. There's more motivation to try this than just energy independance.
Suddenly, those middle east countries look like they're over an even bigger oil barrel than before, eh?
(Sorry about the oil barrel pun, couldn't stop typing...)
In open source, the users are the testers. If they don't like something, they fix it, or complain, and patches come out. The find/fix cycle has a speed relative to the number of users that give a crap.
That means, nobody wasted time fixing things nobody cared about anyway. And, cool things one bug shy of being really cool will get that fix.
I call that effiency.
Structured testing is the old way. Let it go.
In the future, the people putting up with bug ridden software -- will fix it!
The only place I see for structured testing is on the user side. Determining fitness for a purpose. Does this open source software meet our needs. Let's beat on it with our test suite. Then make decisions about it.
Some users will find that software to be okay, others will move on, some might move in and fix it up.
Why it's sinking: Can 92 million users be wrong? Yes. Declining support, reliability problems, security issues and incompatibility with new applications..."
Crappy support, reliability problems, security issues... yes, yes, and yes! Switch to incompatibility with OLD programs, and you've got all the same issues it had when it first came out.
He said: Threatened legal action against Yamaha OWNERS. A minor nit, to your minor nit. Threatening a company that infringes is reasonable. Suing OWNERS/USERS is SCO. I mean, not.
I registered a domain name with a service that provides email forwarding. (registersite.com)
then, i created an email address (spam0) and use that for all my risky behavior.:) when it got too much spam, i deleted it, and created a new one (spam1)... lather, rinse, repeat.
also handy side effect, when i change isp, i just update my forwarding address. i have a nice permanent email for myself.
Would it be more accurate to say, you wish to see all cleartext services disabled by default? Since ftp, telnet, rlogin, etc. all have ciphered, non-cleartext authentication methods with mutual authentication?
Where I work, we allow kerberized telnet, but not cleartext telnet. Same for ftp.
The next time a big company wants to buy software from someone, they're not going to sit back and take that license agreement offered by, say M$.
They'll ask for a "full and un-revocable" right to whatever they buy, on the grounds they need to protect themselves from SCO like actions.
These crazy-ass licenses put out by M$ and others like them might just end up being victims of their own draconian terms.
IBM is going to make a PILE of money selling open source based stuff. Right in the middle of their pitch, they'll ask the customer if they are ready to be sued by the software companies selling the competing systems. The competitor will say they're not going to do that. IBM will tell the customer to get that in writing, and hand a copy of the GPL to the customer, saying "Something like this."
Oh, come on now. We all knew a suit like this was going to come along eventually. The old companies were going to lash out against open source sooner or later. They have nothing to lose, and everything to win.
I'm just happy to see the first salvo be so horribly off target that the NEXT shot at Linux will probably just bounce off. A legal assault on open source would have have to be a lot better organized than this one to have the effect they were hoping for.
SCO is doing to Microsoft what North Korea did to China when they invaded South Korea!
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point of writing their own proprietary algorithm was so they could patent it, and license the algorithm to people who wish to make DVD players and sell them.
:)
You can't patent a decoding key, but you can patent the method for using a key.
It's a revenue stream, really. It's not about security, or piracy, or anything like that.
To use something like AES to encrypt the DVDs wouldn't cost them a dime, but it doesn't earn them more bucks either, so it would never happen.
So, why try to protect the algorithm at all? Patents only last 17 years, right? DVDs might last much longer than that. It might become legal to make "after market" (invent your own term) DVD players (aka: xine) and sell them for profit when the patent runs up, and that gives whoever does it access to a tremendous library of media, which they didn't fork out a dime for.
Which means, round about 2010 we should see a DVD2 standard, with a whole new algorithm, and a whole new patent, and a whole new trip around the merry-go-round.
Not that I'm cynical.
-ave
Wouldn't a patent stop them from providing any Java like technology, even if it was developed in a clean room?
I'm sure Sun has patented parts of Java that would make it difficult for IBM to go their own way.
-ave
In adition to the other good advice here, I'd bring up that a benchmarking program like PCMark2002 can sometimes point you in the direction of a problem. (http://www.futuremark.com/)
:)
If your computer's memory score just tanked when compared to your baseline benchmark, you might wanna test the ram first.
-ave
I've been playing a LOT of SimCity 4 lately, and... for a second there... I forgot which monitor I was looking at!
-ave
No badge for programming, but there is a Usenet Troll badge you can get.
Don't forget! Whoever develops the replacement for oil, not only is no longer dependant on oil, but has a new export!
Not only will we NOT be buying oil from middle east countries, we will be SELLING a clean, cheap oil replacement. There's more motivation to try this than just energy independance.
Suddenly, those middle east countries look like they're over an even bigger oil barrel than before, eh?
(Sorry about the oil barrel pun, couldn't stop typing...)
-ave
So, what you're saying is that somehow Cringley screwed up by not redefining good, is that it?
It sounds like you're saying that Microsoft products don't suck, so long as you look at them from Microsoft's perspective.
Security holes? Let's talk about profit first!
Sheesh!
-ave
I do not agree, even remotely.
In open source, the users are the testers. If they don't like something, they fix it, or complain, and patches come out. The find/fix cycle has a speed relative to the number of users that give a crap.
That means, nobody wasted time fixing things nobody cared about anyway. And, cool things one bug shy of being really cool will get that fix.
I call that effiency.
Structured testing is the old way. Let it go.
In the future, the people putting up with bug ridden software -- will fix it!
The only place I see for structured testing is on the user side. Determining fitness for a purpose. Does this open source software meet our needs. Let's beat on it with our test suite. Then make decisions about it.
Some users will find that software to be okay, others will move on, some might move in and fix it up.
That is the new way.
-ave
"1. WINDOWS 9x
..."
Why it's sinking: Can 92 million users be wrong? Yes. Declining support, reliability problems, security issues and incompatibility with new applications
Crappy support, reliability problems, security issues... yes, yes, and yes! Switch to incompatibility with OLD programs, and you've got all the same issues it had when it first came out.
computerworld.com == insight!!!
-ave
He said: Threatened legal action against Yamaha OWNERS. A minor nit, to your minor nit. Threatening a company that infringes is reasonable. Suing OWNERS/USERS is SCO. I mean, not.
-ave
I'm a quarter polish you insentive clod! ... and I don't understand the meaning of your meaning.
I registered a domain name with a service that provides email forwarding. (registersite.com)
:) when it got too much spam, i deleted it, and created a new one (spam1)... lather, rinse, repeat.
then, i created an email address (spam0) and use that for all my risky behavior.
also handy side effect, when i change isp, i just update my forwarding address. i have a nice permanent email for myself.
works good!
-ave
Oh, Please.
Stephen King tried to get a lot of people to pay a very little for a peice of shit.
Turns out, people can make their own shit, and weren't willing to pay for his steaming pile.
Don't confuse the system with the product.
-ave
Does that make IBM Howard Roark?
:)
Slashdot is clearly the Banner...
-ave
You can tunnel through ssh, including X for secure remote displaying. Our users favorite feature. :)
-ave
If you tried this earlier and it didn't work, try it again. I botched something, but it's working now. :)
Sorry!
-ave
Drop me a note at kputty@jaccard.us
-ave
Okay, I made a throw away email address for this. Send me a note and I'll hook you up the best I can:
kputty@jaccard.us
Thanks!
kerberos authentication via gssapi in openssh was available in linux before it was available in windows. i know, cause i did some of the work.
The DOD is big on it, also.
Would it be more accurate to say, you wish to see all cleartext services disabled by default? Since ftp, telnet, rlogin, etc. all have ciphered, non-cleartext authentication methods with mutual authentication?
Where I work, we allow kerberized telnet, but not cleartext telnet. Same for ftp.
-ave
or, for the not so paranoid, you could use kerberos and ftp/filezilla. no moronic passwords in the clear at all.
i have a mod for putty that can do gssapi+kerberos auth for users. windows client to the linux/unix openssh servers.
we're beta testing (or will start soon) but it works!
respond if you're interested...
Here's what I see happening...
The next time a big company wants to buy software from someone, they're not going to sit back and take that license agreement offered by, say M$.
They'll ask for a "full and un-revocable" right to whatever they buy, on the grounds they need to protect themselves from SCO like actions.
These crazy-ass licenses put out by M$ and others like them might just end up being victims of their own draconian terms.
IBM is going to make a PILE of money selling open source based stuff. Right in the middle of their pitch, they'll ask the customer if they are ready to be sued by the software companies selling the competing systems. The competitor will say they're not going to do that. IBM will tell the customer to get that in writing, and hand a copy of the GPL to the customer, saying "Something like this."
Oh boy, this is going to be good!
Oh, come on now. We all knew a suit like this was going to come along eventually. The old companies were going to lash out against open source sooner or later. They have nothing to lose, and everything to win.
I'm just happy to see the first salvo be so horribly off target that the NEXT shot at Linux will probably just bounce off. A legal assault on open source would have have to be a lot better organized than this one to have the effect they were hoping for.
SCO is doing to Microsoft what North Korea did to China when they invaded South Korea!
-ave