Cedega (formerly WineX) does not have support for most of the new copy protection mechanisms around, and mentions as much in their documentation. This means that you can install and run pirated games in Linux that you wouldn't be able to in Windows.
Which games? I've found that lack of support for a restriction mechanism usually means I can't play at all -- even with the original CD mounted. The only solution is to use a crack, or (better) use the native version of the same game (if it exists).
While Wine doesn't handle these annoying restriction methods at all, and Cedega (aka WineX) does handle many of them, even Cedega doesn't handle them all.
The StarForce games I've looked up in Transgaming's search page don't work for a variety of reasons -- a few of the failures seem to be related to copy protection issues.
That said, I'm glad to see the list that was posted where there are cracks available. Maybe that will 'fix' the problem?
With plain jane Wine, I was able to play American McGee's Alice -- though a crack was necessary to eliminate a message that asked me to "please unload all debuggers". (Alice uses Safedisc and is handled natively with Cedega.)
That said, I mostly play native games under Linux and don't use Wine/Cedega at all. There are plenty of them.
If it's a problem for OSS projects, it's also a problem for closed-source ones
Not in the same way.
Take me, for example. Suppose I write a bit of software that infringes on someone's patent. What can I do? Nothing.
Blood from a stone. The patent holder shuts you down, pays it's lawyers, and gets bad PR.
Suppose Microsoft writes a bit of software that infringes on someone's patent. What can they do? Easy - they look at the other guy's software, and say "ooh, looky here! Your software infringes our patents! Tell you what, either you license us your patent real cheap, or we squish you. Your choice."
...or the large company can get sued. Like the Eolis patent being discussed (though that specific one I don't think has merit).
Okay, so this isn't so much an OSS vs closed source as a big player vs little player issue,
Yep.
but two facts remain: one, nearly all OSS projects come into the "little player" category; two, it's a lot easier for the patent holders to find out whether their patent is being infringed when they can look at the source code...
If the source is closed, a decompiler can be used on it to generate source, so lack of source isn't a problem either.
That said, as the SCO trials have shown, evidence doesn't matter one bit.
What maters most is that if the function that is performed matches the patent, there is a basis for a lawsuit; "You must be infringing since your program can generate the same results as our patented one!" Having the source allows you to say "See, no we didn't!" though in SCO's case, it just replied "Oh, yes you did!" and we're back to a shouting match.
Say wing-ding looping and sorting method 'B' is patented and, not knowing anything about it, I create it myself. Should I check my code and all code I write to ensure that it is not already patented? If that's the case you can kiss a great many OSS projects goodbye because they won't have the resources or the patients for this type of thing.
If it's a problem for OSS projects, it's also a problem for closed-source ones (no-cost through to shrinkwrapped and large single corporation built-to-spec projects).
Re:Separating Linux users from Windows users
on
The Spyware Inferno
·
· Score: 1
* When they realize it's on thier computer, they will often belive it's nessecary for software to function. (I tried cleaning up my sister-in-laws Win98 PC, and she immediately blamed me for screwing it up the first time something didn't work the same way -- that's the only real anecdote I have, as I stay the bloody hell away from that kind of job).
Same with me...except it was my brother-in-law. He was stunned to hear he had 3 viruses and a few hundread pieces of spyware (6 programs plus tracking information).
Lately, for a few weeks, I've goten spammed by a virus using a return email address that happened to be my brother-in-laws sister. Meanwhile, my father is getting the same types of spam from an account with my name on it. I suspect that it's from my brother-in-laws computer, though they say "it's clean". Grrrr...I'll see when I visit next.
I don't know how much power you can safely draw over Ethernet. Maybe it's not enough. But it would be cool if it worked.
POE -- power over ethernet -- is used in quite a few wireless routers/aps/... . There's even a spec for it. I think 12 volts works well, though that's from memory. In most cases, that's enough to run most devices that use a power brick. The typical use for POE is to power remote APs without having to run a power cord.
The upper limit? I don't know...though if you give your 5v device 12v you deserve what you get!
On the other hand, power loss over the length of the cable can be substantial. Be sure to check out the power loss calculators on line if you intend to have long runs of it (close to or over ~100ft).
8 wires on a typical ethernet cable, 4 are in use for data, 4 aren't -- though the other 4 can be used for phone lines or a second ethernet connection. Quite handy.
That whole thing assumes communism is in any way bad... It's biased to begin with.
The only stable and non-abusive version of communism that comes to mind are small, optional, communes such as the kubutz system in Israel. Optional being the key word.
Most of the other communist societies have died off or are being changed into not-so-communistic societies.
Democratic socialist+caplitalist systems seem to be the most sucessful.
There's a BusinessWeek article today advising the Linux community and those in product development to drop GPL and release under BSDesque licenses in order to stay more business-friendly.
I'd be more impressed if BusinessWeek released BusinessWeek under a BSD-style licence.
If byte 0x10 through 0x23 are always going to be unknown then assume byte 0x0 to byte 0x23 are unknown.
Then publish the md5sum of bytes 0x23 and on. It wouldn't be very difficult to modify md5sum to start reading from a given byte offset.
That's not even necessary. A few lines of a shell script plus programs to split the file would do it.
The only messy thing is that the check would have to be specific to this one program...and if Transgaming changes how they tag the file it would cause problems once again.
Look at nearly every product with 'activation' or a 'cd-key' and it's been cracked. All these 'protections' do is make it easier for pirates to pirate and harder for legit users to get to work.
(corrections appreciated)
That's not the case here. This isn't restricting use at all...just making it clear which copy goes where (if found later).
If they put in code to actively thwart copying -- and I agree it would 'make it easier for pirates to pirate and harder for legit users' to use what they bought -- I would be with you. Since that's not the case, there's no harm, no foul.
Transgaming should provide a way to verify the file, though, to protect against the case that if the file were hijacked and bad code were put in you could check the file. That it's not the same # for everyone isn't much of an issue.
I think Linux is a great kernel, but a 42 MB download is really a bit too much for my liking.
[ suggestions for reducing the source update snipped ]
The upgrade patch from 2.6.7 to 2.6.8 is under 4MB and can be found right along with the complete source here.
Splitting the kernel source into parts would be a logistical problem...and I'd rather the developers not be bothered with it. If you want source, and you want small file sizes, using a diff to patch a previous release is a reasonable compromise. There are plenty of comments on the web on how to apply these patches, so being a developer isn't even necessary.
Most of the suggestions you have would be appropriate for a binary release, though binary kernel packages are much smaller anyway so much of the benifit there is also lost.
That said, there could be improvements on the package updates for just about every package... I don't know any that do atomic updates (ex: MD5 sums of the files and fetch only the ones that differ...or apply a patch to make the files match.). That would be quite handy for mass deployment of files over a LAN to cut down network traffic; push out the update details to the clients, have the local systems check if they need a specific file, have the local systems report back what they need or if they are already OK. Not ideal for every situation, though it could be benificial. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tivo updates are handled like this.
Sure, if the kernel has been modified, then GPL dictates that the modifications must be released.
However, if you don't modify the kernel or any of the tools you don't have to release the source code of your application. My bet is that they went the NVidia road: a binary module.
While that's the way it is commonly done, it's not true in important edge cases.
The GPL focuses on offering source if binaries are distributed -- so that the binary can be built from source with any new modifications 3rd parties may want to make. That this implicitly covers modifications is intentional but a side effect.
Example of an edge case: Say I create something and licence it under the GPL and turn around and sell it to my one and only customer. Nobody else has the source for that program. My customer resells or even gives away the binary, not caring about the source and never asking me for it. You get that binary and, knowing it has a GPL licence, ask my customer for the source.
Who is responsible to provide the source? It's not me...it's the distributor; my customer.
That said, *being the nice guy that I am*, I'd probably not irk my customer over this and would probably handle any requests for the source for them.
Second edge case: Same situation as above, but I modify a GPLed program I didn't originally create.
In that case, if I ship only the diffs, and the original source that I modified gets lost, my diffs are not useful; the diffs don't represent code that can be used to reasonably recreate the original binary.
Also, keep in mind that if I never distributed the binary to anyone else, or my customer does not distribute it to others, there is no obligation to anyone who did not get the distribution of that binary intentionally. (If it's stolen...the GPL does not give the thief or anyone who gets the binary from the thief any additional rights!)
The firmware that runs on the card itself is still a closed source binary. Think of it as the same as a system board BIOS upgrade, though like the microcode updates for your processor it is loaded each time into the chipset before using it. Unlike the processor updates, the chipset firmware is required to use the card -- at all.
This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute or transfer any part of the Software except as provided in this Agreement, and you agree to prevent unauthorized copying of the Software.
You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software.
You may not sublicense the Software.
The Software may contain the software or other property of third party suppliers.
...or.net as in "http://www.mysite.net", though Google will return search results for '.net' with ones that match 'net.' as well. It's useless to even mention the results of a query like this...so why do it?
With Microsoft pushing.Net/c#/..., Java is doomed.
Not that I believe that...though that's a popular idea since with.Net/c#/... being funded so heavily by Microsoft in schools so that's all the new people see or hear.
Their site alone is a fairly good support tool. There aren't nearly as many resources, comprehensive or not, for Linux support. That's not a flaw of Linux - it's just history and inertia. As Linux becomes more mainstream, there will be much better free/generic support.
Mid-size and large companies often have support agreements (for a hefty price, but it's usually effective) with Microsoft. Call 'em up, get a person, and sometimes you'll get a fix just for your problem. Kinda makes you wonder what drives their patches - the future implications and risks, or the immediate buck behind the phone call?
Annonymous Coward: You are completely fucking delusional.
Some will use Windows (the brand, not the current product), though I can only see it as a showcase for Microsoft. Research budgets are to tight to buy it when there are established and leaner options already.
If you're setting up anything substantial, you should have specialists -- Linux or Windows or something else entirely. In scientific computing, there are compiler issues, custom code, and hardware issues that require riggor that a lossy cluster (say, a search engine) can not allow. If a calculation is done wrong, you're wasting your time. If the results are wrong because of bad hardware, you need to re-run them till you are certian.
In the case of Windows, there is a limited range where not seriously dealing with these issues is OK. Anything beyond that could be more problematic. A simplified configuration with Linux (or *BSD, or even a commercial minimialist OS) would work much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Which games? I've found that lack of support for a restriction mechanism usually means I can't play at all -- even with the original CD mounted. The only solution is to use a crack, or (better) use the native version of the same game (if it exists).
The StarForce games I've looked up in Transgaming's search page don't work for a variety of reasons -- a few of the failures seem to be related to copy protection issues.
That said, I'm glad to see the list that was posted where there are cracks available. Maybe that will 'fix' the problem?
With plain jane Wine, I was able to play American McGee's Alice -- though a crack was necessary to eliminate a message that asked me to "please unload all debuggers". (Alice uses Safedisc and is handled natively with Cedega.)
That said, I mostly play native games under Linux and don't use Wine/Cedega at all. There are plenty of them.
Not in the same way.
Take me, for example. Suppose I write a bit of software that infringes on someone's patent. What can I do? Nothing.
Blood from a stone. The patent holder shuts you down, pays it's lawyers, and gets bad PR.
...or the large company can get sued. Like the Eolis patent being discussed (though that specific one I don't think has merit).
Yep.
If the source is closed, a decompiler can be used on it to generate source, so lack of source isn't a problem either.
That said, as the SCO trials have shown, evidence doesn't matter one bit.
What maters most is that if the function that is performed matches the patent, there is a basis for a lawsuit; "You must be infringing since your program can generate the same results as our patented one!" Having the source allows you to say "See, no we didn't!" though in SCO's case, it just replied "Oh, yes you did!" and we're back to a shouting match.
If it's a problem for OSS projects, it's also a problem for closed-source ones (no-cost through to shrinkwrapped and large single corporation built-to-spec projects).
Ignore previous comment...thought I posted this to the RNC DOS thread! :(
Same with me...except it was my brother-in-law. He was stunned to hear he had 3 viruses and a few hundread pieces of spyware (6 programs plus tracking information).
Lately, for a few weeks, I've goten spammed by a virus using a return email address that happened to be my brother-in-laws sister. Meanwhile, my father is getting the same types of spam from an account with my name on it. I suspect that it's from my brother-in-laws computer, though they say "it's clean". Grrrr...I'll see when I visit next.
POE -- power over ethernet -- is used in quite a few wireless routers/aps/... . There's even a spec for it. I think 12 volts works well, though that's from memory. In most cases, that's enough to run most devices that use a power brick. The typical use for POE is to power remote APs without having to run a power cord.
The upper limit? I don't know...though if you give your 5v device 12v you deserve what you get!
On the other hand, power loss over the length of the cable can be substantial. Be sure to check out the power loss calculators on line if you intend to have long runs of it (close to or over ~100ft).
8 wires on a typical ethernet cable, 4 are in use for data, 4 aren't -- though the other 4 can be used for phone lines or a second ethernet connection. Quite handy.
A similar war game Boson is open source, playable, though not completely done.
The only stable and non-abusive version of communism that comes to mind are small, optional, communes such as the kubutz system in Israel. Optional being the key word.
Most of the other communist societies have died off or are being changed into not-so-communistic societies.
Democratic socialist+caplitalist systems seem to be the most sucessful.
I'd be more impressed if BusinessWeek released BusinessWeek under a BSD-style licence.
Then publish the md5sum of bytes 0x23 and on. It wouldn't be very difficult to modify md5sum to start reading from a given byte offset.
That's not even necessary. A few lines of a shell script plus programs to split the file would do it.
The only messy thing is that the check would have to be specific to this one program...and if Transgaming changes how they tag the file it would cause problems once again.
(corrections appreciated)
That's not the case here. This isn't restricting use at all...just making it clear which copy goes where (if found later).
If they put in code to actively thwart copying -- and I agree it would 'make it easier for pirates to pirate and harder for legit users' to use what they bought -- I would be with you. Since that's not the case, there's no harm, no foul.
Transgaming should provide a way to verify the file, though, to protect against the case that if the file were hijacked and bad code were put in you could check the file. That it's not the same # for everyone isn't much of an issue.
[ suggestions for reducing the source update snipped ]
The upgrade patch from 2.6.7 to 2.6.8 is under 4MB and can be found right along with the complete source here.
Splitting the kernel source into parts would be a logistical problem...and I'd rather the developers not be bothered with it. If you want source, and you want small file sizes, using a diff to patch a previous release is a reasonable compromise. There are plenty of comments on the web on how to apply these patches, so being a developer isn't even necessary.
Most of the suggestions you have would be appropriate for a binary release, though binary kernel packages are much smaller anyway so much of the benifit there is also lost.
That said, there could be improvements on the package updates for just about every package ... I don't know any that do atomic updates (ex: MD5 sums of the files and fetch only the ones that differ...or apply a patch to make the files match.). That would be quite handy for mass deployment of files over a LAN to cut down network traffic; push out the update details to the clients, have the local systems check if they need a specific file, have the local systems report back what they need or if they are already OK. Not ideal for every situation, though it could be benificial. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tivo updates are handled like this.
However, if you don't modify the kernel or any of the tools you don't have to release the source code of your application. My bet is that they went the NVidia road: a binary module.
While that's the way it is commonly done, it's not true in important edge cases.
The GPL focuses on offering source if binaries are distributed -- so that the binary can be built from source with any new modifications 3rd parties may want to make. That this implicitly covers modifications is intentional but a side effect.
Example of an edge case: Say I create something and licence it under the GPL and turn around and sell it to my one and only customer. Nobody else has the source for that program. My customer resells or even gives away the binary, not caring about the source and never asking me for it. You get that binary and, knowing it has a GPL licence, ask my customer for the source.
Who is responsible to provide the source? It's not me...it's the distributor; my customer.
That said, *being the nice guy that I am*, I'd probably not irk my customer over this and would probably handle any requests for the source for them.
Second edge case: Same situation as above, but I modify a GPLed program I didn't originally create.
In that case, if I ship only the diffs, and the original source that I modified gets lost, my diffs are not useful; the diffs don't represent code that can be used to reasonably recreate the original binary.
Also, keep in mind that if I never distributed the binary to anyone else, or my customer does not distribute it to others, there is no obligation to anyone who did not get the distribution of that binary intentionally. (If it's stolen...the GPL does not give the thief or anyone who gets the binary from the thief any additional rights!)
Everyone knows that the secret EMS pass code is 00000000! What posers!
Thanks for the follow up. It's what I would have written (if I were faster and more clever).
The firmware that runs on the card itself is still a closed source binary. Think of it as the same as a system board BIOS upgrade, though like the microcode updates for your processor it is loaded each time into the chipset before using it. Unlike the processor updates, the chipset firmware is required to use the card -- at all.
Here's something to fight over, though;
...or .net as in "http://www.mysite.net", though Google will return search results for '.net' with ones that match 'net.' as well. It's useless to even mention the results of a query like this...so why do it?
With Microsoft pushing .Net/c#/..., Java is doomed.
Not that I believe that...though that's a popular idea since with .Net/c#/... being funded so heavily by Microsoft in schools so that's all the new people see or hear.
How is using a firewall superior to not running the service in the first place?
The game is officially marked as a zero (not working at all) though the forum comments say that's not true.
Mid-size and large companies often have support agreements (for a hefty price, but it's usually effective) with Microsoft. Call 'em up, get a person, and sometimes you'll get a fix just for your problem. Kinda makes you wonder what drives their patches - the future implications and risks, or the immediate buck behind the phone call?
Annonymous Coward: You are completely fucking delusional.
LOL! Out of the mouths of 'babes'!
If you're setting up anything substantial, you should have specialists -- Linux or Windows or something else entirely. In scientific computing, there are compiler issues, custom code, and hardware issues that require riggor that a lossy cluster (say, a search engine) can not allow. If a calculation is done wrong, you're wasting your time. If the results are wrong because of bad hardware, you need to re-run them till you are certian.
In the case of Windows, there is a limited range where not seriously dealing with these issues is OK. Anything beyond that could be more problematic. A simplified configuration with Linux (or *BSD, or even a commercial minimialist OS) would work much better.