No, what will happen is piracy will rid the world of these nonsense concepts.
No it will just be more lockdown. Game makers will offer service-based models on the PC and local versions on the security locked-down consoles. You actually think people will just sell their software - in turn allowing it to be distributed by the buyer - rather than a license and do all the work for free?
> Because it runs the programs they need to run and works with the devices they use
Yeah, and you can say this of any operating system.
Right and people use Windows because that is the OS with all the desktop applications and device support. Just like they use iOS and Android over webOS or Maemo or FFOS on mobiles.
- Because it's pre-installed and most of people use what you give them.
Then the answer is to work with OEMs to provide Linux pre-installed, otherwise you're just flogging a dead horse.
- Because they have been taught to it from school, and are use to the software on this platform.
Nope, plenty of people do their personal computing on systems other than Windows nowadays because they adapt and even the Windows of 10 years ago is drastically different from the Windows of today.
Forgotten that was five major software versions ago?
Oh well it's just not possible for it to happen again then I suppose.
Windows 10 is insecure, because XP had so many holes. Or something.
No, it's not causal. But it would braindead stupid to assume that Windows 10 isn't going to suffer drive-by malware just because Windows XP already did 10 years or so ago.
No not at all, like I said, you are sold a license to the software, not the software itself. The cost may include physical media but ultimately almost the entire cost is that software license yet some people still can't understand that and think they are sold the software. This insistence of something that is totally not true is why there is the confusion about re-selling, that all goes away with a service-based model.
If you like service based models, then good for you.
I don't, but I do understand that I'm buying a license, not software.
I don't entirely disagree with you. However, consider this. You not only got on the web, you also LOGGED IN and posted your private opinions publicly. For whatever reason, you just chose to make your private thoughts public, and chose to have Slashdot track your/. user id. That shows that SOMETIMES, you want Slashdot to identify you. Sometimes, privacy is not the most important thing to you.
Right, and I prefer to choose when that is, not have that as the default.
On the other hand, I want my Google maps to be very convenient. I'd rather it remember frequently used addresses rather than make me type em in every time.
The fact that you have to explicitly say you want privacy makes it a bad spec to begin with, just like having to explicitly say you dont want to participate in Windows' CEIP rather than it being something you opt-in to is bad for privacy (even though in that case it's just telemetry data).
Because it runs the programs they need to run and works with the devices they use. That is the primary purpose of an operating system, nobody turns on their computer just to use the operating system.
You don't really think they are going to acknowledge their problems do you? It's easier to just keep the blinders on and say "the only things that matter are the things we say matter". Yes their marketshare is in the toilet, yes their own satisfaction numbers confirm people don't like it but they will just point to the strong points that nobody cares about and call all criticism "nonsense" instead. User-hostile companies like that deserve to die the slow death that Mozilla is dying unless they get in touch with reality and realize that they have no idea what their users really want.
Do you really think that all sites are going to get rid of cookies, including "don't show me Beta" cookies, for anyone and everyone using IE? Just because Microsoft thought it was a good idea? No friggin way. If the USER chose to actively ticked the box, perhaps so. Because Microsoft's marketing team thought that "Do Not Track" sounded good and that breaking most web sites was an acceptable side effect? I don't think so.
So you're saying privacy should be opt-out rather than opt-in.
I buy DRM-free video all the time. It's convenient, since all I do with DVD or Blu-Ray is break DMCA and rip them anyway.
It's convenient to go out and buy physical media then rip it to a digital copy? I'm not sure that could be much less convenient.
I only buy a movie so I can watch on a whim 10 years from now when it may be near-impossible to find, physical or streaming. The new model doesn't fix that at all.
The new model is to remove the "ownership", if it still has a few corner case problems that's not going to be seen as a big deal.
I'm not advocating for it, just saying that it solves the "resale" and invasive DRM issues by removing "ownership" and that arguing to producers that they should continue supporting physical media because it allows you to break the DMCA is pointless.
If enough people prefer the convenience of digital media over the ability to resell it then yes, physical media will end up dead. It's already going that way, not many people are bothered by the fact that they can't resell the licenses of the programs, audio and video they buy from places like the App Store and Google Play. Media streaming is also becoming much more popular with services like Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Spotify, Apple Music, etc... where it is cheaper and more convenient than buying physical versions of everything you want to watch.
The way your problem is being solved is by simply changing the model so you are no longer sold a copy or a license, instead you are paying for a service so your complaints about resale go away.
THEY want to "sell" it to you (as in you pay money and that's the end of their woes),but they don't want you to own it
They sell you a license, they don't sell you the software. Ultimately this is going to a service-based model where you won't even get a license, you will just rent some resources from them to play the game for a time instead. Then all your problems of not being able to understand the concept of licenses and the confusion around copyright and reselling software licenses will go away.
The question that seems to have been missed is whether the jailbreak is just a mechanism to get the malware on the device or not. If this slipped through the curators of Apple's app store would devices be vulnerable to the exploit? Also we have seen web-based jailbreaks before that you could do just by visiting a website, doing that and installing malware in the process appears pretty viable.
Given the history, sweeping this under the rug and saying it doesn't matter because it only affects jailbroken devices is a bit short-sighted.
You do know there's a massive gulf between "I can root it because I have physical access to the device and all the passwords" and "omg my device got rooted over the air by unknown parties!"... right?
Forgotten JailbreakMe? Where your device could be jailbroken just by visiting a website?
Yes there are a lot of things, including Microsoft, Google and Facebook technologies outside of the core curriculum. But the core curriculum is very platform and vendor agnostic.
GM saw itself as the premier auto/truck maker in this country. And yet, they made some stupid mangament and engineering decisions that are slowly leading them into the corporate graveyard.
So you're saying the goal of these management decisions was to move people away from GM cars? I don't think so, just like RedHat's goal isn't to move users to Windows.
It's not a salary, it's a stipend. Intended to cover the costs incurred by the volunteers. Clue is even in the URL and mentioned multiple times on the website: http://www.tealsk12.org/volunteers/FAQ/
Well, guess what, Linux is not a good gaming platform
Someone should tell Valve.
Based on the delays of the Steam Machines I think they already know. Of course this isn't really a Linux problem but when you need to coordinate with major industry players that have different vested interests these things are going to crop up quite a lot.
Not to mention pushing Microsoft development tools and technologies.
No, it is about teaching computer science and pretty much anybody in the industry can volunteer to be a part of it. But you saw "Microsoft" and immediately projected your own bias rather than actually doing any research or educating yourself about it didn't you. So from the TEALS site:
What’s the curriculum? Our partner schools select from two TEALS courses: Intro CS (“Introduction to Computer Science Principles”) and AP CS A (“Introduction to Java Programming”).
Intro to CS uses Berkeley's Snap! visual programming language to teach CS fundamentals, not Microsoft tools.
Introduction to Java Programming? That doesn't sound very Microsoft does it. It's actually based on a text from Washington University.
Seriously it's all on the website, instead of being an ignorant naysayer spreading FUD you could actually contribute.
If the goal of systemd creators is to slowly move users back to Windows, these are all capabilities that need to be eliminated. So UNIX/Linux users can't use them as reasons not to move.
Yes it's all a big conspiracy! Red Hat isn't actually a supporter of Linux, despite being one of the topcontributors to the Linux kernel and creating and supporting client and server distributions of Linux systems from which most of their revenue is derived they are actually trying to destroy Linux and drive people to Windows so they can kill their own business and profitability!
Slashdot Mirror
No, what will happen is piracy will rid the world of these nonsense concepts.
No it will just be more lockdown. Game makers will offer service-based models on the PC and local versions on the security locked-down consoles. You actually think people will just sell their software - in turn allowing it to be distributed by the buyer - rather than a license and do all the work for free?
> Because it runs the programs they need to run and works with the devices they use
Yeah, and you can say this of any operating system.
Right and people use Windows because that is the OS with all the desktop applications and device support. Just like they use iOS and Android over webOS or Maemo or FFOS on mobiles.
- Because it's pre-installed and most of people use what you give them.
Then the answer is to work with OEMs to provide Linux pre-installed, otherwise you're just flogging a dead horse.
- Because they have been taught to it from school, and are use to the software on this platform.
Nope, plenty of people do their personal computing on systems other than Windows nowadays because they adapt and even the Windows of 10 years ago is drastically different from the Windows of today.
Forgotten that was five major software versions ago?
Oh well it's just not possible for it to happen again then I suppose.
Windows 10 is insecure, because XP had so many holes. Or something.
No, it's not causal. But it would braindead stupid to assume that Windows 10 isn't going to suffer drive-by malware just because Windows XP already did 10 years or so ago.
Seriously, what? Non-sequitur much?
No not at all, like I said, you are sold a license to the software, not the software itself. The cost may include physical media but ultimately almost the entire cost is that software license yet some people still can't understand that and think they are sold the software. This insistence of something that is totally not true is why there is the confusion about re-selling, that all goes away with a service-based model.
If you like service based models, then good for you.
I don't, but I do understand that I'm buying a license, not software.
I don't entirely disagree with you. However, consider this. You not only got on the web, you also LOGGED IN and posted your private opinions publicly. For whatever reason, you just chose to make your private thoughts public, and chose to have Slashdot track your /. user id. That shows that SOMETIMES, you want Slashdot to identify you. Sometimes, privacy is not the most important thing to you.
Right, and I prefer to choose when that is, not have that as the default.
On the other hand, I want my Google maps to be very convenient. I'd rather it remember frequently used addresses rather than make me type em in every time.
Yes and you should opt in to that.
The fact that you have to explicitly say you want privacy makes it a bad spec to begin with, just like having to explicitly say you dont want to participate in Windows' CEIP rather than it being something you opt-in to is bad for privacy (even though in that case it's just telemetry data).
Why, again, do people still use Windows?
Because it runs the programs they need to run and works with the devices they use. That is the primary purpose of an operating system, nobody turns on their computer just to use the operating system.
You don't really think they are going to acknowledge their problems do you? It's easier to just keep the blinders on and say "the only things that matter are the things we say matter". Yes their marketshare is in the toilet, yes their own satisfaction numbers confirm people don't like it but they will just point to the strong points that nobody cares about and call all criticism "nonsense" instead. User-hostile companies like that deserve to die the slow death that Mozilla is dying unless they get in touch with reality and realize that they have no idea what their users really want.
Yet in the same comment, he's saying that making it opt-out is the reason it died.
So we can't privacy by default. You should have no privacy unless you opt-in to having it.
"The final straw" .... You hit the final straw. And you haven't switched operating systems?
No it was the final straw before he pseudonymously posted a strongly-worded opinion in a comment on a story on a website.
Do you really think that all sites are going to get rid of cookies, including "don't show me Beta" cookies, for anyone and everyone using IE? Just because Microsoft thought it was a good idea? No friggin way. If the USER chose to actively ticked the box, perhaps so. Because Microsoft's marketing team thought that "Do Not Track" sounded good and that breaking most web sites was an acceptable side effect? I don't think so.
So you're saying privacy should be opt-out rather than opt-in.
I buy DRM-free video all the time. It's convenient, since all I do with DVD or Blu-Ray is break DMCA and rip them anyway.
It's convenient to go out and buy physical media then rip it to a digital copy? I'm not sure that could be much less convenient.
I only buy a movie so I can watch on a whim 10 years from now when it may be near-impossible to find, physical or streaming. The new model doesn't fix that at all.
The new model is to remove the "ownership", if it still has a few corner case problems that's not going to be seen as a big deal.
I'm not advocating for it, just saying that it solves the "resale" and invasive DRM issues by removing "ownership" and that arguing to producers that they should continue supporting physical media because it allows you to break the DMCA is pointless.
No, they sell me a physical disc with software on it.
This misunderstanding is why a service-based model is ideal for you.
If enough people prefer the convenience of digital media over the ability to resell it then yes, physical media will end up dead. It's already going that way, not many people are bothered by the fact that they can't resell the licenses of the programs, audio and video they buy from places like the App Store and Google Play. Media streaming is also becoming much more popular with services like Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Spotify, Apple Music, etc... where it is cheaper and more convenient than buying physical versions of everything you want to watch.
The way your problem is being solved is by simply changing the model so you are no longer sold a copy or a license, instead you are paying for a service so your complaints about resale go away.
THEY want to "sell" it to you (as in you pay money and that's the end of their woes) ,but they don't want you to own it
They sell you a license, they don't sell you the software. Ultimately this is going to a service-based model where you won't even get a license, you will just rent some resources from them to play the game for a time instead. Then all your problems of not being able to understand the concept of licenses and the confusion around copyright and reselling software licenses will go away.
The question that seems to have been missed is whether the jailbreak is just a mechanism to get the malware on the device or not. If this slipped through the curators of Apple's app store would devices be vulnerable to the exploit? Also we have seen web-based jailbreaks before that you could do just by visiting a website, doing that and installing malware in the process appears pretty viable.
Given the history, sweeping this under the rug and saying it doesn't matter because it only affects jailbroken devices is a bit short-sighted.
You do know there's a massive gulf between "I can root it because I have physical access to the device and all the passwords" and "omg my device got rooted over the air by unknown parties!" ... right?
Forgotten JailbreakMe? Where your device could be jailbroken just by visiting a website?
There's much more than that in the teals website.
Yes there are a lot of things, including Microsoft, Google and Facebook technologies outside of the core curriculum. But the core curriculum is very platform and vendor agnostic.
GM saw itself as the premier auto/truck maker in this country. And yet, they made some stupid mangament and engineering decisions that are slowly leading them into the corporate graveyard.
So you're saying the goal of these management decisions was to move people away from GM cars? I don't think so, just like RedHat's goal isn't to move users to Windows.
That's $4.46 per hour.
It's not a salary, it's a stipend. Intended to cover the costs incurred by the volunteers. Clue is even in the URL and mentioned multiple times on the website:
http://www.tealsk12.org/ volunteers/FAQ/
Is this meant to be a book bought by individuals, or by schools?
I don't think it's bought by anybody, the course materials are just based on it.
The grant was provided by NSF to MS.
Actually according to the NSF page it was granted to WestEd to study Microsoft's program.
Well, guess what, Linux is not a good gaming platform
Someone should tell Valve.
Based on the delays of the Steam Machines I think they already know. Of course this isn't really a Linux problem but when you need to coordinate with major industry players that have different vested interests these things are going to crop up quite a lot.
Not to mention pushing Microsoft development tools and technologies.
No, it is about teaching computer science and pretty much anybody in the industry can volunteer to be a part of it. But you saw "Microsoft" and immediately projected your own bias rather than actually doing any research or educating yourself about it didn't you. So from the TEALS site:
What’s the curriculum?
Our partner schools select from two TEALS courses: Intro CS (“Introduction to Computer Science Principles”) and AP CS A (“Introduction to Java Programming”).
Intro to CS uses Berkeley's Snap! visual programming language to teach CS fundamentals, not Microsoft tools.
Introduction to Java Programming? That doesn't sound very Microsoft does it. It's actually based on a text from Washington University.
Seriously it's all on the website, instead of being an ignorant naysayer spreading FUD you could actually contribute.
If the goal of systemd creators is to slowly move users back to Windows, these are all capabilities that need to be eliminated. So UNIX/Linux users can't use them as reasons not to move.
Yes it's all a big conspiracy! Red Hat isn't actually a supporter of Linux, despite being one of the top contributors to the Linux kernel and creating and supporting client and server distributions of Linux systems from which most of their revenue is derived they are actually trying to destroy Linux and drive people to Windows so they can kill their own business and profitability!