Nobody is saying you have to like the iTMS license. He's saying that if we choose to only obey the licenses that we agree with, pretty soon they'll all become irrelevant.
Oh please... Do you what the polls in Spain indicated the public opposition to the war in Iraq was? About 90%. And the incumbent were still on the brink of being re-elected (until the Madrid bombs).
Do you know what the percentage of the American public that have even heard of the DMCA is? I don't know but I'm guessing it's less than 1%. I'm also guessing that less than 10% of the public would understand the issues involved even it were explained to them.
So forgive me if I express doubt that writing letters to politicians who's campaign funds come directly from the RIAA & MPAA is going to have much of an effect.
My post was just stating that it's possible to perform these sorts of attack on any operating system - and it would be just as easy (if not easier) to do this on Windows than Mac OS.
Take a.exe file, give it a windows media player document icon, rename it 'foobar.mp3.exe'
Windows (in it's default configuration) then hides the.exe but still displays the.mp3
The user double clicks and the executable runs (probably with root privileges on a Windows machine).
Trojans are easy to write, if you can get a user to double click on a random file you can do nearly anything (although on OS X you wouldn't be able to affect the system without giving the root password first).
Well, what would describe a good command line interface? I mean, I like tcsh as much as the next guy but it's not as if every time I write a shell script I spend hours deliberating over what letters to use for command line options or something...
That's not quite the same thing. You're talking about making changes on the server to support the client.
The difference here is that OS X is happy to speak to all clients and servers (mostly out of necessity), where Windows only speaks to clients & servers talking it's language.
When Mac speaks to Mac it surpasses Windows speaking to Windows for ease of setup for printer sharing.
I'd have to ask how extensive your experience is. I use OS X most of the time on an iBook and the interface is extremely non-intrusive (much less intrusive than Gnome or Windows for example), and I can do everything I want though the keyboard.
I'd like to know exactly how you feel it fails at 'changing between windows, moving windows, managing files, editing text, resizing windows, minimizing windows, having shortcuts for window operations, having shortcuts for programs, working fast, not changing your keyboard layout with every second click, and other little things like that.'
The linked article demonstrates that printing to a shared Windows printer from a Mac is something that Aunt Tilly would struggle with. Fair enough.
So how easy is it to print to a shared Mac printer from a Windows machine? Impossible AFAIK.
The 'easy' process you describe for sharing printers on Windows only refers to Windows sharing to other Windows machines (what a surprise).
For reference, the equivalent process on a Mac is:
- select the printer from the drop down list in your print dialog
in OS X, printers are shared by default and advertised via rendezvous over the network, so zero configuration is required. A fair bit easier than the Windows wizard.
And if you're talking about a recent model network printer, the the chances are the only setup required is to connect it to the network (at this point rendezvous kicks in and every Mac on its subnet can print to it with no configuration required).
You're missing the point. LOTR & the Matrix films are excellent examples of 'safe' movies. They're low risk investment since the studios know a big budget VFX heavy film with enough promotion is likely to at least make a profit.
Just because some of them make more than others doesn't mean that even the relative flops weren't 'safe'.
American Beauty & Lost in Translation were character driven films, which wouldn't have cost a great deal (in relative terms) to make. Hence the risk wasn't great.
And Lost in Translation wasn't particularly original or challenging anyway, although obviously that's just IMHO.
Firstly, people don't 'discover' proprietary software, they invest money/time to create it.
Also you appear to assert that free software is somehow superior to proprietary software. While this is sometimes true, it is most definitely not inherently the case (compare the linux & OS X desktop environments for example).
You can extend the argument of the Harry Potter apologists to imply that the latest works of American Idol winner is high art.
Popularity doesn't equal quality. It never has done and it never will. Harry Potter is easy reading, a kind of a literary equivalent to Celine Dion. That's why it's so popular.
I have no real problems with this, except when people (adults no less) start claiming that it's some sort of classic.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is saying you have to like the iTMS license. He's saying that if we choose to only obey the licenses that we agree with, pretty soon they'll all become irrelevant.
Including the GPL which you state you like.
Oh please... Do you what the polls in Spain indicated the public opposition to the war in Iraq was? About 90%. And the incumbent were still on the brink of being re-elected (until the Madrid bombs).
Do you know what the percentage of the American public that have even heard of the DMCA is? I don't know but I'm guessing it's less than 1%. I'm also guessing that less than 10% of the public would understand the issues involved even it were explained to them.
So forgive me if I express doubt that writing letters to politicians who's campaign funds come directly from the RIAA & MPAA is going to have much of an effect.
Yes, I agree.
My post was just stating that it's possible to perform these sorts of attack on any operating system - and it would be just as easy (if not easier) to do this on Windows than Mac OS.
Ok how about this.
.exe file, give it a windows media player document icon, rename it 'foobar.mp3.exe'
.exe but still displays the .mp3
Take a
Windows (in it's default configuration) then hides the
The user double clicks and the executable runs (probably with root privileges on a Windows machine).
Trojans are easy to write, if you can get a user to double click on a random file you can do nearly anything (although on OS X you wouldn't be able to affect the system without giving the root password first).
Obviously not to the extent of reading the thread, because then you'd have realised the following:
1) You cannot play the drm'd wma files from buymusic, napster et al on almost all of the current generation of digital players
2) You cannot play the drm'd wma files on WMP for Mac (even the latest, most up to date one).
So what was that about WMA having 'hell of alot more support'?
You can burn the tracks as many times as you like. You can only burn 1 playlist ten times (to stop mass production).
/me rubs eyes in disbelief
Well, what would describe a good command line interface? I mean, I like tcsh as much as the next guy but it's not as if every time I write a shell script I spend hours deliberating over what letters to use for command line options or something...
Try the following:
- Open Printer Setup Utility
- hold down option/alt and click 'Add'
- There should now be an extra menu option 'Advanced'
If you look in that menu option all the cups stuff is now available.
Why Europeans hate Americans
see parent
Ok, fair enough it's not impossible, but this assumes the Mac has enabled samba. What if they haven't?
The Windows client is stuck without making a configuration change at the server side (which is not always possible).
That's not quite the same thing. You're talking about making changes on the server to support the client.
The difference here is that OS X is happy to speak to all clients and servers (mostly out of necessity), where Windows only speaks to clients & servers talking it's language.
When Mac speaks to Mac it surpasses Windows speaking to Windows for ease of setup for printer sharing.
I'd have to ask how extensive your experience is. I use OS X most of the time on an iBook and the interface is extremely non-intrusive (much less intrusive than Gnome or Windows for example), and I can do everything I want though the keyboard.
I'd like to know exactly how you feel it fails at 'changing between windows, moving windows, managing files, editing text, resizing windows, minimizing windows, having shortcuts for window operations, having shortcuts for programs, working fast, not changing your keyboard layout with every second click, and other little things like that.'
The linked article demonstrates that printing to a shared Windows printer from a Mac is something that Aunt Tilly would struggle with. Fair enough.
So how easy is it to print to a shared Mac printer from a Windows machine? Impossible AFAIK.
The 'easy' process you describe for sharing printers on Windows only refers to Windows sharing to other Windows machines (what a surprise).
For reference, the equivalent process on a Mac is:
- select the printer from the drop down list in your print dialog
in OS X, printers are shared by default and advertised via rendezvous over the network, so zero configuration is required. A fair bit easier than the Windows wizard.
And if you're talking about a recent model network printer, the the chances are the only setup required is to connect it to the network (at this point rendezvous kicks in and every Mac on its subnet can print to it with no configuration required).
Do the following:
1) open texdedit (or any other cocoa application)
2) type some text
3) do ^E, ^K to yank your line of text
4) press enter a few times
5) do ^Y to paste your yanked text
6) say "k3wl!!!!1"
You're missing the point. LOTR & the Matrix films are excellent examples of 'safe' movies. They're low risk investment since the studios know a big budget VFX heavy film with enough promotion is likely to at least make a profit.
Just because some of them make more than others doesn't mean that even the relative flops weren't 'safe'.
American Beauty & Lost in Translation were character driven films, which wouldn't have cost a great deal (in relative terms) to make. Hence the risk wasn't great.
And Lost in Translation wasn't particularly original or challenging anyway, although obviously that's just IMHO.
This is the only posting in this discussion worthy of +1 informative.
AFAIK the rollout hasn't even begun in Munich. They're still porting all the custom VB apps and Excel macros.
So usability (from the end user POV) isn't really an issue.
The problem is that they're switching a lot of seats from one OS & set of applications to another.
Which was always going to be difficult.
You don't appear to understand the difference between 'good' and 'popular'.
I'd hate to see your mp3 collection.
Even when a company employs this strategy (as Apple do at the moment), there comes a time when refusing to reinvent will stem progress and innovation.
Even the open source community needs to reinvent sometimes (witness the stream of article about X server replacements on Slashdot).
Your analogy has several holes.
Firstly, people don't 'discover' proprietary software, they invest money/time to create it.
Also you appear to assert that free software is somehow superior to proprietary software. While this is sometimes true, it is most definitely not inherently the case (compare the linux & OS X desktop environments for example).
This debate is starting to seriously sound like religion.
'Is it right to initially spread religion by the sword in order to save the otherwise damned souls of those who you can potentially convert?'.
Exactly which professional industry makes significant use of GIMP?
Your question infers that all codecs represent the same information in different file formats.
This isn't true of course (although they do use very similar techniques), so transcoding between formats will always lose data.
You can extend the argument of the Harry Potter apologists to imply that the latest works of American Idol winner is high art.
Popularity doesn't equal quality. It never has done and it never will. Harry Potter is easy reading, a kind of a literary equivalent to Celine Dion. That's why it's so popular.
I have no real problems with this, except when people (adults no less) start claiming that it's some sort of classic.