Now is the perfect time to sell my Hitachi VHS camera on eBay. I mean, it even claims to be artificially intelligent. Gotta fetch a big price.
o_O
If it actually can claim that it's artificially intelligent, it means it would likely pass a Turing test. That being the case, eBay has, I think, a moratorium of sorts regarding the buying and selling of sentient beings. Might want to check thier Terms of Use.
If you've just left it running, you're likely OK. Just remember to take out the tape befre you ship it.
If it's neither of the above, you have other er, more significant problems.
HTH. HAND.
Soko
Re:allows a bypass of GPL
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Ummmmm....
bash@not_ibm_linux$>su - password: ************** bash#>insmod --force ibms_evil_blob_GPLed_wrapper.o Encapsulated DRM encryption memory image ('blob') loaded in memory. Happy computing! bash#>exit bash@not_ibm_linux$>./IBMs _evil_app IBMs Evil App loading... DRM Encryption signature found in memory.... Keys match. Proceeding to execution, running on IBM Linux V2.6.28-10...
Problem?
Soko
Re:allows a bypass of GPL
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
So, if I'm IBM I guess this means that I a modify the kernel to put an encrypted blob into the kernel to load into RAM at all times. It's there to help performance of IBM apps also so that it can disable my competitor's software once this is installed. Then I sell Websphere which contains the key to decrypt the kernal code. This activates it.
As I understand the GPL, you would have to release - at a minimum - the kernel interface to the "encrypted blob" loader in source. That means a "short circuit" version of the "blob" that returns "APP_ALLOWED=1" to the program loader would be not too far off, negating any advantage gained. It just wouldn't be worth IBMs trouble.
The GPL is self protecting in this way - it makes it very hard to keep all of the secrets under wraps, and very easy to keep the playing field as even as possible.
Up here in the Great White North, having a home business is rather encouraged. I get all sorts of tax breaks from having part of my home dedicated to a business, as small and un-profitable as it is.
As long as it remains small and there's no store-front, I'm in the clear. I would think you would be too. Since most major corps started in someone's garage, most jurisdictions don't want to discourage things like that.
LANGUAGE: You should only call someone a 'Bastard' if they are deserving of this honorific. Under no circumstances should the word be applied to someone who is neither ruthless nor clued. It *is* appropriate to encourage budding instances of this behaviour with the term of endearment "BOFHlet".
A LART of biblical proportions on you and your house! $DIETY, what is this world coming to???
/me scribles "Bastards and Spammers are diametrically opposed!!!" on his cluebat and impresses this on BWJones' forehead
Oh, and from the same page, a quote that fits in nicely as to what these spammers are doing:
Same to you, dipshit -- Coredump
Clue: You've got the appropriate amount of hostility for the Monastery, however you are metaphorically getting out of the safari jeep and kicking the lions. Guess what that means, mtepahorically?
conclusion: 2 points for gusto, minus several million for good sense
/trollmode=ON/ Cool. So now I'll just not agree to the GPL on my RedHat 9 CDs, install them anyway, hack the kernel some and produce a proprietary distro from there. If I don't agree to the GPL, but still manage to install it (because I paid for it) seems pretty legal to me./trollmode=OFF/
Seriously, if you expect people to agree to the licensing you preffer and follow it's spirit, you had better do the same for thiers, whether you like it or not. The power of the GPL is, after all, based on Copyright Law. If you can flout that law, so can others - turn about is fair play.
Companies are not leveraging Linux's remote access abilities for the end users. This gives the user a perfect box an a constant stream of cash for the support company. Most will not care if you log into a part of their system and do a weekly fix/backup/upgrade as long as you present it in the right way. The privacy concern is no greater than giving your box to a computer shop for a couple of day.
OMG, imagine the possibilities!
_BOFH_Mode=ON_ SCANNING... open/home/victoria/MyPics/me&jennie.PNG +gulp+ "Hmmm mrrrr..." Clickety-Click". Heh. *RINGRING* "Hi, this is Victoria. My machine seems to be broken. Any idea what happened? I realise it's late..." "Oh, Hi, Victoria. Shame you're having trouble. Let me see here....Yup. Can't log in - seems dead." "Oh no. Jenny and I are here in our PJs studying for our "Human Sexuality" final exam tomorrow. In our PJs..." "I'll be right there..."
All of the special stuff that specific vendors can do is in the hardware itself, while the drivers just provide an interface to that hardware. Any special tricks that the drivers have are probably either just specific parts written in assembly to make them faster or cheats like turning off certain features at certain times to make the frame rate higher while hoping the users won't notice the difference in quality.
Drivers describe in software what the hardware is capable of. Do you know for sure that ATI wouldn't be giving the farm to NVidia with OSS drivers? I agree likely not, but I can't say for certain.
Both nVidia and ATI have done this kind of cheating, by the way, which makes sense since both of them are very hesitant to give out open source drivers. Perhaps they are ashamed of their code. I wouldn't be surprised if the managers ask the programmers if they should open source it, then the programmers think, "Oh crap! My code looks like shit and has all sorts of vulgar comments! Uh, no boss, open sourcing is bad. Yeah, thats it."
Or maybe they've optimised it for Windows, and would expose in some way the IP one of thier business partners. Fun? Yes! Good business? No.
No special things would be lost by open sourcing drivers. No development would be handed to the competition. The competition would still have to develop their own silicon, which the drivers don't help with at all. If someone really wanted to copy your design, they could, *gasp*, look at the white papers if they exist, or use a myriad of other high-tech techniques to look at it and figure out how you did what.
They I guess we can do the same and write our own drivers, right? Seriously, even if the competition does that, they part with a big chunk of change in doing so - which re-evens the field. An OSS driver could significantly reduce this cost, un-evening it again
And even then, almost every cool trick on silicon is already patented, and protected that way. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO NOT OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS. Get that into your head.
OK, OK, no reason to yell,I actualy agree with you. I'm trying to build bridges and allay fears, not beat people into submission, though.
I'm not asking them to. I'm disputing the claim that you can "win" by using closed software, when the whole purpose of free software is to NOT use closed software. I see no reason why I should ignore the ideals of free software in order to be "sensitive to their needs". I would much rather not use their product.
I would rather as well. If there were 2 nearly functionaly equivilent products, but once used Open Source drivers and the other not, I'd take the vendor supporting Open Source without question. Unfortunately, we don't have this choice (at present), since all video card drivers seem to be binary only. We can't "win" them over if they're regarded as the enemy, though.
IMHO, no drivers at all are better than using binary drivers. I would rather Linux loses if winning means becoming non-free. Better to die on your feet, and so on.
To each thier own. I'd rather they get to know us and like us. Maybe then they'll be more receptive to providing a more open solution, rather than keeping all of thier specs under lock and key.
The difference here is that you are being pragmatic and I am being idealistic. If I wanted to be pragmatic I wouldn't use Linux in the first place.
I said - if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, - which mentions nothing of binary drivers. Perhaps I should of separated that a bit more. You see my idea, here? Or would you go all the way to the gates of hell in order to prove yourself right?
How can we turn someone to our side who would be in essence - by opening up thier drivers - giving thier R&D budget to the competition?
Hey, I'm all for drivers provided in source too, would preffer that and I do say to hardware makers "Source, please!!!" every possible chance I get. The reality of doing business for these vendors dictates otherwise, however. IMHO, binary video drivers for OSS projects are still better than none at all. They'd still be - in a way - supporting Free Software, while keeping thier shareholders happy. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
X development has been somewhat slow, but it seems like the really big issue has always been drivers -- is there any way that new leadership can help get specs from manufacturers?
Getting drivers for X doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as those drivers are binary. I know, I know, Free Software, blah blah - however, if we're to turn these people to our side, we have to be sensitive to thier needs. In that vein, if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, they'll do much better I'm sure.
I agree with your stance, but would like to add one more.
With the availability of easy distribution, indie artists/labels threaten to legitimately undermine the current business model of the whole industry. Instead of cultural doom, they're in reality afraid of a loss of cultural control. No control of the culture mans they will simply have no way of creating the next big thing. That's what they're afraid of in the end - they'll have no reason to exist.
That being said, the record execs are doing thier jobs - they do have a responsibility to thier shareholders and should try to retain any value in thier corporations, so I don't think they're "evil" per se, just terribly, terribly mis-guided. I'd say those who hold shares in the big media companies are the people who should be targeted - show them that there's very little value in the current model, and it's dying quickly.
Where I am, the phone company used to advertise thier DSL in the vein of "No sharing access!!!", in reference to the fact that cable subscribers all use the same wire to get to the distribution point, which leads to slowdowns as more people are added. Every household, however, has it's own dedicated line to the CO - no sharing, so it's faster, right? All fine and good, yes? Not quite.
What they didn't tell you is that each of the COs were provisioned with but a single T1. So, you now have 40 or 50 people each screaming down thier own, dedicated 1Mb pipe to squeeze through a single T1 just a little farther down stream. Pot, Kettle, Black. To boot, the cable access goes up to 25Mb at the end of most streets. Guess which runs faster, all the time?
Unless you know something of how the technology actually works, marketers can easily prey on you. I've steered more than a few people away from the DSL service in protest of the above misleading advertising tactic, plus the fact that they either don't know what they're doing or are too cheap to provide at least an E10 to all of the COs. They're the phone company, fercryinoutloud - they must have better access than that around.
A lesson in making sure your "broadband" ISP knows how to build a proper high speed network from end to end.
what I do is explain why my experience and expertese tells me it is a wrong thing to do. I give examples, and send it to the appropriet people. I tell them I feel its part of my resposibilty to the company to give them my opinion and expert analysy. then I do it how they want me to.
This tact has always been met warmly. They don't always go with my suggestion, but they always appriate my input.
Well said.
Next week: Should a consultant use a spell checker before they submit a document for public perusal, or could that construed as being too "newbieish" and cause the client some concern? Stay tuned.
I'm doing a Linux based Multimedia PC project in the near future, and could really use an RF remote since line-of-sight could be a problem. We'd also like to avoid requiring a keyboard in order to control most of the functions of the unit. I know X10 makes an RF remote that plugs into the serial port of the PC, but I'd like to find alternatives that are known to work with LIRC. Any one have experience in this?
Your post implys, IMHO correctly, that no matter the steps taken to protect software against piracy, there will be piracy. However, there will emerge in the end a need to by software from a vendor in order to get support. Hmmmmm...
Seems to me there'sa fewcompaniesoutthere who do something very much like that. Seems we have the answer for Microsoft, don't we?
Which doesn't seem to much of anything, besides perhaps generating a compiler error (no caps are allowed on key words, I assume). This is very, very much like most of the Perl code I generate. o_0
bad of course. it goes against everything Libre Software stands for
Hunh? What, Libre Software stands for making sure any and all content should be available without compensating the creator of the content in any way, shape or form? We use a license that restricts how your code is used, yet you want no restrictions on how the creations of others is used? *Rhetorical Question* Are you after a free ride, or Freedom?
I understand that you want fair use rights, as do we all. IMHO, if someone wishes to release thier creations with DRM, they are free to do so. I am free to ignore thier creation due to the DRM if I wish. Libre Software providing the freedom to release your creation as you want, and being compansated if you wish, is a good thing as it provides more freedom.
Until someone comes up with a viable way of compensating creators for thier content without restricing how that content is used in any way shape or form, restricted content is going to be reality, unfortunately. Using OSS tools to provide such restrictions, though distasteful, seems to be almost acceptable. At the very least, it shows that some proponents of Software Libre are sensitive to the needs of content creators, and so offers an olive branch to them. That should show we're not after a Free Ride, but Freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Now is the perfect time to sell my Hitachi VHS camera on eBay. I mean, it even claims to be artificially intelligent. Gotta fetch a big price.
o_O
If it actually can claim that it's artificially intelligent, it means it would likely pass a Turing test. That being the case, eBay has, I think, a moratorium of sorts regarding the buying and selling of sentient beings. Might want to check thier Terms of Use.
If you've just left it running, you're likely OK. Just remember to take out the tape befre you ship it.
If it's neither of the above, you have other er, more significant problems.
HTH. HAND.
Soko
Soko
So, if I'm IBM I guess this means that I a modify the kernel to put an encrypted blob into the kernel to load into RAM at all times. It's there to help performance of IBM apps also so that it can disable my competitor's software once this is installed. Then I sell Websphere which contains the key to decrypt the kernal code. This activates it.
As I understand the GPL, you would have to release - at a minimum - the kernel interface to the "encrypted blob" loader in source. That means a "short circuit" version of the "blob" that returns "APP_ALLOWED=1" to the program loader would be not too far off, negating any advantage gained. It just wouldn't be worth IBMs trouble.
The GPL is self protecting in this way - it makes it very hard to keep all of the secrets under wraps, and very easy to keep the playing field as even as possible.
Soko
Up here in the Great White North, having a home business is rather encouraged. I get all sorts of tax breaks from having part of my home dedicated to a business, as small and un-profitable as it is.
As long as it remains small and there's no store-front, I'm in the clear. I would think you would be too. Since most major corps started in someone's garage, most jurisdictions don't want to discourage things like that.
Soko
How DARE you sully the honorific "Bastard"!!!
/me scribles "Bastards and Spammers are diametrically opposed!!!" on his cluebat and impresses this on BWJones' forehead
Direct from Memorable Quotes from Alt.Sysadmin.Recovery:
LANGUAGE: You should only call someone a 'Bastard' if they are deserving of this honorific. Under no circumstances should the word be applied to someone who is neither ruthless nor clued. It *is* appropriate to encourage budding instances of this behaviour with the term of endearment "BOFHlet".
A LART of biblical proportions on you and your house! $DIETY, what is this world coming to???
Oh, and from the same page, a quote that fits in nicely as to what these spammers are doing:
Same to you, dipshit -- Coredump
Clue: You've got the appropriate amount of hostility for the Monastery, however you are metaphorically getting out of the safari jeep and kicking the lions. Guess what that means, mtepahorically?
conclusion: 2 points for gusto, minus several million for good sense
coonec
Soko
/trollmode=ON/ Cool. So now I'll just not agree to the GPL on my RedHat 9 CDs, install them anyway, hack the kernel some and produce a proprietary distro from there. If I don't agree to the GPL, but still manage to install it (because I paid for it) seems pretty legal to me. /trollmode=OFF/
Seriously, if you expect people to agree to the licensing you preffer and follow it's spirit, you had better do the same for thiers, whether you like it or not. The power of the GPL is, after all, based on Copyright Law. If you can flout that law, so can others - turn about is fair play.
Soko
How about "you should learn how to use a gun, just because you might accidentaly use a gun to kill someone if you don't know how to handle it safely!"
I believe that's closer to the good professor's argument.
Soko
Companies are not leveraging Linux's remote access abilities for the end users. This gives the user a perfect box an a constant stream of cash for the support company. Most will not care if you log into a part of their system and do a weekly fix/backup/upgrade as long as you present it in the right way. The privacy concern is no greater than giving your box to a computer shop for a couple of day.
/home/victoria/MyPics/me&jennie.PNGm mrrrr..."
OMG, imagine the possibilities!
_BOFH_Mode=ON_
SCANNING...
open
+gulp+
"Hmm
Clickety-Click".
Heh.
*RINGRING*
"Hi, this is Victoria. My machine seems to be broken. Any idea what happened? I realise it's late..."
"Oh, Hi, Victoria. Shame you're having trouble. Let me see here....Yup. Can't log in - seems dead."
"Oh no. Jenny and I are here in our PJs studying for our "Human Sexuality" final exam tomorrow. In our PJs..."
"I'll be right there..."
>:-]
Soko
All of the special stuff that specific vendors can do is in the hardware itself, while the drivers just provide an interface to that hardware. Any special tricks that the drivers have are probably either just specific parts written in assembly to make them faster or cheats like turning off certain features at certain times to make the frame rate higher while hoping the users won't notice the difference in quality.
Drivers describe in software what the hardware is capable of. Do you know for sure that ATI wouldn't be giving the farm to NVidia with OSS drivers? I agree likely not, but I can't say for certain.
Both nVidia and ATI have done this kind of cheating, by the way, which makes sense since both of them are very hesitant to give out open source drivers. Perhaps they are ashamed of their code. I wouldn't be surprised if the managers ask the programmers if they should open source it, then the programmers think, "Oh crap! My code looks like shit and has all sorts of vulgar comments! Uh, no boss, open sourcing is bad. Yeah, thats it."
Or maybe they've optimised it for Windows, and would expose in some way the IP one of thier business partners. Fun? Yes! Good business? No.
No special things would be lost by open sourcing drivers. No development would be handed to the competition. The competition would still have to develop their own silicon, which the drivers don't help with at all. If someone really wanted to copy your design, they could, *gasp*, look at the white papers if they exist, or use a myriad of other high-tech techniques to look at it and figure out how you did what.
They I guess we can do the same and write our own drivers, right? Seriously, even if the competition does that, they part with a big chunk of change in doing so - which re-evens the field. An OSS driver could significantly reduce this cost, un-evening it again
And even then, almost every cool trick on silicon is already patented, and protected that way. There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO NOT OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS. Get that into your head.
OK, OK, no reason to yell,I actualy agree with you. I'm trying to build bridges and allay fears, not beat people into submission, though.
Soko
I'm not asking them to. I'm disputing the claim that you can "win" by using closed software, when the whole purpose of free software is to NOT use closed software. I see no reason why I should ignore the ideals of free software in order to be "sensitive to their needs". I would much rather not use their product.
;^)
I would rather as well. If there were 2 nearly functionaly equivilent products, but once used Open Source drivers and the other not, I'd take the vendor supporting Open Source without question. Unfortunately, we don't have this choice (at present), since all video card drivers seem to be binary only. We can't "win" them over if they're regarded as the enemy, though.
IMHO, no drivers at all are better than using binary drivers. I would rather Linux loses if winning means becoming non-free. Better to die on your feet, and so on.
To each thier own. I'd rather they get to know us and like us. Maybe then they'll be more receptive to providing a more open solution, rather than keeping all of thier specs under lock and key.
The difference here is that you are being pragmatic and I am being idealistic. If I wanted to be pragmatic I wouldn't use Linux in the first place.
I said - if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, - which mentions nothing of binary drivers. Perhaps I should of separated that a bit more. You see my idea, here? Or would you go all the way to the gates of hell in order to prove yourself right?
I'd just use Windows.
I have my answer.
Soko
How can we turn someone to our side who would be in essence - by opening up thier drivers - giving thier R&D budget to the competition?
Hey, I'm all for drivers provided in source too, would preffer that and I do say to hardware makers "Source, please!!!" every possible chance I get. The reality of doing business for these vendors dictates otherwise, however. IMHO, binary video drivers for OSS projects are still better than none at all. They'd still be - in a way - supporting Free Software, while keeping thier shareholders happy. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Soko
X development has been somewhat slow, but it seems like the really big issue has always been drivers -- is there any way that new leadership can help get specs from manufacturers?
/. interview?
Getting drivers for X doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as those drivers are binary. I know, I know, Free Software, blah blah - however, if we're to turn these people to our side, we have to be sensitive to thier needs. In that vein, if xwin comes up with a clean, consistent API (perhaps even one that's linked into DRI or some other interface in kernel space) that all the video harware vendors can write to, without spelling out to thier competition how to trouce thier products in the next rev, they'll do much better I'm sure.
Editors: can we get Keith for a
Please!
Soko
For the couch potatoes, EXERSISE how to use energy.. And dont eat a lot of garbage..
Just use some common sence. But then again, that wont sell books or diet foods will it...
Dan? Dan Quayle? Is that you?
I agree with your stance, but would like to add one more.
With the availability of easy distribution, indie artists/labels threaten to legitimately undermine the current business model of the whole industry. Instead of cultural doom, they're in reality afraid of a loss of cultural control. No control of the culture mans they will simply have no way of creating the next big thing. That's what they're afraid of in the end - they'll have no reason to exist.
That being said, the record execs are doing thier jobs - they do have a responsibility to thier shareholders and should try to retain any value in thier corporations, so I don't think they're "evil" per se, just terribly, terribly mis-guided. I'd say those who hold shares in the big media companies are the people who should be targeted - show them that there's very little value in the current model, and it's dying quickly.
Soko
Speaking of deceptive advertising...
Where I am, the phone company used to advertise thier DSL in the vein of "No sharing access!!!", in reference to the fact that cable subscribers all use the same wire to get to the distribution point, which leads to slowdowns as more people are added. Every household, however, has it's own dedicated line to the CO - no sharing, so it's faster, right? All fine and good, yes? Not quite.
What they didn't tell you is that each of the COs were provisioned with but a single T1. So, you now have 40 or 50 people each screaming down thier own, dedicated 1Mb pipe to squeeze through a single T1 just a little farther down stream. Pot, Kettle, Black. To boot, the cable access goes up to 25Mb at the end of most streets. Guess which runs faster, all the time?
Unless you know something of how the technology actually works, marketers can easily prey on you. I've steered more than a few people away from the DSL service in protest of the above misleading advertising tactic, plus the fact that they either don't know what they're doing or are too cheap to provide at least an E10 to all of the COs. They're the phone company, fercryinoutloud - they must have better access than that around.
A lesson in making sure your "broadband" ISP knows how to build a proper high speed network from end to end.
Soko
*Whimper*
...or could that be construed as being too...
*Sits down and waits for "The Revenge of the Karma Police"*
what I do is explain why my experience and expertese tells me it is a wrong thing to do. I give examples, and send it to the appropriet people. I tell them I feel its part of my resposibilty to the company to give them my opinion and expert analysy. then I do it how they want me to.
This tact has always been met warmly. They don't always go with my suggestion, but they always appriate my input.
Well said.
Next week: Should a consultant use a spell checker before they submit a document for public perusal, or could that construed as being too "newbieish" and cause the client some concern? Stay tuned.
Soko
I'm doing a Linux based Multimedia PC project in the near future, and could really use an RF remote since line-of-sight could be a problem. We'd also like to avoid requiring a keyboard in order to control most of the functions of the unit. I know X10 makes an RF remote that plugs into the serial port of the PC, but I'd like to find alternatives that are known to work with LIRC. Any one have experience in this?
Soko
Just goes to show that context is everything, hunh?
Soko
Your post implys, IMHO correctly, that no matter the steps taken to protect software against piracy, there will be piracy. However, there will emerge in the end a need to by software from a vendor in order to get support. Hmmmmm...
Seems to me there's a few companies out there who do something very much like that. Seems we have the answer for Microsoft, don't we?
Soko
This story reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. I've lost the source of it, and can't find an on-line version. I'll try to do it justice in prose:
2 scientists are standing in front of a bizarre looking aparatus, with but a single recognizable object within it. The caption read:
"We've achieved Cold Fusion in a sock. Do we tell anyone?"
Soko
P.S. Thank you robosmall - best dual-screen wallpaper evar. Period. Full stop.
If I used this like I use perl, I'd end up with
...
F**K, F**K, F**K, F**K, F**K, F**K, F**K,
Which doesn't seem to much of anything, besides perhaps generating a compiler error (no caps are allowed on key words, I assume). This is very, very much like most of the Perl code I generate. o_0
Soko
bad of course. it goes against everything Libre Software stands for
Hunh? What, Libre Software stands for making sure any and all content should be available without compensating the creator of the content in any way, shape or form? We use a license that restricts how your code is used, yet you want no restrictions on how the creations of others is used? *Rhetorical Question* Are you after a free ride, or Freedom?
I understand that you want fair use rights, as do we all. IMHO, if someone wishes to release thier creations with DRM, they are free to do so. I am free to ignore thier creation due to the DRM if I wish. Libre Software providing the freedom to release your creation as you want, and being compansated if you wish, is a good thing as it provides more freedom.
Until someone comes up with a viable way of compensating creators for thier content without restricing how that content is used in any way shape or form, restricted content is going to be reality, unfortunately. Using OSS tools to provide such restrictions, though distasteful, seems to be almost acceptable. At the very least, it shows that some proponents of Software Libre are sensitive to the needs of content creators, and so offers an olive branch to them. That should show we're not after a Free Ride, but Freedom.
Soko
...that you're trying to turn an urban legend into a real Darwin Award.
Soko
bash#>rpm -e April_Fools.4.1.20-03.src.rpm
Soko