You buy an HD-DVD for $35. You can play it on your HD-DVD Player... but wait... you bought a leading edge player that's starting to get old, and thus doesn't support the DRM scheme on the latest disk... so you figure... I'll just play it on my PC running Linux... but wait... HD-DVD's wont play under Linux.
You buy a movie that must be played with a certain player, and in a certain operating system, and its technically illegal to do so under any other conditions other than what they say you can. Is this fair? Technically, no. Is it reality? Yes.
DRM is destroying the industry they are trying to promote. The music and movie industry is shooting themselves in the foot by trying to enforce such strong DRM. People who want to copy the content will *STILL COPY IT*. People who want to use the content fairly, will be crippled by DRM.
As long as there is content to be copied, people will always find a way to do it. There is no such thing as perfect DRM.
Had this been a week ago, I may have posted a very heartfelt message about how good my windows experience has been, and how bad my linux experience has been.
I'm a fairly experienced user, programmer, and network admin. I've used Windows for my entire career, with only a smattering of linux here and there. Until just recently. I've been trying to switch to Linux. I've *wanted* to switch to Linux, but until just this past weekend, I've never been able to get a Linux distro to work on my computer "Out-of-the-box" so to speak.
Of course, I knew this would eventually not be the case. This past weekend, I installed Ubuntu 7.04 on my home PC, and I plan to keep it this time. It took me about 1.5 hours, and that included moving files off a spare partition to use for it. On the whole, I'm impressed. I was left with a fully functional Linux install that had just about everything I needed to do basic day-to-day functions. I'm happy with it, and so I would have to say... No. Linux has finally caught up to what the basic user wants. An operating system that just *works*. In fact, I can honestly say that Ubuntu took me *less* time to setup and update than Windows XP would take.
Now, if I could just find a good frame-level mpeg 2 editor, and a good DVD authoring package, I would be happier than anything.:)
On that same note, just because there is currently not much malware on Linux or Mac, doesn't mean it will always be that way.
I'm fairly indifferent to which platform I use as long as it functions well. I'm also not the norm, but am privy to using many a malware free Windows Machine.
The more Linux distros are out there, the larger the market share, the more malware will target it. If you think you will always have a highhorse to sit on just because you run Linux or Mac, then I'll be there when you fall and bust your ass on the first widespread linux or mac malware invasion to point and laugh at you.
Malware developers are out to accomplish a goal, to infect as many machines in as little time possible.
So what makes more sense: Target Windows boxes which have lots of readily available holes to squirm through and a whopping 95% (maybe? I don't know for sure) market share?
Or target Linux and Mac, which don't have as many widely publicized holes, and only a measly 5% market share?
Its a no brainer right? But if the tables were turned, and it was Linux with the 95% market share, your sure as hell gonna be the first targeted.
The point is, why not be pro-active, and send a message to malware authors that we don't want it, and we wont stand for it? By integrating virus protection into the very fabric of the net, we stand that much greater chance that the next big malware outbreak (Whether it targets linux or windows) will be easier to contain, and ultimately will take away that which the malware authors seek: Attention and Distribution.
I actually made a post along these lines earlier, but with reference to the theft prevention systems.
The same applies here:
Universally, honest consumers want:
The best product, for the lowest price, with the most convenient delivery.
As an example:
Furniture company A offers a high-end fridge for a good price, say $1200, and charges $50 for delivery.
Furniture company B offers the same fridge for $1200, but offers free delivery.
Which company is going to get your money?
Not all choices are this easy, but thats the basics of the industry of today. And so:
If we take todays content (TV, Movies, Music) and present it to honest consumers (I stress the HONEST part) at a reasonable price ($1-2/episode, $2-4/movie, $0.50-1.00/song) and deliver it to them in industry standard formats DRM free. How many people out there would sign up for this, and be more than willing to fork over their hard earned cash for this service? Can I see a show of hands?
Heres my personal take on it... at the prices listed above.
I pay $52/mth for my satellite service. So for a year of TV watching, I pay $624.
On a service above, to get the shows I like (all 3 CSI's, Heroes, House, Bones, Jericho, Smallville * approx 22 episodes each per season = 176 episodes) for approx $352.
Whoa... even at $2/episode, I would be paying half price(or so). And I would have the episodes in digital format that I could watch where, when, and on whatever device I choose.
I know that this is an idealistic approach to it... the problem is bigger than this... but I think I do a good job of making my point. Media producers need to let go of old approaches to product distribution and get with the times. People want a good product, for a good price, with a convenient delivery method.
I'll supress the largest bulk of the rage that I feel about your comments, and give you the facts, as you obviously have not researched this.
When Keith fled the US to apply as a political refugee in Canada, I worked with him. I spent a good 3 years with the man or more and got to know him as a good friend.
Keith *did* try to defend himself in the original trials. And in fact, there were more than just the original charges of "Interfering with a religion". The cult made motions in limine to exclude much of Keiths evidence and testimony based on copyrights and religios "secrets" that they didn't want put in the public eye. The court allowed this, and there went Keiths case. The assertions that he was a "terrorist" and threatening to bomb them were thrown out as ridiculous, even an idiot could see that the comments made were made in jest. *BUT* they did make the charges of "Interfering with a religion" stick, based on some far-fetched theory that his organised picketing was interfering with their right to practice their religion. *Thats* what he's supposed to go to jail for.
The reason Keith fled the country, or at least the biggest reason was because he feared that if he went into prison for this so called crime, he would never come out alive. And after my involvement in an incident here in Canada, I would believe it. Even when Keith came to Canada, the $cilos never left him alone. They dropped false tips to law enforcement agencies here in Canada that resulted in a high-profile swat style take down of Keith in a local shopping center. It not only put Keith at risk (who was unarmed and very much not a dangerous man) but all civilians that were in the shopping center at the time. The take down was executed based an tips that Keith was a terrorist that was "Armed and Extremely Dangerous".
Keith is a kind and generous man who wanted nothing more than to see justice served on this horrible cult.
At my local walmart store, the employees seem quite jaded with the current theft prevention system. The alarm goes off, employees turn their head, and stand and watch as customers continue to walk right on through. This makes it somewhat difficult to determine if somebody is stealing something, or if a tag just wasn't de-activated properly. The employees just don't care enough to bother with it. And believe me, if you walk up to a minimum wage employee with a security tag and say "The alarm went off, I need this fixed", they simply de-activate it for you without question. Is this the fault of the system? Not at all. But the fact remains, people trained with these systems just don't get paid enough to deal with angry customers who just want to get out of the store without setting off a loud and obnoxious alarm.
But that brings me to the next point: Would this new system be better? Absolutely not. It will end with more angry customers, more complaints, and most probably more piracy as a direct result. People want the best product, for the best price, for the least amount of hassle. Which best illustrates the problem with both the music and movie industry, *and* retail theft prevention.
The product is mediocre, the price is high, and with theft prevention tags and DRM, both retail and digital purchases are inconvenient and sometimes full of hassle. Which means piracy wins: Get the products that you *want* for a low price (free), in a convenient fashion (bittorrent most likely, but downloaded at the very least).
Do I have an answer for this? Nope. In this age, it seems there is no easy answer to the problem.
I can see the strategy in this move though... if Jobs can score a contract with all labels to offer up DRM-free music for a slightly higher price, then once he has them in a contract for this, he can push for lower prices once he's rid of DRM. If he's seriously shooting for the consumer here, thats what he will do. In a case like this, he could actually play the labels off one another, like he is with the existing EMI deal.
Once the Labels have given in, it would be *very* difficult to get apple to agree to go back to all DRM-ridden music.
I can *just* start to hear the feint sounds of the foundation crumbling out from underneath the DRM fortress....
free(a);
free(b);
return 0; } I believe these days a try...catch block is preferable to an error ladder. Much more controllable, and doesn't require nasty GOTO's.
When I took C programming in college, our professor told us at the beginning of the course that if *anybody* used a GOTO statement, he would make them write and present a 10000 word essay on "Why we don't use GOTO's". Needless to say, nobody ever used one. And the world was better for it.:P
Here's the catch, because you obviously don't know much about law, particularly when it comes to patent, trademark and copyright law.
Much of the law is based on precedent, which means that prior decisions in similar court cases influence or completely decide the outcome of current cases. The biggest problem with this kind of corporate behavior is that it sets a precedent. Microsoft can now demonstrate based on these two *HUGE* deals, that these companies acknowledge that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents. Whether it *actually* does or not is not the issue. The precedent is now set. Novell and Samsung, with their assumed vast and knowledgeable legal team has gone over these agreements, and SIGNED them, affirming that without these agreements, they would be subject to expensive and lengthy legal battles.
From the corporate perspective, I can see why they've done it. Nobody wants another IBM vs. SCO battle, which is what this would be if they were to refuse these agreements. Except that this kind of case you wouldn't be dealing with a relatively small corporation like SCO, you would be facing off against a MULTI-BILLION dollar corporation with one of the best legal teams in the world that money can buy. From that perspective, the obvious answer is "Sign the agreement and be done with it".
I don't condone this behavior, I'm a firm believer that if your producing an honest product, you should be safe from big corporations threatening legal action against you. I think Microsoft should have some kind of basis for making the claims that they make. If Linux infringes their patents, come now, out with it. Show us your evidence, patent numbers, specific code. These corporations have obviously been given a quiet ultimatum... sign... or fight us.
but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either.
I'm not sure where in Canada you live... I live in southern Ontario... and in my lifetime there has never been a subway bombing... or even a widely reported terrorist threat in Canada. I'm sure they've happened on some level or another, but to go all out and take wide-spread over-reactive measures like this Bill C-416 in the name of fighting terrorism is just asinine. I disagree with the provisions of this bill. I like my privacy, and I like that Canada has fought the States on all of the recent pressure over terrorism, copyright, piracy, and all the other recent issues.
I don't support Harper's conservatives. I never will. To say that the conservatives aren't interested in Canadians private space is laughable. Harper sought to tell Canadians who it was acceptable to marry, and re-opened an issue that had *ALREADY* been voted on and put to rest. To think that the conservatives could be convinced to support this bill based on the perceived threat of terrorism or child porn... thats frightening.
There is a battle to be fought against these 2 issues, but Bill C-416 is *not* the way to fight it. Warrantless wiretapping is unacceptable in *any* circumstance.
Sounds sorta like a caching algorithm. As items are used, they are left on top. Temporal locality says that all the important items will be on top of the other items.
But then we get a garbage collection algorithm, too. Every so often, the short-lived objects which are no longer important are removed in your tidying process.
Oh to see the world from a programmers eyes.:-D
Besides, if 2 supposed "network security" people got hit, do the ISPs really have any hope whatsoever in trying to educate their users to avoid phishing?
I went to school with people who proved that you can do a college course and PASS without ever learning a single darn thing. Having a diploma or a degree is not always the best measure of knowledge in a particular field.
Yes, the status was denied. They had set a date for which he was to be deported back to the US. Keith had expressed genuine fear that if he was escorted across into the hands of the US authorities, that he would be a dead man. And so he left on his own terms to an unspecified location. I had had email contact with him but that was all.
I agree. I've looked at the stats, and figure in my own personal dealings with purchased movies...
Pre-DVD's, I bought exactly *2* VHS movies.
Once I owned a DVD player, I actually bought *more* movies than I ever had before. Sure, I might make a "Personal Copy" of a few too, but the point is, when I really like a movie, when its *worth* buying, I actually buy it.
Its unfortunate that Keith has finally been arrested. While he was in Canada, I worked closely with him on a few R&D projects. He was a good guy who always had an interesting story to tell. He fought very hard to get political refugee status from the Canadian Gov't while he was here, and was eventually denied after about a 3 year struggle. He left on his own terms, returning to the US in his own time, claiming that if he was escorted properly across the border, he would be a dead man.
In all the time that Keith spent in Canada, he was never once left alone by the cult of Scientology. I was involved with one incident with a P.I. that was following him, and there were numerous other occasions that I had heard about from him.
He was a good friend, always willing to stick his head out for ya. I sure do miss him now, and sincerely hope that nothing terrible happens to him now that he's been arrested.
up to four drinks per day in men and two drinks per day in women -- reduces the risk of death from any cause by roughly 18 percent
So... if I jump out of a plane with no parashute, having a few drinks per day could reduce my chances of death by 18%?:) I would think having a few drinks per day would be more likely to *cause* such an incident.
Then why do such people in corporations need professional sysadmins to support them? Then why do such people in the home need unpaid tech support to bail them out?
And you believe that such support would not be required in Linux? OS X? Thats a pretty naive view of the world. My point is that the bulk of computer users in the world know and understand the basics of Windows. The fact that even *I* need support for certain applications sometimes should not be a mark on the OS. Windows has a good clean interface which in my opinion (note: its simply *MY* opinion) is user friendly and has improved over time.
To discount Windows as a decent operating system simply because its designed by a monopolistic empire like Microsoft is prejudiced, and on the verge of bigotry.
Just because Microsoft does evil things, doesn't mean everything produced by Microsoft is evil.
Perhaps you've misunderstood me... I don't buy hardware because its compatible with windows. I custom build my machines, a few parts at a time. I hand-pick my hardware based on reviews, performance, and past experience with certain companies and vendors. To say that I've "purchased a windows machine" is totally incorrect. I purchased parts, installed them, and then installed windows, expecting to be able to use my hardware. The fact that I bought hardware that had windows drivers is a plus, because thats not one of the criteria that I use when I pick my hardware.
The fact that much of my hardware *HAS* windows drivers, but does not have Linux drivers goes a long way, because I don't use uncommon or unusual hardware. Most of my hardware has been picked from the top of reviewers lists for stability and performance. So the fact that I can't get my hardware working in Linux, despite the fact that I havn't done a hardware upgrade in almost 2 years (ample time for *somebody* to come up with a driver) can not be deemed unfair on my part.
I don't have the time nor desire to write my own drivers, and selecting hardware that works in both Windows and Linux *AND* has the desired performance/stability that I crave is a painstaking task. I know that as time goes on, this will change. More hardware is supported under Linux now then ever before. And when I can take a linux distro, install it, and have it running all my apps, and all my games in the same time it would take Windows to do the same, I'll be more than happy to switch.
To ask me to give up my games *just* to switch to Linux is unreasonable. To ask me to run a dual-boot machine still leaves me paying for the microsoft software which appears to be the issue to begin with. So what do you do? For now, I support Microsoft OS's 100%. As far as other software goes, I support FOSS all the way. 90+% of the software I use on my home system (not including the games) is FOSS.
Regarding my malware experience, yes, my experience is the exception. I'm an experienced Net admin and programmer. I don't expect ordinary users to adhere to the same standards that I hold myself to. BUT: I assure you, when Linux becomes a main-stream desktop OS, and it WILL, someday, malware and virus creators *WILL* catch up. To think anything else would be naive at best. The fact that most linux systems are malware and virus free is simply a mark of the user group that uses Linux. Mostly experienced admins and programmers like myself.
Perhaps I support different users than you. Maybe my friends and family are more computer savvy than yours. Who knows. I'm not saying that *all* of my personal support calls are like that, but the majority are. Simple problems require simple solutions. Most of the systems I get calls about were setup and are regularly maintained by me.
The long and the short of my original comments is this: People use what they perceive as the easiest answer. Windows has the largest user base, the largest driver and hardware and software support base, and readily available power users that people can call to get support (this is of course on a user-by-user basis, not everyone has a PC guy in the family they can call for help). Can the same be said of Linux? Not to my knowledge, but I never claim to know everything. From the reasonable persons perpective, windows is the easiest answer, and they are willing to pay for that.
I've run Windows 2000 on my box since its inception... I've never had to re-install due to software fault. *NEVER*. Period.
I consider myself a power user, and as far as basic friendlyness, windows is as good as any other GUI based OS. When speaking of problems, regardless of windows, linux, OS X, or whatever other flavour you choose, the user experience is the same. Whatever OS you learned on, thats the one you'll be most comfortable with, and I can relate with that. But from an outside users perspective, when something goes wrong, any reasonable person calls a pro to come fix it. *YES* I get calls from friends and family about simple things gone wrong, and those are usually 5 minute phone calls, or 30 minute house calls and the problem is gone.
As far as *my* experience with windows goes, once I installed Windows 2000, I felt that Microsoft finally got it right. It's always been rock-solid stable for me. It doesn't crash, I've experienced no typical windows bit-rot, and any time I've had a problem with a piece of software I've installed, I can fix it with relative ease. This is simply a mark of my experience with Windows. You could likely do the same thing in Linux if required. But as far as re-installing, the only time I've ever had to re-install was because of hard drive failure. My system is not riddled with spyware or malware, despite having *NEVER* run a commercial virus scanner. An occasional sweep with a free web-based scanner proves that point.
As far as Ubuntu or Suse, or Fedora, or any other linux variant, I havn't managed to get any of them to work with my raid controller yet. And those that do, don't like my network card, and those that manage both of those fubar my sound card. You see my dilemma with Linux? I use a base install, and it doesn't work. I try to get basic software, something to connect to ICQ or MSN, and it doesn't work. I've spent literally *WEEKS* worth of wasted time bashing my head off a wall trying to make it work. its not for lack of trying, its simply because there is a lack of documentation and simple basic installs.
While your comments are informative, and possibly even true for most people, I actually find some of them rather insulting.
I use windows. I enjoy using windows. And while I don't support Microsoft's business practices, nor all of their software, I think Windows is actually a decent product from a company that has been in the business a long time.
And so, since I've been using computers for a while (since around 1995...) and have been an IT guy for a while, and a programmer, and a software tester, here are my rebuttals to some of your remarks:
Those who had only used Windows kept going on and on about how user-friendly Windows is. I'm thinking, "compared to nothing, I can see your point." Windows is user-friendly only if you know how to use it.
Windows *is* user friendly. From the standpoint of *anyone* whos ever just picked up a computer to check email, browse a website, or do basic office functions, Windows is VERY user friendly. Some of the software may require training, but I've never heard of a grandmother, aunt, uncle, child, or otherwise require training to use the basic software that comes with windows. As far as installing and configuring windows, consider this:
I run a custom gaming rig. I can go from a bare format, to fully functional in a matter of hours if I'm running windows. If I try to use Linux, I run into dead-end after dead-end trying to get my hardware just to FUNCTION correctly. This has some to do with driver support, and much more to do with being user-friendly.
Some people have a legitimate reason to use Windows. GAMES. That's right it has games. That's the biggest selling point I've heard so far. Most of these gamers have a Wii, an Xbox360, and a PS3. Hey here's a thought. Play games on your consoles, and stop using that as a reason for using Windows.
Actually, I *am* a gamer, I do *not* own a PS3, XBox360, or a Wii. I run windows partially because it lets me play games that run on windows. I take my system to gaming parties, hook up to a LAN, and have a lot of fun. You seem to have a misconception about gamers, that they have tons of money to go out and buy the latest and greatest consoles and such, but in reality, there is a very small percentage of gamers that have that kind of money. Most of us use outdated hardware, and play for the sheer joy of playing with a group of people on a LAN. It's a social thing, not a gaming thing. If the games ran on Linux, we would use Linux, if the games ran on OS X, we would run OS X. The truth of it is, they run on Windows, so we run Windows.
It's not an excuse, it's a simple truth. You can't just rule out windows as a gaming platform simply because there is a market for consoles. Your argument is flawed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Linux is *bad*. I've just given it an honest shot, and had very little success running it as a full-time desktop OS. I've run Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, NT, and installed and configured many of Microsoft's other software packages. As a one-time full-time network admin, many of these packages were easy to use, easy to install and configure, easy to administer, and quite secure of you knew what you were doing.
*That's* why I support Microsoft OS's. And when Linux can catch up to that, I'll happily support them too.
I'm not sure about other wedcasters, these are just my opinions.
The very idea of having to pay royalties for the songs I play through a web cast is outrageous. I run a shoutcast from my computer, the playlist is managed by my girlfriend. The bitrate is set much lower than cd quality, and is really mostly for her and her friends enjoyment. The thought that the RIAA wants to charge me for broadcasting sub-standard quality music that one could record just as easily from a radio, is absurd. Radio stations broadcast music for several reasons:
1. entertainment. This I would rank as the primary focus of radio stations... people want to be entertained, and the less it costs them, the better.
2. To promote the artists. Lets face it, without radio stations and music video channels, most people would never buy the albums from the local music store. We hear a song that we like, find out who its by, and buy the album. I don't believe I have ever heard of somebody going into a music store and picking a random album and buying it because they thought it looked interesting. The music industry just doesn't work that way.
Why should I have to pay the music industry to entertain there fans, and to promote there music? When was the last time you heard ANY company complain about free advertising?
I could see the headlines now: "Microsoft Sues small-town software company for promoting microsoft software." This doesn't make sense, and neither does royalties on webcasts. Forcing webcasters to pay a royalty on a webcast is like making them pay the RIAA to promote the RIAA's product.
There is no piracy involved in this. There is no music bootlegging, or recording and any such thing. If the webcast listeners want to record and distribute illegal copy's of 24kbs, 22.05kHz, Mono music, by all means, let them. But do not make the webcasters pay for this. We want to entertain, and we want to promote our favourite artists. This is all, and the only fee we should have to pay, is the fee to obtain legal copy's of the music to begin with. This would merely involve taking a trip to our local music store, and purchasing a copy of the artists album.
It may be just me, but after readint hrough the list of replies, I didn't see Delphi suggested anywhere...
Delphi has many, if not all of the language features that were requested. I've programmed in Delphi for a good 5 years or more, and other than the general lack of enthusiasm for the language which seems to be so widespread, it has always been my favourite. It allows rapid development with minimal overhead, and one of the coolest features I think, is the way it packages the final project. In most cases you can develop applications which have nothing more than just the executable.
Give it some thought, its one of the most commonly overlooked languages as of late... but one of the most powerfull on the market for rapid application development...
I remember 12 or 13 years back when I got my first set of construx for christmas. I loved them, and the first night I had them, I had a fully functional working crane built. They were a blast.
Anybody else remember building stuff like that? Or am I just wierd?:)
Slashdot Mirror
This issue is this:
You buy an HD-DVD for $35. You can play it on your HD-DVD Player... but wait... you bought a leading edge player that's starting to get old, and thus doesn't support the DRM scheme on the latest disk... so you figure... I'll just play it on my PC running Linux... but wait... HD-DVD's wont play under Linux.
You buy a movie that must be played with a certain player, and in a certain operating system, and its technically illegal to do so under any other conditions other than what they say you can. Is this fair? Technically, no. Is it reality? Yes.
DRM is destroying the industry they are trying to promote. The music and movie industry is shooting themselves in the foot by trying to enforce such strong DRM. People who want to copy the content will *STILL COPY IT*. People who want to use the content fairly, will be crippled by DRM.
As long as there is content to be copied, people will always find a way to do it. There is no such thing as perfect DRM.
Had this been a week ago, I may have posted a very heartfelt message about how good my windows experience has been, and how bad my linux experience has been.
:)
I'm a fairly experienced user, programmer, and network admin. I've used Windows for my entire career, with only a smattering of linux here and there. Until just recently. I've been trying to switch to Linux. I've *wanted* to switch to Linux, but until just this past weekend, I've never been able to get a Linux distro to work on my computer "Out-of-the-box" so to speak.
Of course, I knew this would eventually not be the case. This past weekend, I installed Ubuntu 7.04 on my home PC, and I plan to keep it this time. It took me about 1.5 hours, and that included moving files off a spare partition to use for it. On the whole, I'm impressed. I was left with a fully functional Linux install that had just about everything I needed to do basic day-to-day functions. I'm happy with it, and so I would have to say... No. Linux has finally caught up to what the basic user wants. An operating system that just *works*. In fact, I can honestly say that Ubuntu took me *less* time to setup and update than Windows XP would take.
Now, if I could just find a good frame-level mpeg 2 editor, and a good DVD authoring package, I would be happier than anything.
On that same note, just because there is currently not much malware on Linux or Mac, doesn't mean it will always be that way.
I'm fairly indifferent to which platform I use as long as it functions well. I'm also not the norm, but am privy to using many a malware free Windows Machine.
The more Linux distros are out there, the larger the market share, the more malware will target it. If you think you will always have a highhorse to sit on just because you run Linux or Mac, then I'll be there when you fall and bust your ass on the first widespread linux or mac malware invasion to point and laugh at you.
Malware developers are out to accomplish a goal, to infect as many machines in as little time possible.
So what makes more sense: Target Windows boxes which have lots of readily available holes to squirm through and a whopping 95% (maybe? I don't know for sure) market share?
Or target Linux and Mac, which don't have as many widely publicized holes, and only a measly 5% market share?
Its a no brainer right? But if the tables were turned, and it was Linux with the 95% market share, your sure as hell gonna be the first targeted.
The point is, why not be pro-active, and send a message to malware authors that we don't want it, and we wont stand for it? By integrating virus protection into the very fabric of the net, we stand that much greater chance that the next big malware outbreak (Whether it targets linux or windows) will be easier to contain, and ultimately will take away that which the malware authors seek: Attention and Distribution.
Unfortunately, Canadian prices are a bit more ridiculous...
:/
Looking at shelves of old TV shows, or even current ones, I find myself looking at price tags of $60-$100 for a complete season of 22-24 episodes.
Thats far too much money.
If I could pay $1/episode for DRM free shows, I would cancel my satellite, and switch without a second thought.
I actually made a post along these lines earlier, but with reference to the theft prevention systems.
The same applies here:
Universally, honest consumers want:
The best product, for the lowest price, with the most convenient delivery.
As an example:
Furniture company A offers a high-end fridge for a good price, say $1200, and charges $50 for delivery.
Furniture company B offers the same fridge for $1200, but offers free delivery.
Which company is going to get your money?
Not all choices are this easy, but thats the basics of the industry of today. And so:
If we take todays content (TV, Movies, Music) and present it to honest consumers (I stress the HONEST part) at a reasonable price ($1-2/episode, $2-4/movie, $0.50-1.00/song) and deliver it to them in industry standard formats DRM free. How many people out there would sign up for this, and be more than willing to fork over their hard earned cash for this service? Can I see a show of hands?
Heres my personal take on it... at the prices listed above.
I pay $52/mth for my satellite service. So for a year of TV watching, I pay $624.
On a service above, to get the shows I like (all 3 CSI's, Heroes, House, Bones, Jericho, Smallville * approx 22 episodes each per season = 176 episodes) for approx $352.
Whoa... even at $2/episode, I would be paying half price(or so). And I would have the episodes in digital format that I could watch where, when, and on whatever device I choose.
I know that this is an idealistic approach to it... the problem is bigger than this... but I think I do a good job of making my point. Media producers need to let go of old approaches to product distribution and get with the times. People want a good product, for a good price, with a convenient delivery method.
I'll supress the largest bulk of the rage that I feel about your comments, and give you the facts, as you obviously have not researched this.
When Keith fled the US to apply as a political refugee in Canada, I worked with him. I spent a good 3 years with the man or more and got to know him as a good friend.
Keith *did* try to defend himself in the original trials. And in fact, there were more than just the original charges of "Interfering with a religion". The cult made motions in limine to exclude much of Keiths evidence and testimony based on copyrights and religios "secrets" that they didn't want put in the public eye. The court allowed this, and there went Keiths case. The assertions that he was a "terrorist" and threatening to bomb them were thrown out as ridiculous, even an idiot could see that the comments made were made in jest. *BUT* they did make the charges of "Interfering with a religion" stick, based on some far-fetched theory that his organised picketing was interfering with their right to practice their religion. *Thats* what he's supposed to go to jail for.
The reason Keith fled the country, or at least the biggest reason was because he feared that if he went into prison for this so called crime, he would never come out alive. And after my involvement in an incident here in Canada, I would believe it. Even when Keith came to Canada, the $cilos never left him alone. They dropped false tips to law enforcement agencies here in Canada that resulted in a high-profile swat style take down of Keith in a local shopping center. It not only put Keith at risk (who was unarmed and very much not a dangerous man) but all civilians that were in the shopping center at the time. The take down was executed based an tips that Keith was a terrorist that was "Armed and Extremely Dangerous".
Keith is a kind and generous man who wanted nothing more than to see justice served on this horrible cult.
Well, Yes and no.
At my local walmart store, the employees seem quite jaded with the current theft prevention system. The alarm goes off, employees turn their head, and stand and watch as customers continue to walk right on through. This makes it somewhat difficult to determine if somebody is stealing something, or if a tag just wasn't de-activated properly. The employees just don't care enough to bother with it. And believe me, if you walk up to a minimum wage employee with a security tag and say "The alarm went off, I need this fixed", they simply de-activate it for you without question. Is this the fault of the system? Not at all. But the fact remains, people trained with these systems just don't get paid enough to deal with angry customers who just want to get out of the store without setting off a loud and obnoxious alarm.
But that brings me to the next point: Would this new system be better? Absolutely not. It will end with more angry customers, more complaints, and most probably more piracy as a direct result. People want the best product, for the best price, for the least amount of hassle. Which best illustrates the problem with both the music and movie industry, *and* retail theft prevention.
The product is mediocre, the price is high, and with theft prevention tags and DRM, both retail and digital purchases are inconvenient and sometimes full of hassle. Which means piracy wins: Get the products that you *want* for a low price (free), in a convenient fashion (bittorrent most likely, but downloaded at the very least).
Do I have an answer for this? Nope. In this age, it seems there is no easy answer to the problem.
I can see the strategy in this move though... if Jobs can score a contract with all labels to offer up DRM-free music for a slightly higher price, then once he has them in a contract for this, he can push for lower prices once he's rid of DRM. If he's seriously shooting for the consumer here, thats what he will do. In a case like this, he could actually play the labels off one another, like he is with the existing EMI deal.
Once the Labels have given in, it would be *very* difficult to get apple to agree to go back to all DRM-ridden music.
I can *just* start to hear the feint sounds of the foundation crumbling out from underneath the DRM fortress....
{
try
{
char *a = malloc(100);
if (!a)
throw new err_malloc_a();
char *b = malloc(100);
if (!b)
throw new err_malloc_b();
}
catch (err_malloc_a)
{
return -1;
}
catch (err_malloc_b)
{
free(a);
return -1;
}
free(a);
free(b);
return 0;
} I believe these days a try...catch block is preferable to an error ladder. Much more controllable, and doesn't require nasty GOTO's.
When I took C programming in college, our professor told us at the beginning of the course that if *anybody* used a GOTO statement, he would make them write and present a 10000 word essay on "Why we don't use GOTO's". Needless to say, nobody ever used one. And the world was better for it.
Here's the catch, because you obviously don't know much about law, particularly when it comes to patent, trademark and copyright law.
Much of the law is based on precedent, which means that prior decisions in similar court cases influence or completely decide the outcome of current cases. The biggest problem with this kind of corporate behavior is that it sets a precedent. Microsoft can now demonstrate based on these two *HUGE* deals, that these companies acknowledge that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents. Whether it *actually* does or not is not the issue. The precedent is now set. Novell and Samsung, with their assumed vast and knowledgeable legal team has gone over these agreements, and SIGNED them, affirming that without these agreements, they would be subject to expensive and lengthy legal battles.
From the corporate perspective, I can see why they've done it. Nobody wants another IBM vs. SCO battle, which is what this would be if they were to refuse these agreements. Except that this kind of case you wouldn't be dealing with a relatively small corporation like SCO, you would be facing off against a MULTI-BILLION dollar corporation with one of the best legal teams in the world that money can buy. From that perspective, the obvious answer is "Sign the agreement and be done with it".
I don't condone this behavior, I'm a firm believer that if your producing an honest product, you should be safe from big corporations threatening legal action against you. I think Microsoft should have some kind of basis for making the claims that they make. If Linux infringes their patents, come now, out with it. Show us your evidence, patent numbers, specific code. These corporations have obviously been given a quiet ultimatum... sign... or fight us.
Thats my 2 cents worth anyways.
but I don't want to die in a subway bombing either.
I'm not sure where in Canada you live... I live in southern Ontario... and in my lifetime there has never been a subway bombing... or even a widely reported terrorist threat in Canada. I'm sure they've happened on some level or another, but to go all out and take wide-spread over-reactive measures like this Bill C-416 in the name of fighting terrorism is just asinine. I disagree with the provisions of this bill. I like my privacy, and I like that Canada has fought the States on all of the recent pressure over terrorism, copyright, piracy, and all the other recent issues.
I don't support Harper's conservatives. I never will. To say that the conservatives aren't interested in Canadians private space is laughable. Harper sought to tell Canadians who it was acceptable to marry, and re-opened an issue that had *ALREADY* been voted on and put to rest. To think that the conservatives could be convinced to support this bill based on the perceived threat of terrorism or child porn... thats frightening.
There is a battle to be fought against these 2 issues, but Bill C-416 is *not* the way to fight it. Warrantless wiretapping is unacceptable in *any* circumstance.
But then we get a garbage collection algorithm, too. Every so often, the short-lived objects which are no longer important are removed in your tidying process.
Oh to see the world from a programmers eyes.
I went to school with people who proved that you can do a college course and PASS without ever learning a single darn thing. Having a diploma or a degree is not always the best measure of knowledge in a particular field.
Don't you mean "Tom Cruise Missile"?
*ducks*
Yes, the status was denied. They had set a date for which he was to be deported back to the US. Keith had expressed genuine fear that if he was escorted across into the hands of the US authorities, that he would be a dead man. And so he left on his own terms to an unspecified location. I had had email contact with him but that was all.
I agree. I've looked at the stats, and figure in my own personal dealings with purchased movies...
:P
Pre-DVD's, I bought exactly *2* VHS movies.
Once I owned a DVD player, I actually bought *more* movies than I ever had before. Sure, I might make a "Personal Copy" of a few too, but the point is, when I really like a movie, when its *worth* buying, I actually buy it.
Oh yeah... and I'm Canadian.
Its unfortunate that Keith has finally been arrested. While he was in Canada, I worked closely with him on a few R&D projects. He was a good guy who always had an interesting story to tell. He fought very hard to get political refugee status from the Canadian Gov't while he was here, and was eventually denied after about a 3 year struggle. He left on his own terms, returning to the US in his own time, claiming that if he was escorted properly across the border, he would be a dead man.
In all the time that Keith spent in Canada, he was never once left alone by the cult of Scientology. I was involved with one incident with a P.I. that was following him, and there were numerous other occasions that I had heard about from him.
He was a good friend, always willing to stick his head out for ya. I sure do miss him now, and sincerely hope that nothing terrible happens to him now that he's been arrested.
And you believe that such support would not be required in Linux? OS X? Thats a pretty naive view of the world. My point is that the bulk of computer users in the world know and understand the basics of Windows. The fact that even *I* need support for certain applications sometimes should not be a mark on the OS. Windows has a good clean interface which in my opinion (note: its simply *MY* opinion) is user friendly and has improved over time.
To discount Windows as a decent operating system simply because its designed by a monopolistic empire like Microsoft is prejudiced, and on the verge of bigotry.
Just because Microsoft does evil things, doesn't mean everything produced by Microsoft is evil.
Perhaps you've misunderstood me... I don't buy hardware because its compatible with windows. I custom build my machines, a few parts at a time. I hand-pick my hardware based on reviews, performance, and past experience with certain companies and vendors. To say that I've "purchased a windows machine" is totally incorrect. I purchased parts, installed them, and then installed windows, expecting to be able to use my hardware. The fact that I bought hardware that had windows drivers is a plus, because thats not one of the criteria that I use when I pick my hardware.
The fact that much of my hardware *HAS* windows drivers, but does not have Linux drivers goes a long way, because I don't use uncommon or unusual hardware. Most of my hardware has been picked from the top of reviewers lists for stability and performance. So the fact that I can't get my hardware working in Linux, despite the fact that I havn't done a hardware upgrade in almost 2 years (ample time for *somebody* to come up with a driver) can not be deemed unfair on my part.
I don't have the time nor desire to write my own drivers, and selecting hardware that works in both Windows and Linux *AND* has the desired performance/stability that I crave is a painstaking task. I know that as time goes on, this will change. More hardware is supported under Linux now then ever before. And when I can take a linux distro, install it, and have it running all my apps, and all my games in the same time it would take Windows to do the same, I'll be more than happy to switch.
To ask me to give up my games *just* to switch to Linux is unreasonable. To ask me to run a dual-boot machine still leaves me paying for the microsoft software which appears to be the issue to begin with. So what do you do? For now, I support Microsoft OS's 100%. As far as other software goes, I support FOSS all the way. 90+% of the software I use on my home system (not including the games) is FOSS.
Regarding my malware experience, yes, my experience is the exception. I'm an experienced Net admin and programmer. I don't expect ordinary users to adhere to the same standards that I hold myself to. BUT: I assure you, when Linux becomes a main-stream desktop OS, and it WILL, someday, malware and virus creators *WILL* catch up. To think anything else would be naive at best. The fact that most linux systems are malware and virus free is simply a mark of the user group that uses Linux. Mostly experienced admins and programmers like myself.
Perhaps I support different users than you. Maybe my friends and family are more computer savvy than yours. Who knows. I'm not saying that *all* of my personal support calls are like that, but the majority are. Simple problems require simple solutions. Most of the systems I get calls about were setup and are regularly maintained by me.
The long and the short of my original comments is this: People use what they perceive as the easiest answer. Windows has the largest user base, the largest driver and hardware and software support base, and readily available power users that people can call to get support (this is of course on a user-by-user basis, not everyone has a PC guy in the family they can call for help). Can the same be said of Linux? Not to my knowledge, but I never claim to know everything. From the reasonable persons perpective, windows is the easiest answer, and they are willing to pay for that.
I've run Windows 2000 on my box since its inception... I've never had to re-install due to software fault. *NEVER*. Period.
I consider myself a power user, and as far as basic friendlyness, windows is as good as any other GUI based OS. When speaking of problems, regardless of windows, linux, OS X, or whatever other flavour you choose, the user experience is the same. Whatever OS you learned on, thats the one you'll be most comfortable with, and I can relate with that. But from an outside users perspective, when something goes wrong, any reasonable person calls a pro to come fix it. *YES* I get calls from friends and family about simple things gone wrong, and those are usually 5 minute phone calls, or 30 minute house calls and the problem is gone.
As far as *my* experience with windows goes, once I installed Windows 2000, I felt that Microsoft finally got it right. It's always been rock-solid stable for me. It doesn't crash, I've experienced no typical windows bit-rot, and any time I've had a problem with a piece of software I've installed, I can fix it with relative ease. This is simply a mark of my experience with Windows. You could likely do the same thing in Linux if required. But as far as re-installing, the only time I've ever had to re-install was because of hard drive failure. My system is not riddled with spyware or malware, despite having *NEVER* run a commercial virus scanner. An occasional sweep with a free web-based scanner proves that point.
As far as Ubuntu or Suse, or Fedora, or any other linux variant, I havn't managed to get any of them to work with my raid controller yet. And those that do, don't like my network card, and those that manage both of those fubar my sound card. You see my dilemma with Linux? I use a base install, and it doesn't work. I try to get basic software, something to connect to ICQ or MSN, and it doesn't work. I've spent literally *WEEKS* worth of wasted time bashing my head off a wall trying to make it work. its not for lack of trying, its simply because there is a lack of documentation and simple basic installs.
I use windows. I enjoy using windows. And while I don't support Microsoft's business practices, nor all of their software, I think Windows is actually a decent product from a company that has been in the business a long time.
And so, since I've been using computers for a while (since around 1995...) and have been an IT guy for a while, and a programmer, and a software tester, here are my rebuttals to some of your remarks:
Windows *is* user friendly. From the standpoint of *anyone* whos ever just picked up a computer to check email, browse a website, or do basic office functions, Windows is VERY user friendly. Some of the software may require training, but I've never heard of a grandmother, aunt, uncle, child, or otherwise require training to use the basic software that comes with windows. As far as installing and configuring windows, consider this:
I run a custom gaming rig. I can go from a bare format, to fully functional in a matter of hours if I'm running windows. If I try to use Linux, I run into dead-end after dead-end trying to get my hardware just to FUNCTION correctly. This has some to do with driver support, and much more to do with being user-friendly.
Actually, I *am* a gamer, I do *not* own a PS3, XBox360, or a Wii. I run windows partially because it lets me play games that run on windows. I take my system to gaming parties, hook up to a LAN, and have a lot of fun. You seem to have a misconception about gamers, that they have tons of money to go out and buy the latest and greatest consoles and such, but in reality, there is a very small percentage of gamers that have that kind of money. Most of us use outdated hardware, and play for the sheer joy of playing with a group of people on a LAN. It's a social thing, not a gaming thing. If the games ran on Linux, we would use Linux, if the games ran on OS X, we would run OS X. The truth of it is, they run on Windows, so we run Windows.
It's not an excuse, it's a simple truth. You can't just rule out windows as a gaming platform simply because there is a market for consoles. Your argument is flawed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Linux is *bad*. I've just given it an honest shot, and had very little success running it as a full-time desktop OS. I've run Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, NT, and installed and configured many of Microsoft's other software packages. As a one-time full-time network admin, many of these packages were easy to use, easy to install and configure, easy to administer, and quite secure of you knew what you were doing.
*That's* why I support Microsoft OS's. And when Linux can catch up to that, I'll happily support them too.
I'm not sure about other wedcasters, these are just my opinions.
The very idea of having to pay royalties for the songs I play through a web cast is outrageous. I run a shoutcast from my computer, the playlist is managed by my girlfriend. The bitrate is set much lower than cd quality, and is really mostly for her and her friends enjoyment. The thought that the RIAA wants to charge me for broadcasting sub-standard quality music that one could record just as easily from a radio, is absurd. Radio stations broadcast music for several reasons:
1. entertainment. This I would rank as the primary focus of radio stations... people want to be entertained, and the less it costs them, the better.
2. To promote the artists. Lets face it, without radio stations and music video channels, most people would never buy the albums from the local music store. We hear a song that we like, find out who its by, and buy the album. I don't believe I have ever heard of somebody going into a music store and picking a random album and buying it because they thought it looked interesting. The music industry just doesn't work that way.
Why should I have to pay the music industry to entertain there fans, and to promote there music? When was the last time you heard ANY company complain about free advertising?
I could see the headlines now: "Microsoft Sues small-town software company for promoting microsoft software." This doesn't make sense, and neither does royalties on webcasts. Forcing webcasters to pay a royalty on a webcast is like making them pay the RIAA to promote the RIAA's product.
There is no piracy involved in this. There is no music bootlegging, or recording and any such thing. If the webcast listeners want to record and distribute illegal copy's of 24kbs, 22.05kHz, Mono music, by all means, let them. But do not make the webcasters pay for this. We want to entertain, and we want to promote our favourite artists. This is all, and the only fee we should have to pay, is the fee to obtain legal copy's of the music to begin with. This would merely involve taking a trip to our local music store, and purchasing a copy of the artists album.
It may be just me, but after readint hrough the list of replies, I didn't see Delphi suggested anywhere...
Delphi has many, if not all of the language features that were requested. I've programmed in Delphi for a good 5 years or more, and other than the general lack of enthusiasm for the language which seems to be so widespread, it has always been my favourite. It allows rapid development with minimal overhead, and one of the coolest features I think, is the way it packages the final project. In most cases you can develop applications which have nothing more than just the executable.
Give it some thought, its one of the most commonly overlooked languages as of late... but one of the most powerfull on the market for rapid application development...
I remember 12 or 13 years back when I got my first set of construx for christmas. I loved them, and the first night I had them, I had a fully functional working crane built. They were a blast.
:)
Anybody else remember building stuff like that? Or am I just wierd?