If open source suddenly became unviable for business users, Microsoft will have *everyone* else in the IT industry, including IBM, by the testicles
Um... remember IBM would have settled. They would be free and clear to continue to use Linux to improve the competitive advantage of their server products.
It would only be everyone else who would have to either (1) stop using Linux, or (2) buy IBM, or (3) buy from some other vendor who has settled, or (4) settle themselves. Everyone else would be free to enter into friendly negotiations with Microsoft. I'm sure, just like Licensing 6.0, you pay your fee, and you are fully licensed. Make sure you agree to allow audits.
It would have been smarter for the worm to verify a signature on the code it downloads
Even better, it should not go to a hardcoded URL. This makes it too easy for the enemy to take over a vulnerable web page and attack the worm operation.
The worm should download its code via. P2P, maybe IRC, or maybe even Freenet. Especially Freenet. This way, the more the worm updates are requested, the more they replicate.
Maybe the worms could even try to keep track of each other, forming their own network, in a very low-key, low bandwidth, gnutella kind of way.
Finally, you had better not be shown to have the private key when the bad guys come knocking.
Why on earth would you ever write a server app in Java?
Three words: buffer overflows
Once a server app in put into production you are *never* going to migrate to another platform probably 99% of the time. While development may be somewhat faster it is clearly not worth the performance penalty (which is significant in most cases), with the possible exception of small/low-load apps.
Replace Java with IIS. You could make the same performance arguments. Why run a Windows server when a Linux server is more efficient? Sure, the performance issues are not as great. But my point is that if it performs well enough, that is all that matters.
If my server app in Java performs fine on hardware that is affordable to the project, then nobody else cares. The better development costs might more than offset the hardware costs for the more powerful server.
Development time is a much better thing to optimize for than hardware performance. Hardware gets cheaper by the day. Man-hours get more expensive by the day.
Yes, I understand the geek joy of making a program more efficient. But if it is efficient enough then that is all that matters.
Ho, hum."), and you've got a recipe for disaster...
Don't you mean a recipe for a lot of fun? Or better management policy?
It is all a matter of perspective.
One could manipulate the system to indicate that you have all your homework done. Then one could manage their homework themself, during better hours, which is not necessarily *before* doing something fun. Oh yeah, spend the precious few daylight hours doing homework. Later in the evening, you are free to do something fun. But it is dark and cold out, and getting late. Not late enough that you couldn't do algebra, but late enough that you probably can't stay out anymore.
Oh, to be young again...
Oh, to be yound again is right! I thought people were stupid about computers 25 years ago. Boy, just look at the opportunities for fun nowdays!
You only need 4 bytes to make reflection work. Each object has a pointer to what class it is. The class information has everything else, the vtable so to speak, what interfaces are implemented, etc. All String objects have one single pointer to a common String class object the defines what a String is, what its members are, what its methods are, etc. everything needed for reflection. Think of the vtable as being more than just an array of method pointers, but meta information (the class object) about the object. More than just a vtable. Therefore, reflection requires no overhead really, since an OO language needs a vtable pointer.
If someone were building a compiler that contemplated making such optimizations, wouldn't it be better to have an option to output optimization hints to the programmer? If I use a certian switch, the compiler emits another output file of notes about the source code, and what optimizations it suggests might be in order.
Naturally, the programmer might see that since both array parameters a and b point to the same array, that this is not really a possible optimization. This realization by the programmer is equivalent to the programmer realizing to insert an assert( a != b );
Why not move the optimizations into the source code directly. This makes the optimization transparent. Furthermore, all optimizations were then supervised by the programmer, not automatically hacked in by the compiler, which could fail if the same array were passed in for both parameters a and b.
buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...
How hard is that to understand?
This is easy to understand, and fair.
The cell phone network heavily subsidizes your purchase of the cell phone. equipment. They want you to commit in order to get that subsidy. You can't just buy the phone, and then switch service in 30 days, taking the phone that they mostly paid for over to their competitors network, paying the competitor for network service.
There is no such comparison here. If I'm going to pay for 3 years of upgrades, even if I pay today, then it seems fair that this covered computer should get three years of upgrades, even if said computer is in someone else's hands. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, Microsoft can because they have monopolost control -- the very definition of which is not the absence of competition, but one of control where they can get away with stuff that they could not in a non-monopoly situation.)
If I pay for 3 years of insurance, the covered computer gets coverage for three years. What is so different here? If I cancel the policy, then I stop paying, and stop getting coverage.
Why are you trying to defend Microsoft's unfair practice? (Just curious.)
If I'm 1 year into a 3 year payment and upgrade plan, then why wouldn't it be fair that the software on my computer today is fully licensed if I cancel the plan today. It is also fair that I should get no further upgrades under the plan. But not getting either of these is simply unfair. Remember this plan is upgrade advantage. Not acquisition. You still have to acquire the product before enrolling it in upgrade advantage. I stop paying in 2 months, I stop having any rights to upgrade at that time. The original acquisition, and any upgrades received thus far should be mine. Shouldn't they? (If everything were fair.)
but if MS was running a search engine, they can afford to have no paid links, and no annoying ads.
The classic decaded old monopolist strategy.
Now, once all competition has been wiped from the face of the earth, do you think Microsoft will just give the service away out of the goodness of their heart? After all, they're all such good, kind, wholesome, scrupulous and ethical people.
I don't mind if they show me a 3D model or animation, as long as it is clear to me what I am seeing. It seems the war coverage lately uses lots of computer graphics, 3d model animations, etc. No problem with that. They are accurately representing what I am seeing.
The problem I have is when they represent a photo as being just that. Here is a photo taken by a news photographer. But in fact, what is published is a manufactured photo. This is the slippery slope. Where does it end? Where is the line drawn? Because of their bias, it is inevitable that we'll start seeing digitally altered photos that spin things a certian way. This is not a good thing.
Your argument seems to boil down the the idea that a manipulated photograph may not be deceptive. It may communicate what had actually happened. Especially in the case, where the photo happened, but you just didn't get it captured correctly in one shot.
But as others here have argued, where is the line to be drawn? So who's judgement call is it whether an altered photograph is manufacturing the news? Where does the slippery slope end? It's not that your arguments are bad ones.
By having a policy of allowing digitally altered photos, I now have to wonder how real any photo is from news organization X. Not only do I have to pay attention for whatever their particular bias is (and all news has a bias); but now I have to wonder about every single image I see. Now I can't trust what I read, nor what I can even see.
Next, let's have altered video clips. If I couldn't get the shot quite correct, let's reproduce "reality" in a Hollywood studio set. It will turn out on 70 mm film much better than the reporter's video camera anyway.
The question of how cheap they are to move around isn't relevant unless you want to talk about abolishing intellectual property. I don't care how easy or difficult it is to make a copy of a CD; it's illegal, and must not be done.
Copyright holders, content providers, whatever, can publish their precious bits in any protected medium they wish. Until they legislate brain implants, which I'm sure would be their wet dream, their bits will be copied. Maybe re-digitized from analog.
That they need to adapt their business models seems to clear as to not be worth arguing. When I see "Contact" on VHS for $9, I have no hesitation at all to buy it. When I see CD of crap music plus two songs for $18 or $25, with the artist getting very little, I think they are in the business of artificial scarcity. I like to download a lot of out of print stuff. If they had it in print, I would probably buy some of it that I really want.
The simple fact is that they are not providing what people want. (I'm not talking about price.)
As for making a copy of a CD being illegal. This is just blatently not true. One of the congress members ask this point blank of Hillary Rosen. What if I make a copy of a CD to play in my car? Is this illegal? The answer was cleaarly no.
Making your own copy is not illegal. Distribution is. Becaues of the ability to cheaply move bits, the model of artificial scarcity is failing. Rather than fix it, some people would rather have DRM. DRM is doomed to failure.
This all seems so clear.
Perhaps I don't fully understand how DRM works. On some level, someone, not me, is able to control some aspect of my computer in order to make DRM work. There simply must be something secret within my computer. Somebody, not me, must be able to make the code that processes a media file. Somebody, not me must make the program that loads that into memory without getting compromised. See where I'm going? Nobody is going to depend on the goodwill of an out of touch organization (RIAA) that would sue Diamond Rio for just making an mp3 player. A device that plays music. And then listen to the raving rantings of Jack Valenti. So the tendancy is to assume the worse possible motives about DRM and the worst nightmare scenerios. Perhaps more, easy to read, information is needed about DRM.
The only way your argument holds up is if you assume that we should abolish intellectual property. Which is as absurd as it is unlikely.
I don't agree.
We do not need to abolish intellectual property. (Although on another topic, I think that the concept needs some serious reform.)
Bits are cheap to move around. Business models need to adapt. How does this imply that we need to abolish intellectual property? There seems to be a serious logical disconnect here.
Unlikely it is. Absure, well, the more I think about it, I'm not so sure.:-)
Bits are only going to get cheaper to move around. The only way that c current business models can survive (artificial scarcity) is to seriously invade my computing equipment and have draconian legislation. (Otherwise, there is no protection.) So, as I said, Business models need to adapt.
You keep saying they do not. Give an argument why they do NOT need to adapt? You've said users need to stop copying. Not going to happen. DRM is really a way to help prop up the artificial scarcity business model.
the copying of bits to anyone on the planet without explicit authorization from the copyright holder is illegal. Users need to stop doing it.
That is the disagreement.
Drinking was illegal during prohibition.
I stand by my position. Business models need to adapt to technology.
With all due respect, the reverse is niave.
The same thing was said about copying albums to cassette tapes in the 70's. Users need to stop doing it. Guess what? Now it is accepted that this practice is fair use. One congressman (I forgot who) had asked this question point blank to Hillary Rosen in front of congress. Was it legal to do this.
If someone has bits that should not be copied, then keep them a secret.
Business models need to adapt. It's the march of technology. The telegraph affected the pony express. The automobile affected the horse and buggy. The ability to copy bits around the planet is going to profoundly affect a lot of things. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with this.
Demonstrably false. The whole "DRM will make your computer illegal" thing is a big, fat straw man argument.
Please demonstrate.
DRM will make my computer able to be controlled by someone else. Trusted by someone else, which means control. I want to control the piece of text you copied and pasted from the e-mail I sent you yesterday. The only way I can do this is if I can trust your computer to enforce my restrictions. Someone, not you, had the ability to get this software "trusted". Otherwise you could make your own "trusted" software that violated the restrictions.
>>Please enlighten me. What good will DRM be used for?
>The same good that cameras in stores are used for. Heck, the same good that signatures and contracts are used for.
Oh. My mistake. I thought DRM was all about someone else controlling my computer.
I want to be able to control the piece of text you copied-n-pasted from the e-mail I wrote to you yesterday. The only way this can happen is if I can trust your computer.
The plain simple fact is that technology has now made it possible to cheaply copy bits to anyone on the planet. Business models need to adapt. I'm not suggesting stealing. Business models have had to adapt to technology before. You can't make the technology go away. DRM as I understand it is simply evil. The motion picture industry adapted to the VCR, even though they feared it would be their death.
If your point was that the content providers are free to ignore technology and that people want music on their computers, pocket mp3 players, etc., then yes indeed, they are free to dig their head in the sand.
One of the things I like about suse is thousands of pre-compiled no-fuss packages. Pick something in yast to install. Then it says "Please insert CD number 5". You insert CD 5, it does spin, spin. Then it says "Please insert CD number 6".
Do any other distributions do this yet? What about online update? I may just be out of touch, having used suse for so long.
I'm happy to pay for suse. An execllent product. Excellent integration of packages. Yast seems to be able to manage more and more of the system with each release. (i.e. fewer config files to mess with, and only with increasingly exotic things.) As long as they play nice, I will probably stick with them. Convenience. Slightly similar to the reasons some people pay for Win XP.
If SuSE ever turns nasty like SCO, then switching from SuSE to Brand-X Linux would not be as painful as switching from Windows. In fact, would probably have very little pain indeed.
Sadly typical ignorant and niave corporate american will believe the hype and would love to drm their word and excell files thinking it was designed for their needs in mind.
But I thought that DRM was exactly designed with the needs of corporate america in mind? The need to control. I want to control who does what with the portion of text you copied & pasted from the e-mail message I sent you yesterday. I want to control it, even after it is on your computer and copy&pasted into a different document. That's the point of DRM. It's exactly for corporate america. I want to control not only that piece of text, or that portion of a graphic image, but also a clipped portion of an audio or video clip. As long as I can trust all the software running on your computer, then the future promise of this will become a beautiful and wonderful reality. They can manage your rights for you. Automatically. It's quick. It's easy. No thinking required.
Slashdot Mirror
If open source suddenly became unviable for business users, Microsoft will have *everyone* else in the IT industry, including IBM, by the testicles
Um... remember IBM would have settled. They would be free and clear to continue to use Linux to improve the competitive advantage of their server products.
It would only be everyone else who would have to either (1) stop using Linux, or (2) buy IBM, or (3) buy from some other vendor who has settled, or (4) settle themselves. Everyone else would be free to enter into friendly negotiations with Microsoft. I'm sure, just like Licensing 6.0, you pay your fee, and you are fully licensed. Make sure you agree to allow audits.
Even the current administration's FTC couldn't overlook MS buying what *may* be the keys to the survival of it's most serious competitor.
Yes they could.
That is, the current administration could.
This is reality. Remember?
Oh, the current administration could never roll back our civil liberties to an unprecedented level.
It would have been smarter for the worm to verify a signature on the code it downloads
Even better, it should not go to a hardcoded URL. This makes it too easy for the enemy to take over a vulnerable web page and attack the worm operation.
The worm should download its code via. P2P, maybe IRC, or maybe even Freenet. Especially Freenet. This way, the more the worm updates are requested, the more they replicate.
Maybe the worms could even try to keep track of each other, forming their own network, in a very low-key, low bandwidth, gnutella kind of way.
Finally, you had better not be shown to have the private key when the bad guys come knocking.
C'mon... "colon-ization" is easy to say.
Free fonts contributed to the open source community.
Let the complaining begin! (Like last time news of these free fonts was on slashdot.)
Why on earth would you ever write a server app in Java?
Three words: buffer overflows
Once a server app in put into production you are *never* going to migrate to another platform probably 99% of the time. While development may be somewhat faster it is clearly not worth the performance penalty (which is significant in most cases), with the possible exception of small/low-load apps.
Replace Java with IIS. You could make the same performance arguments. Why run a Windows server when a Linux server is more efficient? Sure, the performance issues are not as great. But my point is that if it performs well enough, that is all that matters.
If my server app in Java performs fine on hardware that is affordable to the project, then nobody else cares. The better development costs might more than offset the hardware costs for the more powerful server.
Development time is a much better thing to optimize for than hardware performance. Hardware gets cheaper by the day. Man-hours get more expensive by the day.
Yes, I understand the geek joy of making a program more efficient. But if it is efficient enough then that is all that matters.
"The Most Sophisticated File-sharing Application" is written in Java, and is a fairly good piece of desktop software...
Agreed.
http://www.limewire.com/
Wrong.
http://xnap.sourceforge.net/
Ho, hum."), and you've got a recipe for disaster...
Don't you mean a recipe for a lot of fun? Or better management policy?
It is all a matter of perspective.
One could manipulate the system to indicate that you have all your homework done. Then one could manage their homework themself, during better hours, which is not necessarily *before* doing something fun. Oh yeah, spend the precious few daylight hours doing homework. Later in the evening, you are free to do something fun. But it is dark and cold out, and getting late. Not late enough that you couldn't do algebra, but late enough that you probably can't stay out anymore.
Oh, to be young again...
Oh, to be yound again is right! I thought people were stupid about computers 25 years ago. Boy, just look at the opportunities for fun nowdays!
School is already too easy, and if you skip any of it you'll be the only one at McDonald's who can't make change!
Are you seriously trying to suggest that people at McDonalds can make change?
Just because the USA has free speech in it's constitution, doesn't mean that they have a patent on it.
You're right.
This is an obvious oversight.
But can the government hold patents? Perpetual ones? If not, then this problem also must be addressed.
You only need 4 bytes to make reflection work. Each object has a pointer to what class it is. The class information has everything else, the vtable so to speak, what interfaces are implemented, etc. All String objects have one single pointer to a common String class object the defines what a String is, what its members are, what its methods are, etc. everything needed for reflection. Think of the vtable as being more than just an array of method pointers, but meta information (the class object) about the object. More than just a vtable. Therefore, reflection requires no overhead really, since an OO language needs a vtable pointer.
If someone were building a compiler that contemplated making such optimizations, wouldn't it be better to have an option to output optimization hints to the programmer? If I use a certian switch, the compiler emits another output file of notes about the source code, and what optimizations it suggests might be in order.
Naturally, the programmer might see that since both array parameters a and b point to the same array, that this is not really a possible optimization. This realization by the programmer is equivalent to the programmer realizing to insert an assert( a != b );
Why not move the optimizations into the source code directly. This makes the optimization transparent. Furthermore, all optimizations were then supervised by the programmer, not automatically hacked in by the compiler, which could fail if the same array were passed in for both parameters a and b.
buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...
How hard is that to understand?
This is easy to understand, and fair.
The cell phone network heavily subsidizes your purchase of the cell phone. equipment. They want you to commit in order to get that subsidy. You can't just buy the phone, and then switch service in 30 days, taking the phone that they mostly paid for over to their competitors network, paying the competitor for network service.
There is no such comparison here. If I'm going to pay for 3 years of upgrades, even if I pay today, then it seems fair that this covered computer should get three years of upgrades, even if said computer is in someone else's hands. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, Microsoft can because they have monopolost control -- the very definition of which is not the absence of competition, but one of control where they can get away with stuff that they could not in a non-monopoly situation.)
If I pay for 3 years of insurance, the covered computer gets coverage for three years. What is so different here? If I cancel the policy, then I stop paying, and stop getting coverage.
Why are you trying to defend Microsoft's unfair practice? (Just curious.)
If I'm 1 year into a 3 year payment and upgrade plan, then why wouldn't it be fair that the software on my computer today is fully licensed if I cancel the plan today. It is also fair that I should get no further upgrades under the plan. But not getting either of these is simply unfair. Remember this plan is upgrade advantage. Not acquisition. You still have to acquire the product before enrolling it in upgrade advantage. I stop paying in 2 months, I stop having any rights to upgrade at that time. The original acquisition, and any upgrades received thus far should be mine. Shouldn't they? (If everything were fair.)
but if MS was running a search engine, they can afford to have no paid links, and no annoying ads.
The classic decaded old monopolist strategy.
Now, once all competition has been wiped from the face of the earth, do you think Microsoft will just give the service away out of the goodness of their heart? After all, they're all such good, kind, wholesome, scrupulous and ethical people.
I don't mind if they show me a 3D model or animation, as long as it is clear to me what I am seeing. It seems the war coverage lately uses lots of computer graphics, 3d model animations, etc. No problem with that. They are accurately representing what I am seeing.
The problem I have is when they represent a photo as being just that. Here is a photo taken by a news photographer. But in fact, what is published is a manufactured photo. This is the slippery slope. Where does it end? Where is the line drawn? Because of their bias, it is inevitable that we'll start seeing digitally altered photos that spin things a certian way. This is not a good thing.
Your argument seems to boil down the the idea that a manipulated photograph may not be deceptive. It may communicate what had actually happened. Especially in the case, where the photo happened, but you just didn't get it captured correctly in one shot.
But as others here have argued, where is the line to be drawn? So who's judgement call is it whether an altered photograph is manufacturing the news? Where does the slippery slope end? It's not that your arguments are bad ones.
By having a policy of allowing digitally altered photos, I now have to wonder how real any photo is from news organization X. Not only do I have to pay attention for whatever their particular bias is (and all news has a bias); but now I have to wonder about every single image I see. Now I can't trust what I read, nor what I can even see.
Next, let's have altered video clips. If I couldn't get the shot quite correct, let's reproduce "reality" in a Hollywood studio set. It will turn out on 70 mm film much better than the reporter's video camera anyway.
Unless, of course, you work for The Onion, which has a license to parody.
Where did they obtain this license?
Did they renew it?
Does the license allow their parody to be used for publication in a non-private setting?
Microsoft can strategically release some stuff as open source.
Later, Microsoft can claim that various open source projects are using Microsoft's precious intellectual property.
The question of how cheap they are to move around isn't relevant unless you want to talk about abolishing intellectual property. I don't care how easy or difficult it is to make a copy of a CD; it's illegal, and must not be done.
Copyright holders, content providers, whatever, can publish their precious bits in any protected medium they wish. Until they legislate brain implants, which I'm sure would be their wet dream, their bits will be copied. Maybe re-digitized from analog.
That they need to adapt their business models seems to clear as to not be worth arguing. When I see "Contact" on VHS for $9, I have no hesitation at all to buy it. When I see CD of crap music plus two songs for $18 or $25, with the artist getting very little, I think they are in the business of artificial scarcity. I like to download a lot of out of print stuff. If they had it in print, I would probably buy some of it that I really want.
The simple fact is that they are not providing what people want. (I'm not talking about price.)
As for making a copy of a CD being illegal. This is just blatently not true. One of the congress members ask this point blank of Hillary Rosen. What if I make a copy of a CD to play in my car? Is this illegal? The answer was cleaarly no.
Making your own copy is not illegal. Distribution is. Becaues of the ability to cheaply move bits, the model of artificial scarcity is failing. Rather than fix it, some people would rather have DRM. DRM is doomed to failure.
This all seems so clear.
Perhaps I don't fully understand how DRM works. On some level, someone, not me, is able to control some aspect of my computer in order to make DRM work. There simply must be something secret within my computer. Somebody, not me, must be able to make the code that processes a media file. Somebody, not me must make the program that loads that into memory without getting compromised. See where I'm going? Nobody is going to depend on the goodwill of an out of touch organization (RIAA) that would sue Diamond Rio for just making an mp3 player. A device that plays music. And then listen to the raving rantings of Jack Valenti. So the tendancy is to assume the worse possible motives about DRM and the worst nightmare scenerios. Perhaps more, easy to read, information is needed about DRM.
The only way your argument holds up is if you assume that we should abolish intellectual property. Which is as absurd as it is unlikely.
:-)
I don't agree.
We do not need to abolish intellectual property. (Although on another topic, I think that the concept needs some serious reform.)
Bits are cheap to move around. Business models need to adapt. How does this imply that we need to abolish intellectual property? There seems to be a serious logical disconnect here.
Unlikely it is. Absure, well, the more I think about it, I'm not so sure.
Bits are only going to get cheaper to move around. The only way that c current business models can survive (artificial scarcity) is to seriously invade my computing equipment and have draconian legislation. (Otherwise, there is no protection.) So, as I said, Business models need to adapt.
You keep saying they do not. Give an argument why they do NOT need to adapt? You've said users need to stop copying. Not going to happen. DRM is really a way to help prop up the artificial scarcity business model.
the copying of bits to anyone on the planet without explicit authorization from the copyright holder is illegal. Users need to stop doing it.
That is the disagreement.
Drinking was illegal during prohibition.
I stand by my position. Business models need to adapt to technology.
With all due respect, the reverse is niave.
The same thing was said about copying albums to cassette tapes in the 70's. Users need to stop doing it. Guess what? Now it is accepted that this practice is fair use. One congressman (I forgot who) had asked this question point blank to Hillary Rosen in front of congress. Was it legal to do this.
If someone has bits that should not be copied, then keep them a secret.
Business models need to adapt. It's the march of technology. The telegraph affected the pony express. The automobile affected the horse and buggy. The ability to copy bits around the planet is going to profoundly affect a lot of things. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with this.
Demonstrably false. The whole "DRM will make your computer illegal" thing is a big, fat straw man argument.
Please demonstrate.
DRM will make my computer able to be controlled by someone else. Trusted by someone else, which means control. I want to control the piece of text you copied and pasted from the e-mail I sent you yesterday. The only way I can do this is if I can trust your computer to enforce my restrictions. Someone, not you, had the ability to get this software "trusted". Otherwise you could make your own "trusted" software that violated the restrictions.
>>Please enlighten me. What good will DRM be used for?
>The same good that cameras in stores are used for. Heck, the same good that signatures and contracts are used for.
Oh. My mistake. I thought DRM was all about someone else controlling my computer.
I want to be able to control the piece of text you copied-n-pasted from the e-mail I wrote to you yesterday. The only way this can happen is if I can trust your computer.
The plain simple fact is that technology has now made it possible to cheaply copy bits to anyone on the planet. Business models need to adapt. I'm not suggesting stealing. Business models have had to adapt to technology before. You can't make the technology go away. DRM as I understand it is simply evil. The motion picture industry adapted to the VCR, even though they feared it would be their death.
If your point was that the content providers are free to ignore technology and that people want music on their computers, pocket mp3 players, etc., then yes indeed, they are free to dig their head in the sand.
Man who?
Isn't the root of this plant an aphrodesiac?
One of the things I like about suse is thousands of pre-compiled no-fuss packages. Pick something in yast to install. Then it says "Please insert CD number 5". You insert CD 5, it does spin, spin. Then it says "Please insert CD number 6".
Do any other distributions do this yet? What about online update? I may just be out of touch, having used suse for so long.
I'm happy to pay for suse. An execllent product. Excellent integration of packages. Yast seems to be able to manage more and more of the system with each release. (i.e. fewer config files to mess with, and only with increasingly exotic things.) As long as they play nice, I will probably stick with them. Convenience. Slightly similar to the reasons some people pay for Win XP.
If SuSE ever turns nasty like SCO, then switching from SuSE to Brand-X Linux would not be as painful as switching from Windows. In fact, would probably have very little pain indeed.
Sadly typical ignorant and niave corporate american will believe the hype and would love to drm their word and excell files thinking it was designed for their needs in mind.
But I thought that DRM was exactly designed with the needs of corporate america in mind? The need to control. I want to control who does what with the portion of text you copied & pasted from the e-mail message I sent you yesterday. I want to control it, even after it is on your computer and copy&pasted into a different document. That's the point of DRM. It's exactly for corporate america. I want to control not only that piece of text, or that portion of a graphic image, but also a clipped portion of an audio or video clip. As long as I can trust all the software running on your computer, then the future promise of this will become a beautiful and wonderful reality. They can manage your rights for you. Automatically. It's quick. It's easy. No thinking required.
The fact that a piece of technology could be used for evil is not a sufficient argument to outweigh the fact that it will be used for good.
Please enlighten me. What good will DRM be used for?
Enquiring minds want to know.