I say, let it die peacefully. The intelligent people left newsgroups a long time ago and the only remaining denizens are the pornographers and anarchists who don't deserve a voice in the first place.
Sort of a pity, realy, since NNTP is a protocal designed for distributed discussion groups. Now, instead, we're all stuck with web-based messaging systems, like this one, which, in a word, suck. Oh, some are better than others, but to my view, using a web browers for a discussion board is like using a hammer to drive screws.
Think about it: we're all stuck with the interface that the server has decided to implement. Whereas, with NNTP, we can each choose our own newsreader client, and yet still all communicate.
A pity that the Web Browser has become such the "killer ap" that now everybody uses it even when there are far better longstanding tools out there.
I think perhaps this is an argument for diversity more than it is
an argument against Microsoft.
From my point of view, an argument for diversity is an
argument against Microsoft. My beef with Microsoft is not I don't like
their stuff-- it's that I can't choose to use something else and have
the pleasure of completely ignoring them. People still send me
attachments in Word format, or require that presentations be in
PowerPoint format. Web extentions still work on Windows only. I can
freely ignore the Mac in everything I do. Windows users can freely
ignore Linux in everything they do. But nobody can completely ignore
Microsoft, simply because it's so prevalent.
And, to the topic at hand, that includes viruses. I know of servers
running sendmail on a Unix box that had to go out of their way to delete
SirCam messages from users' mailboxes, because they were huge and
filling up the space available. This happens because most of the E-mail
sending world is using Microsoft products.
Although the vindictive part of me would love to see Microsoft wither
and die, in reality that's not what I want. What I want is for them to
no longer be a monopoly or a near-monopoly. I want file formats and
communications protocols to be open standards, so that anybody can
develop software (proprietary or not) that will let users communicate
with other users, each using whatever the hell he wants. And, then,
yes, I want it so that no single virus are security hole can so easily
affect 90% of the internet all at once.
All of this diversity is at the moment squelched by Microsoft. An
argument for diversity is the strongest, and most important,
argument against Microsoft as it exists today. The cost of viruses is only the most obvious and urgent manifestation of this. There are more severe long-term costs of a monopoly on something so basic as computer infrastructure.
...have one reason and one reason only. Those in the appropriate industries like to have a lot of attention to these overblown cost estimates, so that the next time they're lobbying Congress for some law that will hand over more and more power over individual conputer users to "responsible" corporations, Congress will see the huge cost of not passing the legislation, and bang, we've got the next DMCA, or individual-restricting "internet security" law, or whatever.
I agree that viruses cost money. Time, productivity, equipment, and work is all lost when a virus hits your system. There are real losses. But these gigantic estimates that keep coming up -- Bullshit. They're estimates made by pegging every conceivable factor to one end of the scale. Have a security person on staff? Estimate that 100% of the cost of keeping that person on staff is due to "viruses," and add it into your cost estimate. Hell, I'm sure that they add in 100% of the time employees spend by the water cooler during a virus infection. "They can't work because there's a virus on their computer!" Of course, this assumes that when there is no virus, employees spend 0 time by the water cooler.
These estimates are probably less bullshit than the estimates that the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and AAP come up with due to losses from piracy. I saw one in the paper, where you would have to assume that every illegal MP3 downloaded from the internet would have to then be passed on to 10 other people who would have definitely bought the CD, but did not because they received the free MP3. Obviously, a completely bullshit estimate, but there it is, Congress sees it, and no responsible person can then argue that we don't need laws to stop this economic hemorrhaging.
Note: I have no actual evidence to back up my conspiracy theory. But I do believe beyond a doubt that the cost estimates we read for these things are hugely overblown, and you do have to admit that such overestimating such cost estimates could potentially benefit those trying to provide positive spin for DMCA-like corporate-graft legislation.
I talked to some Comcast people earlier today about this. They're going to definitely drop @Home, but service won't be ending for their customers. They plan to continue offering high-speed internet access through their own network called "iComcast".
Any idea what the pricing will be like? Are they going to impose bandwidth caps unless you pay through the nose for "premium" service, or will basic service stay similar to what we have now? Any idea what the AUP is going to look like?
Is there any hope that we might have a choice of ISPs? I fear that some of the preliminary indicates on that page you linked to are very, severly alarming. Specifically, click on the "need help?" link. A window opens up, and Mozilla tells me that I need a plugin to view it something of type "application/x-Support.com-SmartIssue-Plugin". In addition to the empty "plugin content" box, there is the ominous text "Mac not supported." It goes without saying that Linux will not be supported either. If these people don't have enough of a clue to realize that on the web, help text and documentation should be in basic, simple HTML, then I tremble at the thought of what an ISP run by them would be like. (Run Our Windows Software For a Full Comcast Experience! Other OSes not supported.)
What is the real timescale for all of this?
Except for the "Need Help" scariness, most of the other links on the left side of that page you point do don't seem to exist yet.
Don't feel like an ass. If you politely and calmly worded it, it still applies.
Trident may come out and say that they aren't refusing support to open-source software. But that's marketspeak if it is impossible for Open Source developers to get access to programming information without signing an NDA that prohibits source distribution. "We support open source software, but we won't give programming information to people who distribute source" is inherently contradictory.
Believe their actions, not their words. So far, their actions are not favorable, if the reports of the XFree86 developer not being able to get information are correct. We'll see if they turn around. Your letter was almost certainly still appropriate.
David Goodstein almost certainly knows a fair bit of Shakespeare. From my interactions with him back when I was a TA in his Physics 1 class at Caltech, he's a pretty well rounded guy. I doubt that the accusations you are levelling are founded at all.
More to the point, Goodstein's point is that nobody is well rounded enough in *science* any more, and that (whether you agree or not) that is nowadays perhaps the most important subject for a well-rounded person to have some basic grasp of.
They are going to look for and suspend the accounts of users who download "pirate software or copyright material."
Dude, all software under the GPL is copyrighted! As such, it sounds like Excite@Home is gonna start suspending your accounts if you download it. (Yeah, I know, not really, but these people have *got* to be more carefUl about how they state things. Copyrighted does not equal "illegal to copy". It depends on the license (never mind things like fair use).)
Does anybody know *how* they're going to decide if a given download is verboten? What are their algorithms?
Just out of curiosity, are there any movements out there to rewrite all the GNU tools? I would think there would be a lot of people in favor of something, with all the pro-BSD license folks, and just people who generally think that having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea.
It could even be GPL (although I think the BSD license is "freer"), but to tell you the truth, I think there would be a lot of benefit of moving beyond the FSF.
This is dumb and wrong.
Look at the license the tools are under: the GPL. This is a free software license. It's also an Open Source license. This means that, so long as you keep your modifications free, and you keep the source of your modifications avialable, you can use and publish them all you want. You are not beholden to the FSF by using those tools. You think that the GNU project is a problem? You think it's scarying people off who might otherwise pay attention? Start a fork. If you're right, then more people will start paying attention to your fork, and the GNU fork will wither and die.
The only effect of rewriting FSF tools would be wasting a whole lot of effort for no reason other than spite. And, oh yeah, so that companies like Microsoft could take advantage of the efforts. I say, let Microsoft and those who want to publish proprietary software do the rewriting. The free software community would be better off doing something new, and using the free tools that are out there. You have no responsibilty whatsover to the FSF when you use those tools, due to the license that the FSF put them under.
Honestly, Microsoft doesn't need to do anything more to kill free software. We're all happily killing ourselves. We whine and bitch and moan and talk about killing off major leaders of the movement (e.g. the FSF) and fight amongst ourselves. Microsoft made a few words about how the GPL was anti-business, and now what grumblings there were along those lines in the free software community have been magnified horribly. We're doing their FUD for them; they must be sitting back and watching with glee. If only we could see the degree to which we're playing into their hands.
The FSF is not the enemy. And, the FSF needs to learn that "Open Source" advocates who don't favor the outlawing of proprietary licenses aren't the enemy. Calls like this for "eliminating the FSF" are hurtful and harmful, and it saddens me to see it so often in the free software community.
He has neatly summarized my problem with Stallman, the FSF and the GPL.
...err, I can see where he's identified some objections to Stallman and the FSF. But where did he summarize anything that could be seen as an objection to the GPL?
...I disagree that open source developers should stop talking about freedom. We all accept that even though flerbage sounds nice, it will not go into the mainstream as a term. "Open source," as a term, is *far* more vague than "free software." Although the OSI defines Open Source in such a way that it's much like free software, the term itself is easy to use to describe entirely limited proprietary software where you happen to get to see the source code.
Although ESR makes valid points about the FSF perhaps going overboard in wanting to outlaw the use of proprietary software licenses, it is important to stress that freedom of use for the users is in fact what distinguishes non-proprietary software from proprietary software. For that reason, I agree with Bruce Perens that we need to keep talking about freedom-- even if we don't all agree 100% about exactly what it means.
People have rights, including their own freedom. Software does not have its own freedom, it is a tool used by people. Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it. This is not even in the same conversation as slavery!
I think you missed his point. His point isn't that those who release proprietary software are taking away the rights of the software. Rather, by releasing software with a restrictive proprietary license, they are taking away the rights of the people who use the software. The FSF sees the rights of users of software as important and fundamental; some others do not. But he's certainly not talking about enslaving software!
Re: control over your own creations, the FSF does support a sort of control over that. You always have the right not to release your own code or modifications. Indeed, the FSF objects to software licenses that require people to release private modifications.
However, once you release your software to other people, the FSF asserts that it is not ethical to restrict the freedom of other people to use that software. It's part of the social contract of free democracies; your freedom only extends so far as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. The hard part, and the point of disagreement, is where to draw that line. The FSF thinks that proprietary software goes too far infringing on the rights of others.
Rather than a car or a bank account, a better analogy might be a workplace. An employer who owns the workplace and employs nobody can do an awful lot with that workplace. But once he starts hiring employees-- opening it up to the public-- he's got certain restrictions in what he can do, so as not to infringe on the fundamental rights of his employees.
I don't think so. The matter at hand is "reasonable doubt" and I think it would be easy to produce reasonable doubt that Ferguson was the source of the master keys, especially if the protection is trivial.
IANAL, of course, but I believe that what you say here might only get him off in a criminal case. My understanding of civil law is such that all those great constitutional protections we enjoy under criminal law don't apply. E.g., "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply, and I don't think that proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies either. Nor do I think that double jeapordy applies.
After all, OJ was found liable for Nicole's death under a civil lawsuit, even though the criminal courts decided that they couldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Think what you will about OJ and what the criminal courts did there, I was a little... surprised to find out that civil law meant that double jeapordy and reasonable doubt were out the window in that case. And you'd better believe that the MPAA has substantially more resources (i.e. killer-lawyer hiring ability) than Ron Goldman.
"You can be sure that somehow, somewhere, someone will duplicate my results especially because I am telling them that I have results," says Ferguson. "Someone who is braver, who has less money, and who doesn't travel to the U.S."
This, right here, is his mistake. If, in the near future, those master keys are published, I bet a nickel that Ferguson gets hauled up for a lawsuit (or perhaps even criminal prosecution), for exactly the reasons that he states here himself. It's extremely stupid, but on the other hand, I can easiliy see an overpaid bunch of useless humanity (i.e. corporate lawyers) effectively convincing judges and law enforcement officials that Ferguson should be liable. They would be right that he probably helped along other efforts to crack the encryption doing nothing more letting people know that it was possible. Ferguson's mistake is in thinking that the dunderheads who thought that arresting Sklyarov was a good idea will let him slide after he's said this.
The world is a cold, demon-haunted place nowadays. It sickens me to be a citizen of this country that so hypocritically prides itself on being free.
Intel spokesperson Daven Oswalt says the company has received several reports from people claiming that they have broken HDCP. But he says none have held up, and the company remains confident in the strength of the system.
...and yet all of these companies still think that the DMCA is good for them.
It's amazing how on how many levels the DMCA is a bad idea. It's squelching freedom of speech, and it's preventing the companies from producing technical systems that can effectively produce total control over their customers. Of course, the free-speech-squelching part is serving the total control purpose, and since it's the executive and legal divisions of the companies that decide what the companies "want," they probably are happier that way. And that is the real tragedy-- that and the fact that they can US legislation.
(To be fair, given the description of the attack, Intel is probably right that it still does prevent "casual copying." On the other hand, it angers me that they're trying to prevent casual (including fair use) copying, but don't mind that somebody willing to invest some money in hardware and a couple of weeks can start producing bootleg devices. Who's their real enemy here? Customers trying to exert fair use rights (and, yeah, maybe occasionally illegally copying content)? Or overseas customers producing and selling wholesale bootleg copies?)
That, and people that are so scared of the boogeyman that they have to have several thousand watts of lights on their property up all night long.
The worst, it seems to me, are large car dealerships. For some reason they seem to have amazingly bright white lights glaring on their lot all night. Why? Is it theft prevention? Or is it to make the lot look like daylight so that people driving by will see beautiful cars? In any event, it sickens me. Last winter, I was driving down from Berkeley, CA to somewhere near Monterey. We passed one of those mega-mall car dealerships which was a ways away from downtown anywhere. And it was the brightest damn thing around. Later, from where I was staying near a peak in Monterey, I could see the general glow of light pollution around the area-- with this huge ugly bright spot standing out at that car mega-mall. A blight on the landscape. It was truly depressing. I really wish I had had a tactical nuke at that point. That would have briefly been brighter, but thereafter would have made sure that nobody built anything else on the site for a while.
-Rob
Is it possible to buy a laptop without Windows?
on
Which Laptop To Buy?
·
· Score: 2
(Other than a Mac iBook, which I realize is an option.)
My ideal laptop would be a cheap, lightweight x86 laptop, on which I would install Linux myself. Becuase I won't be running Windows on this machine, I really do *not* want Microsoft getting a kickback for my purchase of it.
I've figured out how to buy naked desktop machines, without a pre-installed Windows bought and paid for that I'm going to erase. That's quite easy. But what place will sell me a laptop without selling me Windows? I guess that Dell used to do this, but does anybody any more?
(And, I don't want them just to pre-erase Windows for me. I really want this not to count as a Windows sale and not feed back any $$$ to Microsoft. As an anecdote, some four years ago we were looking for quotes on systems from various different vendors. We were going to run Linux on these machines. We called a local CompUSA (I think it was), who at first told us that they couldn't sell us a machine without Windows on it. Later they called back to relent. But, the quote they then sent us was *identical* in price to the previous quote... it just didn't list an OS at all. I'm pretty sure what was happening there was that we were effectively paying for Windows, but they were going to do us the "service" of pre-deleting it, and they weren't telling us we were buying Windows.)
I've got a cable modem on nash1.tn.home.com, and my iptables log is seeing a huge number of hits (we're talking an average of several a minute, more or less) to port 80. Since I'm not actually running a web server, I don't have the logs that tell me if this is in fact Code Red, but I suspect that's what a huge amount of this activity is.
So you're saying we should thank the Slashdot trolls for bitching about Mozilla?
No, I don't think that's what he was saying at all. I think he was saying that despite the Mozilla trolls who bitched about Mozilla, everybody around here seemed to think it was a good idea and needed to be done. Mono, in contrast, does not seem to enjoy the same broadbased Slasdot support as an idea as did Mozilla.
In cases like this, it's pretty easy to find out a violation took place. But what about a major closed-source project that uses pieces of GPL-d code? What if an embedded OS developer decided to use some Linux kernel code, without attribution, in a proprietary system? Would it be possible to detect the violation (looking for patterns in the binary, for example)?
Hmm... and even if you find the strings in the binary which suggests that GPLed code was used illegally, there's a quick and easy way out of it. The company just has to use some chickenshit encryptuion on the binary. The person who finds the strings will have violated the DMCA in order to be able to bring up the issue of GPL vilation in the first place. Then the FBI can arrest that person, and throw him in jail without bail.
And we all now know that this isn't a paranoid delusion scenario.
Given the Bush administration, and the perception that the administratioon is pro business, this is an interesting development, bound to put the MS drawers into a twist.
While I'm not speaking specifically with regard to the Bush Administration's position, in general it is a poor assumption to equate "pro business" with "pro Microsoft." Indeed, there are lots of pro business folks out there who believe that business in the computer industry would do a whole lot better without the bullying monopolistic tactics of Microsoft.
Non-Microsoft PC OSes, like non-Intel x86 CPUs, have really just come along for the ride, courtesy of Microsoft and Intel.
Oh, very good. Without Microsoft, there could have been no innovation. Thank you very much. Your honor, the defense would like to call it's next witness....
...so everybody can win? I.e., as long as everybody is buying MS software, MS wins. But if nobody is using it, and people are instead using Linux, Linux wins?
Hmm.
Me, for one, I avoid if at all possible buying a machine with Windows preinstalled. Very challenging for a laptop, very easy for a desktop. I hate the thought of Microsoft getting paid a "computer tax" by my buying an OS that I'm not going to use.
The same principles apply today, though with some modification. Now there is so much free information that the embarassing pay-for-knowledge era of our history is nearly finished. The internet brought back what Ben Franklin started.
It's coming. Publishers will try to fight it, of course, but they have no chance. They're just trying to keep their jobs for as long as they can.
You're right of course. The great power and wealth of publishers and distributors come from the fact that they serve a real purpose. Specifically, it takes a lot of resources and infrastructure to make high-quality copies of "knowledge" (by which I would include the text of books, music, video, and other things).
With the coming of the digital world, it becomes very easy and cheap to make copies of materials which are just as good as the original. Individuals can do it. A lot of the purpose of publishers and distributors goes away.
In the long run, you are right: once they no longer serve any purpose, they will die. What really worries me is how long it will take them to die. They have so much money and power right now that they can legislate their continued existence for a long time. And, in the mean time, those of us living in this transitionary world will suffer.
Eventually, the world will have found a way to celebrate and reap the benefits of how easy it is to copy digital content. Even if it takes another bloody revolution and the forming of a new country which recognizes much of intellectual property "protection" as oppression, one day it will happen. But when is this eventually? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years when there is the ability to found new nations and colonies on other worlds? I don't know. But I do suspect that the time between now and then is going to be painful.
(Note that publishers and distributors occasionally mention preserving their income source, but they must recognize that people will eventually ask why? So, more often they frame the issues in terms of being able to compensate the creative people, the authors and musicians who create the content in the first place. Well, the world will find a way to pay them. I have no idea what it will be, but we will find a way, because even though publishers and distributors will become largely unnecessary, it is obvious that the creative people will still have value.)
Slashdot Mirror
I say, let it die peacefully. The intelligent people left newsgroups a long time ago and the only remaining denizens are the pornographers and anarchists who don't deserve a voice in the first place.
Sort of a pity, realy, since NNTP is a protocal designed for distributed discussion groups. Now, instead, we're all stuck with web-based messaging systems, like this one, which, in a word, suck. Oh, some are better than others, but to my view, using a web browers for a discussion board is like using a hammer to drive screws.
Think about it: we're all stuck with the interface that the server has decided to implement. Whereas, with NNTP, we can each choose our own newsreader client, and yet still all communicate.
A pity that the Web Browser has become such the "killer ap" that now everybody uses it even when there are far better longstanding tools out there.
-Rob
I think perhaps this is an argument for diversity more than it is an argument against Microsoft.
From my point of view, an argument for diversity is an argument against Microsoft. My beef with Microsoft is not I don't like their stuff-- it's that I can't choose to use something else and have the pleasure of completely ignoring them. People still send me attachments in Word format, or require that presentations be in PowerPoint format. Web extentions still work on Windows only. I can freely ignore the Mac in everything I do. Windows users can freely ignore Linux in everything they do. But nobody can completely ignore Microsoft, simply because it's so prevalent.
And, to the topic at hand, that includes viruses. I know of servers running sendmail on a Unix box that had to go out of their way to delete SirCam messages from users' mailboxes, because they were huge and filling up the space available. This happens because most of the E-mail sending world is using Microsoft products.
Although the vindictive part of me would love to see Microsoft wither and die, in reality that's not what I want. What I want is for them to no longer be a monopoly or a near-monopoly. I want file formats and communications protocols to be open standards, so that anybody can develop software (proprietary or not) that will let users communicate with other users, each using whatever the hell he wants. And, then, yes, I want it so that no single virus are security hole can so easily affect 90% of the internet all at once.
All of this diversity is at the moment squelched by Microsoft. An argument for diversity is the strongest, and most important, argument against Microsoft as it exists today. The cost of viruses is only the most obvious and urgent manifestation of this. There are more severe long-term costs of a monopoly on something so basic as computer infrastructure.
-Rob
...have one reason and one reason only. Those in the appropriate industries like to have a lot of attention to these overblown cost estimates, so that the next time they're lobbying Congress for some law that will hand over more and more power over individual conputer users to "responsible" corporations, Congress will see the huge cost of not passing the legislation, and bang, we've got the next DMCA, or individual-restricting "internet security" law, or whatever.
I agree that viruses cost money. Time, productivity, equipment, and work is all lost when a virus hits your system. There are real losses. But these gigantic estimates that keep coming up -- Bullshit. They're estimates made by pegging every conceivable factor to one end of the scale. Have a security person on staff? Estimate that 100% of the cost of keeping that person on staff is due to "viruses," and add it into your cost estimate. Hell, I'm sure that they add in 100% of the time employees spend by the water cooler during a virus infection. "They can't work because there's a virus on their computer!" Of course, this assumes that when there is no virus, employees spend 0 time by the water cooler.
These estimates are probably less bullshit than the estimates that the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and AAP come up with due to losses from piracy. I saw one in the paper, where you would have to assume that every illegal MP3 downloaded from the internet would have to then be passed on to 10 other people who would have definitely bought the CD, but did not because they received the free MP3. Obviously, a completely bullshit estimate, but there it is, Congress sees it, and no responsible person can then argue that we don't need laws to stop this economic hemorrhaging.
Note: I have no actual evidence to back up my conspiracy theory. But I do believe beyond a doubt that the cost estimates we read for these things are hugely overblown, and you do have to admit that such overestimating such cost estimates could potentially benefit those trying to provide positive spin for DMCA-like corporate-graft legislation.
-Rob
I talked to some Comcast people earlier today about this. They're going to definitely drop @Home, but service won't be ending for their customers. They plan to continue offering high-speed internet access through their own network called "iComcast".
Any idea what the pricing will be like? Are they going to impose bandwidth caps unless you pay through the nose for "premium" service, or will basic service stay similar to what we have now? Any idea what the AUP is going to look like?
Is there any hope that we might have a choice of ISPs? I fear that some of the preliminary indicates on that page you linked to are very, severly alarming. Specifically, click on the "need help?" link. A window opens up, and Mozilla tells me that I need a plugin to view it something of type "application/x-Support.com-SmartIssue-Plugin". In addition to the empty "plugin content" box, there is the ominous text "Mac not supported." It goes without saying that Linux will not be supported either. If these people don't have enough of a clue to realize that on the web, help text and documentation should be in basic, simple HTML, then I tremble at the thought of what an ISP run by them would be like. (Run Our Windows Software For a Full Comcast Experience! Other OSes not supported.)
What is the real timescale for all of this?
Except for the "Need Help" scariness, most of the other links on the left side of that page you point do don't seem to exist yet.
-Rob
Don't feel like an ass. If you politely and calmly worded it, it still applies.
Trident may come out and say that they aren't refusing support to open-source software. But that's marketspeak if it is impossible for Open Source developers to get access to programming information without signing an NDA that prohibits source distribution. "We support open source software, but we won't give programming information to people who distribute source" is inherently contradictory.
Believe their actions, not their words. So far, their actions are not favorable, if the reports of the XFree86 developer not being able to get information are correct. We'll see if they turn around. Your letter was almost certainly still appropriate.
-Rob
David Goodstein almost certainly knows a fair bit of Shakespeare. From my interactions with him back when I was a TA in his Physics 1 class at Caltech, he's a pretty well rounded guy. I doubt that the accusations you are levelling are founded at all.
More to the point, Goodstein's point is that nobody is well rounded enough in *science* any more, and that (whether you agree or not) that is nowadays perhaps the most important subject for a well-rounded person to have some basic grasp of.
-Rob
They are going to look for and suspend the accounts of users who download "pirate software or copyright material."
Dude, all software under the GPL is copyrighted! As such, it sounds like Excite@Home is gonna start suspending your accounts if you download it. (Yeah, I know, not really, but these people have *got* to be more carefUl about how they state things. Copyrighted does not equal "illegal to copy". It depends on the license (never mind things like fair use).)
Does anybody know *how* they're going to decide if a given download is verboten? What are their algorithms?
The world has gotten out of hand.
-Rob
Just out of curiosity, are there any movements out there to rewrite all the GNU tools? I would think there would be a lot of people in favor of something, with all the pro-BSD license folks, and just people who generally think that having one, let say, socially challenged guy in charge of a lot of software is a bad idea.
It could even be GPL (although I think the BSD license is "freer"), but to tell you the truth, I think there would be a lot of benefit of moving beyond the FSF.
This is dumb and wrong.
Look at the license the tools are under: the GPL. This is a free software license. It's also an Open Source license. This means that, so long as you keep your modifications free, and you keep the source of your modifications avialable, you can use and publish them all you want. You are not beholden to the FSF by using those tools. You think that the GNU project is a problem? You think it's scarying people off who might otherwise pay attention? Start a fork. If you're right, then more people will start paying attention to your fork, and the GNU fork will wither and die.
The only effect of rewriting FSF tools would be wasting a whole lot of effort for no reason other than spite. And, oh yeah, so that companies like Microsoft could take advantage of the efforts. I say, let Microsoft and those who want to publish proprietary software do the rewriting. The free software community would be better off doing something new, and using the free tools that are out there. You have no responsibilty whatsover to the FSF when you use those tools, due to the license that the FSF put them under.
Honestly, Microsoft doesn't need to do anything more to kill free software. We're all happily killing ourselves. We whine and bitch and moan and talk about killing off major leaders of the movement (e.g. the FSF) and fight amongst ourselves. Microsoft made a few words about how the GPL was anti-business, and now what grumblings there were along those lines in the free software community have been magnified horribly. We're doing their FUD for them; they must be sitting back and watching with glee. If only we could see the degree to which we're playing into their hands.
The FSF is not the enemy. And, the FSF needs to learn that "Open Source" advocates who don't favor the outlawing of proprietary licenses aren't the enemy. Calls like this for "eliminating the FSF" are hurtful and harmful, and it saddens me to see it so often in the free software community.
-Rob
He has neatly summarized my problem with Stallman, the FSF and the GPL.
...err, I can see where he's identified some objections to Stallman and the FSF. But where did he summarize anything that could be seen as an objection to the GPL?
-Rob
...I disagree that open source developers should stop talking about freedom. We all accept that even though flerbage sounds nice, it will not go into the mainstream as a term. "Open source," as a term, is *far* more vague than "free software." Although the OSI defines Open Source in such a way that it's much like free software, the term itself is easy to use to describe entirely limited proprietary software where you happen to get to see the source code.
Although ESR makes valid points about the FSF perhaps going overboard in wanting to outlaw the use of proprietary software licenses, it is important to stress that freedom of use for the users is in fact what distinguishes non-proprietary software from proprietary software. For that reason, I agree with Bruce Perens that we need to keep talking about freedom-- even if we don't all agree 100% about exactly what it means.
-Rob
People have rights, including their own freedom. Software does not have its own freedom, it is a tool used by people. Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it. This is not even in the same conversation as slavery!
I think you missed his point. His point isn't that those who release proprietary software are taking away the rights of the software. Rather, by releasing software with a restrictive proprietary license, they are taking away the rights of the people who use the software. The FSF sees the rights of users of software as important and fundamental; some others do not. But he's certainly not talking about enslaving software!
Re: control over your own creations, the FSF does support a sort of control over that. You always have the right not to release your own code or modifications. Indeed, the FSF objects to software licenses that require people to release private modifications. However, once you release your software to other people, the FSF asserts that it is not ethical to restrict the freedom of other people to use that software. It's part of the social contract of free democracies; your freedom only extends so far as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. The hard part, and the point of disagreement, is where to draw that line. The FSF thinks that proprietary software goes too far infringing on the rights of others.
Rather than a car or a bank account, a better analogy might be a workplace. An employer who owns the workplace and employs nobody can do an awful lot with that workplace. But once he starts hiring employees-- opening it up to the public-- he's got certain restrictions in what he can do, so as not to infringe on the fundamental rights of his employees.
-Rob
I don't think so. The matter at hand is "reasonable doubt" and I think it would be easy to produce reasonable doubt that Ferguson was the source of the master keys, especially if the protection is trivial.
IANAL, of course, but I believe that what you say here might only get him off in a criminal case. My understanding of civil law is such that all those great constitutional protections we enjoy under criminal law don't apply. E.g., "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to apply, and I don't think that proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies either. Nor do I think that double jeapordy applies.
After all, OJ was found liable for Nicole's death under a civil lawsuit, even though the criminal courts decided that they couldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Think what you will about OJ and what the criminal courts did there, I was a little... surprised to find out that civil law meant that double jeapordy and reasonable doubt were out the window in that case. And you'd better believe that the MPAA has substantially more resources (i.e. killer-lawyer hiring ability) than Ron Goldman.
-Rob
"You can be sure that somehow, somewhere, someone will duplicate my results especially because I am telling them that I have results," says Ferguson. "Someone who is braver, who has less money, and who doesn't travel to the U.S."
This, right here, is his mistake. If, in the near future, those master keys are published, I bet a nickel that Ferguson gets hauled up for a lawsuit (or perhaps even criminal prosecution), for exactly the reasons that he states here himself. It's extremely stupid, but on the other hand, I can easiliy see an overpaid bunch of useless humanity (i.e. corporate lawyers) effectively convincing judges and law enforcement officials that Ferguson should be liable. They would be right that he probably helped along other efforts to crack the encryption doing nothing more letting people know that it was possible. Ferguson's mistake is in thinking that the dunderheads who thought that arresting Sklyarov was a good idea will let him slide after he's said this.
The world is a cold, demon-haunted place nowadays. It sickens me to be a citizen of this country that so hypocritically prides itself on being free.
-Rob
Intel spokesperson Daven Oswalt says the company has received several reports from people claiming that they have broken HDCP. But he says none have held up, and the company remains confident in the strength of the system.
...and yet all of these companies still think that the DMCA is good for them.
It's amazing how on how many levels the DMCA is a bad idea. It's squelching freedom of speech, and it's preventing the companies from producing technical systems that can effectively produce total control over their customers. Of course, the free-speech-squelching part is serving the total control purpose, and since it's the executive and legal divisions of the companies that decide what the companies "want," they probably are happier that way. And that is the real tragedy-- that and the fact that they can US legislation.
(To be fair, given the description of the attack, Intel is probably right that it still does prevent "casual copying." On the other hand, it angers me that they're trying to prevent casual (including fair use) copying, but don't mind that somebody willing to invest some money in hardware and a couple of weeks can start producing bootleg devices. Who's their real enemy here? Customers trying to exert fair use rights (and, yeah, maybe occasionally illegally copying content)? Or overseas customers producing and selling wholesale bootleg copies?)
-Rob
That, and people that are so scared of the boogeyman that they have to have several thousand watts of lights on their property up all night long.
The worst, it seems to me, are large car dealerships. For some reason they seem to have amazingly bright white lights glaring on their lot all night. Why? Is it theft prevention? Or is it to make the lot look like daylight so that people driving by will see beautiful cars? In any event, it sickens me. Last winter, I was driving down from Berkeley, CA to somewhere near Monterey. We passed one of those mega-mall car dealerships which was a ways away from downtown anywhere. And it was the brightest damn thing around. Later, from where I was staying near a peak in Monterey, I could see the general glow of light pollution around the area-- with this huge ugly bright spot standing out at that car mega-mall. A blight on the landscape. It was truly depressing. I really wish I had had a tactical nuke at that point. That would have briefly been brighter, but thereafter would have made sure that nobody built anything else on the site for a while.
-Rob
(Other than a Mac iBook, which I realize is an option.)
My ideal laptop would be a cheap, lightweight x86 laptop, on which I would install Linux myself. Becuase I won't be running Windows on this machine, I really do *not* want Microsoft getting a kickback for my purchase of it.
I've figured out how to buy naked desktop machines, without a pre-installed Windows bought and paid for that I'm going to erase. That's quite easy. But what place will sell me a laptop without selling me Windows? I guess that Dell used to do this, but does anybody any more?
(And, I don't want them just to pre-erase Windows for me. I really want this not to count as a Windows sale and not feed back any $$$ to Microsoft. As an anecdote, some four years ago we were looking for quotes on systems from various different vendors. We were going to run Linux on these machines. We called a local CompUSA (I think it was), who at first told us that they couldn't sell us a machine without Windows on it. Later they called back to relent. But, the quote they then sent us was *identical* in price to the previous quote... it just didn't list an OS at all. I'm pretty sure what was happening there was that we were effectively paying for Windows, but they were going to do us the "service" of pre-deleting it, and they weren't telling us we were buying Windows.)
-Rob
Yes, I'm seeing an ungodly number of ARP requests as well, which may also be Code Red connected. (Who knows.)
-Rob
I've got a cable modem on nash1.tn.home.com, and my iptables log is seeing a huge number of hits (we're talking an average of several a minute, more or less) to port 80. Since I'm not actually running a web server, I don't have the logs that tell me if this is in fact Code Red, but I suspect that's what a huge amount of this activity is.
It's depressing, really.
-Rob
Did anybody ever play Jumpman from Epyx on the Commodore 64? I loved that game. Spent many hours playing it back in high school.
More recently, I was sad that Myth II didn't make it to the top-50 list.
-Rob
So you're saying we should thank the Slashdot trolls for bitching about Mozilla?
No, I don't think that's what he was saying at all. I think he was saying that despite the Mozilla trolls who bitched about Mozilla, everybody around here seemed to think it was a good idea and needed to be done. Mono, in contrast, does not seem to enjoy the same broadbased Slasdot support as an idea as did Mozilla.
-Rob
In cases like this, it's pretty easy to find out a violation took place. But what about a major closed-source project that uses pieces of GPL-d code? What if an embedded OS developer decided to use some Linux kernel code, without attribution, in a proprietary system? Would it be possible to detect the violation (looking for patterns in the binary, for example)?
Hmm... and even if you find the strings in the binary which suggests that GPLed code was used illegally, there's a quick and easy way out of it. The company just has to use some chickenshit encryptuion on the binary. The person who finds the strings will have violated the DMCA in order to be able to bring up the issue of GPL vilation in the first place. Then the FBI can arrest that person, and throw him in jail without bail.
And we all now know that this isn't a paranoid delusion scenario.
-Rob
Given the Bush administration, and the perception that the administratioon is pro business, this is an interesting development, bound to put the MS drawers into a twist.
While I'm not speaking specifically with regard to the Bush Administration's position, in general it is a poor assumption to equate "pro business" with "pro Microsoft." Indeed, there are lots of pro business folks out there who believe that business in the computer industry would do a whole lot better without the bullying monopolistic tactics of Microsoft.
-Rob
Non-Microsoft PC OSes, like non-Intel x86 CPUs, have really just come along for the ride, courtesy of Microsoft and Intel.
Oh, very good. Without Microsoft, there could have been no innovation. Thank you very much. Your honor, the defense would like to call it's next witness....
-Rob
...so everybody can win? I.e., as long as everybody is buying MS software, MS wins. But if nobody is using it, and people are instead using Linux, Linux wins?
Hmm.
Me, for one, I avoid if at all possible buying a machine with Windows preinstalled. Very challenging for a laptop, very easy for a desktop. I hate the thought of Microsoft getting paid a "computer tax" by my buying an OS that I'm not going to use.
-Rob
The same principles apply today, though with some modification. Now there is so much free information that the embarassing pay-for-knowledge era of our history is nearly finished. The internet brought back what Ben Franklin started.
It's coming. Publishers will try to fight it, of course, but they have no chance. They're just trying to keep their jobs for as long as they can.
You're right of course. The great power and wealth of publishers and distributors come from the fact that they serve a real purpose. Specifically, it takes a lot of resources and infrastructure to make high-quality copies of "knowledge" (by which I would include the text of books, music, video, and other things).
With the coming of the digital world, it becomes very easy and cheap to make copies of materials which are just as good as the original. Individuals can do it. A lot of the purpose of publishers and distributors goes away.
In the long run, you are right: once they no longer serve any purpose, they will die. What really worries me is how long it will take them to die. They have so much money and power right now that they can legislate their continued existence for a long time. And, in the mean time, those of us living in this transitionary world will suffer.
Eventually, the world will have found a way to celebrate and reap the benefits of how easy it is to copy digital content. Even if it takes another bloody revolution and the forming of a new country which recognizes much of intellectual property "protection" as oppression, one day it will happen. But when is this eventually? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years when there is the ability to found new nations and colonies on other worlds? I don't know. But I do suspect that the time between now and then is going to be painful.
(Note that publishers and distributors occasionally mention preserving their income source, but they must recognize that people will eventually ask why? So, more often they frame the issues in terms of being able to compensate the creative people, the authors and musicians who create the content in the first place. Well, the world will find a way to pay them. I have no idea what it will be, but we will find a way, because even though publishers and distributors will become largely unnecessary, it is obvious that the creative people will still have value.)
-Rob