While I believe the main topic deals with the lack of hardware to read the laserdisk,
IIRC there is a complete set of both the media and hardware in the Museum of Science and Industry, Newhall Street, Birmingham.
This is exactly why Don Knuth developed TeX. He was concerned about the life expectancy of documents such as this.
His idea was to write your documents in plain text (the lowest common denominator) and use a processor to convert them to whatever format you need 'today': postscript, html, or whatever.
Assuming that the data can still be read. Which can be a major problem with removable media... There is very little hardware still around capable of reading 8", 3" and 5.25" floppy disks, especially such things as hard sectored media...
A lot of comment like this:..."I would like to express my support for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million..."
So dosn't this mean that the judgement should at minimum include a fine of at least $35 million plus interest. (Since this has been going on for nearly a decade that is rather a lot of interest.)
It appears that they at least tried to handle the concerns of the 47 'major' commenters,
Exactly how have they defined these "major" commenters? In terms of the number of points they raise or in terms of who they are? If the latter they appear to have missed a rather important document, known as "The US Constitution".
Anyway, the points of mine I didn't see addressed had to do with the ease with which it appears MS can technically exploit the loopholes of the settlement. For example, MS Office is not middleware,
Is the term "middleware" actually used in computing outside the context of this court case?
I *know* that if Microsoft is broken up, it will mean bad, bad things for the company I work for.
I also know the difference between right and wrong. And if punishing the wrong means my company suffers, and I lose my job because of that, so be it.
No doubt whenever a major gangster or terrorist organisation is taken down there are innocent people and businesses who are harmed. Indeed in these cases there is probably more moral ambiguity because gangsters and terrorists can be adept at creating legitimate "fronts", so those who deal with them might have no idea at all that their "major business partner" is actually Osama Bin Laden or whoever. Microsoft however dosn't hide who it is when it deals with people and it's record is well documented. No wolves in sheeps clothing with Microsoft, just wolves...
I would like to know why they didn't submit comments either. How about Alan Cox?
Comments were only welcome from US citizens (though as others have mentioned little attempt appears to have been made with verification). Many open source developers are not US citizens.
And for all this, they're effectively being given a slap on the wrist and told 'don't do it again.' Microsoft has learned a very important lesson: laws can be broken. Just like speeding tickets don't physically prevent you from speeding, consent decrees don't prevent Microsoft from undermining other companies.
A better analogy might be a driver caught speeding who's licence has previously been cancelled by court order due to habitual speeding. This is the point Microsoft is not a "first time offender", with "wrist slapping" being proven ineffective.
They've learned that as long as they can drag out court proceedings, they can keep doing business as usual.
Even though there are plenty of ways the DOJ could have prevented Microsoft doing so, even completly shut down Microsoft, until the trial process was complete.
Perhaps the DoJ should consult with a librarian or data archivist the next time they find themselves obligated by a court to publish indexed documents online.
If you do this you want to be sure you have someone who actually understands what makes sense on line. Otherwise you could end up with a straight translation of a paper system (quite possibly an ancient system as well). Indeed this may well be exactly what is going on here anyway.
this is SUPPOSED TO BE SOLVED by the public domain.
Which is also useful to artists, indeed the music industry even coined the term "cover version" to cover a new rendition of an old piece of work
You pay a price for the artists, to support them,
To encourage them to produce more work. Which dosn't work that well when most of the money winds up going to the publisher rather than the actual creator and makes no sense at all if the creator is retired (or dead)...
Let say we add in $1 a piece on top of the $1-$2 per music CD for the artists, the price is still a lot less than what RIAA sells. I am pretty sure the artists is getting a much better deal out of this.
IIRC the named performers of a track typically receive a few cents, people such a backing singers, recording engineers, etc might well either either recieve fractions or simply get a fixed amount regardless of how many copies sell.
What about promotional cost etc ? Do CD pirates have promotions ? Nope. Radio stations pays RIAA for airing music.
They may be playing "promotional copies" which they were sent. But the cost to the publisher here is the actual cost of the media and posting it. They may well make a net profit from the fees the station pays back to them anyway.
However, since your machine will no longer connect to the Internet,
What Internet? take away the free software parts and you don't have much left... (Also for that matter what shape would the US economy be in without such things as the New York Stock Exchange and the Postal Service?)
the Linux and Free Software community will have to set up their own Network.
They at least would still have all the tools needed to do that...
CDs cost less than cassettes, but are priced higher, "because of apparent value".
The actual cost of pressed CD's is very low. Consider the number of computer magazines which come with at least one disk or even the way AOL send out postal spam with their disks. CD's are priced based on what the market will bear. Similarly for DVD's, except that they came up with the idea of regions, so as to charge what the market will bear in each of those reagions...
There's a bigger problem here - I want to use the word "globalization", but that words been so overused of late I'm not even sure it really has a meaning any more.
It's rapidly becoming a word where the functional definition is a long way from any literal one...
Call it the smothering of nationalism.
It's also about replacing national boundries with different boundies, such as the DVD "regions" and similar things with games consoles.
This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law?
If anything the GPL is one of the few examples of software applying copyright in the way it was intended. Especially in the case of the USA, where the intent of copyright is clearly described in the US constitution.
For the average PC user, who buys a PC for home and small business, that's not going to necessarily be the case. They want a PC they can take out of the box, turn on and use.
For anything other than the smallest of small business the only way you can have that is through something like either LTSP or an Xterm. For many places preloading the machine with anything gives no advantage, the first thing which needs to be done is to replace the OEM install with something subject to their corporate standard...
Infact, with the strong likelihood that ALL SUPPORTED DRIVERS are alread installed onto your Linux system, there's a strong chance that installing a new NIC on Linux will be EASIER than with WinDOS.
But shouldn't need to be a part of the user interface in the first place. Indeed it makes a lot of sense for a computer to be capable of running it at least a "user mode" for everyday usage and a "maintanance mode" which covers such things as installing/uninstalling applications and drivers, altering critical system settings, etc. When in "user mode" some things simply cannot be altered at all, no risk of accidentantally deleting something important. Also you probably want applications to not be usable in maintance mode...
In order for Linux to win it must emulate the UI of Windows.
Which UI might that be, considering Windows has been through quite a few recently
I mean I don't want to wave through random directories and commands and god knows what just to setup a new NIC or something...
Except that that is an A/MI (Administration/Maintanance Interface) issue. Most of the time people understand the difference, one of the worst things about Windows is blurring the distinction, so users end up struggling to do "techie" tasks. There is even a whole set of third party addons to Windows to explictally prevent end user alteration... When you look at things it's somehow strange that the fuss made about installing hardware is about needing a special interface to configure it, rather than needing a screwdriver to get it in the box in the first place... Do you have a car where the engine can be overhauled from the driving seat too?
I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while.
But only for a limited time, otherwise they will "Enron".
if you use the hardware dongle for "proof of purchase" - just need to patch the check to the serial port:) but, a more reliable method would be to actually have program code *inside* the dongle that is downloaded at runtime to the memory space of the machine and is vital for the execution of the program:) that's a bit harder to "crack" - but, not impossible.. application needs more modification *g*
Not that much more modification. All you'd need to do here would be to tack the code from the dongle onto the programme and have the downloading routine look at a certain memory address rather than a peripheral port... The only way of making this moderatly hard is to have the application run completly standalone, in other words in must contain it's own operating system, preferably on unmodifiable hardware, in which case you'd end up with something more like a games consome than a regualr computer.
The only protections I know of that indeed have given "breathing space" involved hardware dongles. No one used pirated copies of Cubase on the Atari ST because they didn't work as they should.. but as soon as versions without dongles appeared on other platforms they were cracked completely in an instant.
It's perfectly possible to either find the part of the code which looks for a dongle and alter it to always return a "dongle present" result. This is where obscurtated code could help, but it's especially difficult to write code which is both obscurated and bug free. Also if the result is in anyway obvious as obscurated code you really need to obscurate the entire programe. Otherwise you effectivly indicate which bit of the program contains the "security"... (In the same way that if you encrypt emails you want to routinely use encryption, not just for the messages you are worried might be intercepted.) Also it's undoubtedly possible to reverse engineer and copy the dongles themselves.
You are probably right. I think Microsoft's future will most likely be a lot like IBM. At one point IBM was the undisputed king of computers, and was in fact investigated for anti-trust violations. Now, years later, they are not really leading the industry per se, but they are definitely still a strong company.
But did IBM ever have such a narrow product line as Microsoft has?
If there's any 'religion' involved here, it's the current USA 'religion' of free markets, and the belief that competition is inherently good.
Problem is that in many cases you have the exact opposite of a free market and competition anyway. Either an actual monopoly (as with Microsoft) or a few large companies which appear to operate more as a co-operative cartel than being in competition with each other. The latter describes the record, movie and broadcast industries...
The problem is alternate OS'es will not run most of the other software on the store shelf.
It isn't a matter of if the software is on the store shelf it's a matter of if the software is what is needed...
Until this changes, we will be stuck with the Windows Monopoly. We are stuck with the Windows monopoly because that is the base that almost all desktop applications run on top of.
Slashdot Mirror
While I believe the main topic deals with the lack of hardware to read the laserdisk,
IIRC there is a complete set of both the media and hardware in the Museum of Science and Industry, Newhall Street, Birmingham.
This is exactly why Don Knuth developed TeX. He was concerned about the life expectancy of documents such as this.
His idea was to write your documents in plain text (the lowest common denominator) and use a processor to convert them to whatever format you need 'today': postscript, html, or whatever.
Assuming that the data can still be read. Which can be a major problem with removable media... There is very little hardware still around capable of reading 8", 3" and 5.25" floppy disks, especially such things as hard sectored media...
A lot of comment like this: ..."I would like to express my support for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million..."
So dosn't this mean that the judgement should at minimum include a fine of at least $35 million plus interest. (Since this has been going on for nearly a decade that is rather a lot of interest.)
It appears that they at least tried to handle the concerns of the 47 'major' commenters,
Exactly how have they defined these "major" commenters? In terms of the number of points they raise or in terms of who they are? If the latter they appear to have missed a rather important document, known as "The US Constitution".
Anyway, the points of mine I didn't see addressed had to do with the ease with which it appears MS can technically exploit the loopholes of the settlement. For example, MS Office is not middleware,
Is the term "middleware" actually used in computing outside the context of this court case?
I *know* that if Microsoft is broken up, it will mean bad, bad things for the company I work for. I also know the difference between right and wrong. And if punishing the wrong means my company suffers, and I lose my job because of that, so be it.
No doubt whenever a major gangster or terrorist organisation is taken down there are innocent people and businesses who are harmed. Indeed in these cases there is probably more moral ambiguity because gangsters and terrorists can be adept at creating legitimate "fronts", so those who deal with them might have no idea at all that their "major business partner" is actually Osama Bin Laden or whoever.
Microsoft however dosn't hide who it is when it deals with people and it's record is well documented. No wolves in sheeps clothing with Microsoft, just wolves...
I would like to know why they didn't submit comments either. How about Alan Cox?
Comments were only welcome from US citizens (though as others have mentioned little attempt appears to have been made with verification). Many open source developers are not US citizens.
And for all this, they're effectively being given a slap on the wrist and told 'don't do it again.' Microsoft has learned a very important lesson: laws can be broken. Just like speeding tickets don't physically prevent you from speeding, consent decrees don't prevent Microsoft from undermining other companies.
A better analogy might be a driver caught speeding who's licence has previously been cancelled by court order due to habitual speeding.
This is the point Microsoft is not a "first time offender", with "wrist slapping" being proven ineffective.
They've learned that as long as they can drag out court proceedings, they can keep doing business as usual.
Even though there are plenty of ways the DOJ could have prevented Microsoft doing so, even completly shut down Microsoft, until the trial process was complete.
Look at the sheer number of people who simply signed off on a form letter.
How many of these people actually exist and actually "signed off".
Maybe some of these are "astroturf"...
Perhaps the DoJ should consult with a librarian or data archivist the next time they find themselves obligated by a court to publish indexed documents online.
If you do this you want to be sure you have someone who actually understands what makes sense on line. Otherwise you could end up with a straight translation of a paper system (quite possibly an ancient system as well). Indeed this may well be exactly what is going on here anyway.
this is SUPPOSED TO BE SOLVED by the public domain.
Which is also useful to artists, indeed the music industry even coined the term "cover version" to cover a new rendition of an old piece of work
You pay a price for the artists, to support them,
To encourage them to produce more work. Which dosn't work that well when most of the money winds up going to the publisher rather than the actual creator and makes no sense at all if the creator is retired (or dead)...
Let say we add in $1 a piece on top of the $1-$2 per music CD for the artists, the price is still a lot less than what RIAA sells. I am pretty sure the artists is getting a much better deal out of this.
IIRC the named performers of a track typically receive a few cents, people such a backing singers, recording engineers, etc might well either either recieve fractions or simply get a fixed amount regardless of how many copies sell.
What about promotional cost etc ? Do CD pirates have promotions ? Nope. Radio stations pays RIAA for airing music.
They may be playing "promotional copies" which they were sent. But the cost to the publisher here is the actual cost of the media and posting it. They may well make a net profit from the fees the station pays back to them anyway.
However, since your machine will no longer connect to the Internet,
What Internet? take away the free software parts and you don't have much left... (Also for that matter what shape would the US economy be in without such things as the New York Stock Exchange and the Postal Service?)
the Linux and Free Software community will have to set up their own Network.
They at least would still have all the tools needed to do that...
Imagine if this law was passed in the U.S. and in Europe, but not, say, in Canada.
I don't think Canada is a likely candidate for dissent, too easily bullied by its neighbour to the south and west...
You are going to get pretty much unitary legal structures on intellectual property and music copying.
Most likely used to protect a deliberatly fragmented market.
CDs cost less than cassettes, but are priced higher, "because of apparent value".
The actual cost of pressed CD's is very low. Consider the number of computer magazines which come with at least one disk or even the way AOL send out postal spam with their disks.
CD's are priced based on what the market will bear. Similarly for DVD's, except that they came up with the idea of regions, so as to charge what the market will bear in each of those reagions...
There's a bigger problem here - I want to use the word "globalization", but that words been so overused of late I'm not even sure it really has a meaning any more.
It's rapidly becoming a word where the functional definition is a long way from any literal one...
Call it the smothering of nationalism.
It's also about replacing national boundries with different boundies, such as the DVD "regions" and similar things with games consoles.
This is what the GPL says - if you dont like it, dont use the software. But is this using copyright to restrict rights beyond the intention of copyright law?
If anything the GPL is one of the few examples of software applying copyright in the way it was intended. Especially in the case of the USA, where the intent of copyright is clearly described in the US constitution.
For the average PC user, who buys a PC for home and small business, that's not going to necessarily be the case. They want a PC they can take out of the box, turn on and use.
For anything other than the smallest of small business the only way you can have that is through something like either LTSP or an Xterm.
For many places preloading the machine with anything gives no advantage, the first thing which needs to be done is to replace the OEM install with something subject to their corporate standard...
Infact, with the strong likelihood that ALL SUPPORTED DRIVERS are alread installed onto your Linux system, there's a strong chance that installing a new NIC on Linux will be EASIER than with WinDOS.
But shouldn't need to be a part of the user interface in the first place. Indeed it makes a lot of sense for a computer to be capable of running it at least a "user mode" for everyday usage and a "maintanance mode" which covers such things as installing/uninstalling applications and drivers, altering critical system settings, etc.
When in "user mode" some things simply cannot be altered at all, no risk of accidentantally deleting something important. Also you probably want applications to not be usable in maintance mode...
In order for Linux to win it must emulate the UI of Windows.
Which UI might that be, considering Windows has been through quite a few recently
I mean I don't want to wave through random directories and commands and god knows what just to setup a new NIC or something...
Except that that is an A/MI (Administration/Maintanance Interface) issue.
Most of the time people understand the difference, one of the worst things about Windows is blurring the distinction, so users end up struggling to do "techie" tasks. There is even a whole set of third party addons to Windows to explictally prevent end user alteration...
When you look at things it's somehow strange that the fuss made about installing hardware is about needing a special interface to configure it, rather than needing a screwdriver to get it in the box in the first place...
Do you have a car where the engine can be overhauled from the driving seat too?
I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while.
But only for a limited time, otherwise they will "Enron".
if you use the hardware dongle for "proof of purchase" - just need to patch the check to the serial port :) but, a more reliable method would be to actually have program code *inside* the dongle that is downloaded at runtime to the memory space of the machine and is vital for the execution of the program :) that's a bit harder to "crack" - but, not impossible.. application needs more modification *g*
Not that much more modification. All you'd need to do here would be to tack the code from the dongle onto the programme and have the downloading routine look at a certain memory address rather than a peripheral port...
The only way of making this moderatly hard is to have the application run completly standalone, in other words in must contain it's own operating system, preferably on unmodifiable hardware, in which case you'd end up with something more like a games consome than a regualr computer.
The only protections I know of that indeed have given "breathing space" involved hardware dongles. No one used pirated copies of Cubase on the Atari ST because they didn't work as they should .. but as soon as versions without dongles appeared on other platforms they were cracked completely in an instant.
It's perfectly possible to either find the part of the code which looks for a dongle and alter it to always return a "dongle present" result. This is where obscurtated code could help, but it's especially difficult to write code which is both obscurated and bug free. Also if the result is in anyway obvious as obscurated code you really need to obscurate the entire programe. Otherwise you effectivly indicate which bit of the program contains the "security"... (In the same way that if you encrypt emails you want to routinely use encryption, not just for the messages you are worried might be intercepted.)
Also it's undoubtedly possible to reverse engineer and copy the dongles themselves.
You are probably right. I think Microsoft's future will most likely be a lot like IBM. At one point IBM was the undisputed king of computers, and was in fact investigated for anti-trust violations. Now, years later, they are not really leading the industry per se, but they are definitely still a strong company.
But did IBM ever have such a narrow product line as Microsoft has?
If there's any 'religion' involved here, it's the current USA 'religion' of free markets, and the belief that competition is inherently good.
Problem is that in many cases you have the exact opposite of a free market and competition anyway. Either an actual monopoly (as with Microsoft) or a few large companies which appear to operate more as a co-operative cartel than being in competition with each other. The latter describes the record, movie and broadcast industries...
The problem is alternate OS'es will not run most of the other software on the store shelf.
It isn't a matter of if the software is on the store shelf it's a matter of if the software is what is needed...
Until this changes, we will be stuck with the Windows Monopoly. We are stuck with the Windows monopoly because that is the base that almost all desktop applications run on top of.
This is a classic "chicken and egg" issue...