The problem is, everyone who is a member of a criminal or terrorist is a criminal or a terrorist. Not everyone who is an employee of Microsoft is a monopolist. The vast majority of MS employees had no say in, or probably even knowledge of, MS' abusive business practices
Since criminal and terrorist organisations often have "legitimate fronts" and use perfectly legitimate businesses for various things then it's quite possible for there to be many people involved with such organisations which are perfectly "innocent". (If they are good enough to fool law enforcement then its perfectly likely theyc an fool their own employees.) Whereas with Microsoft just about everyone who works for them is likely to know
exactly who they work for...
It's NOT the business of the government or of me to guarantee any particular business a profit, or indeed that it stay in business.
Except in the case of either some kind of public utility or some kind of socialist government.
I am so sick of these dipshit corporations and anti-competitive trusts like the RIAA and MPAA who have so *little* confidence in their own products that they twist the legal system to try and force consumers to pay them "entertainment taxes".
You can also call them "anti-capitalist" and anti (consumer/retailer)globalisation". Capitalism assumes that customers will act selfishly just as much as supliers.
Why can't I legally play an imported PS2 game (which I probably paid a goodly premium for) on a modded PS2? I've voided my warranty if I mod the PS2, Sony still gets their money from the original software sale, the reseller gets their money from the sale to me, and I get to try to decipher the hirigana and kanjii in a vain attempt to understand just what the heck it is I've bought. Seems like everyone gets what they want in this circumstance.
Because that would impinge on the megacorps ability to create market boundries wherever they like. Remember "globalisation" is only for big government and "content providers", not for retailers and consumers...
However, the idea of the licence rather than buy scam is the claim that while you own the media, you don't own what is written on it.
Where the real scam bit comes in is if the media gets damaged or if the same IP becomes available on a different media. If it was simply the case that you had a licence to the IP then, replacements of damaged media would be at cost as would changing media.
It's a very good thing, most of our society used technology hundreds even thousands of years old. Where the engineering principles are well understood.
As a technical person I'm ok with it, but I (along with a lot of others) definatley see room for improvement in the areas you mentioned. If the interface has changed as little as you say then I think we've got a lot of work ahead of us if we ever want to be a suitable OS for grandma
Does this "grandma" do her own plumbing, wiring, service her own domestic appliences and car? Indeed a great many of these warn "No user servicable parts". Yet suddenly with computers it's expected that end users should be servicing them...
Carmack is right, Linux gaming isnt a viable market.
Actually what this proves is that it isn't a viable market to have games written for Windows, then ported to Linux some time afterwards. It says nothing about what might happen were games to be released at the same tiem for different platforms or for Linux before Windows. Or even a multiplatform version on one box.
To add another wrinkle: Licensing usually says you don' *own* your copy Mystery Men, or Tribes. You merely bought the right to view or play it. If I bought/own a license to view Mystery Men, why can't I exercise that use on both VHS and DVD without having the buy two separate licenses?
Customers see this (as with issues surrounding replacement of damaged media) as attempts to rip them off. If the major cost of buying the film is the licence then changing or replacing the media should be a marginal cost. (Since magazines can give away DVD's the media coat self evidently isn't that high.
Can't we just acknowledge that some problem might possibly exist in the Linux community, and attempt to fix it? Do we really need to invent a Microsoft conspiracy to make ourselves feel better about Loki closing??
The problem about an invented Microsoft conspiracy is that it would probably be rather milder than the one they actually managed to pull off with their dodgy OEM deals. The results of which are that the whole PC and associated market are completly warped... Effectivly we have a private company controlling a market in ways not seen outside of government monopolies. The difference being that Microsoft is probably in a more secure position than most governments on the planet, since it does not face being voted out of office, revolution or military conquest.
Besides, at first glance, it seems natural: "I already paid for this game, why should I have to pay for it again?" At least until one actually sits down and thinks about the economic and business factors involved (see other posts in this thread)
In a situation of pure capitalism you have customers who selfishly look out for their own interets. Which is really all those of the "I'm prepared to pay for this once, not twice" crowd are doing. Especially since the customers are being told that they have actually bought some kind of licence to play the game.
Now, we have a delusional attitude that Linux is going to be some kind of MS killer, but that's just wishful thinking until the needs of the AVERAGE home user are addressed. That user doesn't want to have to know ANYTHING about the hardware behind the beige box.
In which case Windows isn't what they really want anyway. They either want something whereby applications stay entirely on read only media, be they games or wordprocessors, or they need a system which very effectivly separates the role of "user" from that of "admin"/"mechanic"/"techie". In the latter case commming with the same kind of "no user servicable parts" type label they expect to find on every other domestic appliance. Expecting end users to be installing software, etc (which is the MS model) is as daft as expecting them to adjust the convergance on their televisions.
I think the major problem with this (or at least loki's) business model is the fact they ported games after the windows games were already out. You need to cordinate and release at the same time.
This would appear to be more a fault of the games companies concerned. The porters appear to be trying their best, just that they are in a situation where it's probably impossible for them to operate a reliable business model.
It actually works totally the other way around. *WE* pay a software company for the right to port the game. We have to pay a big chunk of money up front. These companies do not see fit to make Linux versions of games, so we have to give them money to convince them to do it
THis probably means that the game companies are happier with things than the customers.
If an individual is convicted of a crime they are put in jail to await sentencing. In the case of a corporation nothing is
done while awaiting sentencing.
Indivuduals are frequently held in jails awaiting trial (and sometimes even whilst awaiting being charged with anything), if not held in jail an accused may have to make some kind of bail bond or be subject to movement restrictions or curfew. None of these are punishment, because at that point the accused have not been found guilty of anything.
but it definately has it's problems as well. Sudden and massive unemployment (at least in MS' case) is
one that immediately comes to mind.
In which case the obvious option when a corporation breaks the law would be to treat them in the same was as a criminal (or terrorist) organisation. But no-one would use the excuse "going after Bin Landen, would cause too many civilan casualties".
When the official law enforcement is incapable of action, it's time the citizenry take back the power they -lent- to the police. It's time for online vigilantes. Hack the cracker sites and infect their warez. Track the bastards down and crack their systems. Mailbomb their parents to let them know that Junior is misbehaving. Give them a steady stream of virii and trojans. Granted, most of these sociopaths lead lives of self-inflicted solitude and misery, but they can't live in utter isolation. They have other sociopath confederates. So infiltrate their box and attack their friends. Get them attacking with each other.
If you are going to go in for vigilantism (regardless of if you are a hacker or a nation state) then you need to keep a very clear idea of what you are doing, who you are targeting and to show restraint. Otherwise after a short while you will end up as part of the problem, just another "script kiddie" (or "rogue state") who goes around attacking others for trivial (or bogus, even ficticious) reasons. If any of the "enemy" is remotly smart they will have these vigilante groups fighting each other.
The typical cracker is a moron. They couldn't code "Hello World" in English. All they do is download new warez. We're smarter than they are.
That they may lack coding skills does not make them a "moron". Indeed there are many cases of crackers not needing any technical skills, but having very good skills in "social engineering".
For example, rape carries a stigma in many societies, and though that stigma is (IMHO) foolish, in the US most (if not all) states have victim privacy laws which prohibit release of victim information without the victim's express (often written) permission.
The problem with this idea is that protecting the identity of the alleged victim and not the identity of the alleged perpetrator is wide open to abuse. Especially if someone can be harmed simply through being accused. The only icatagory people who there is a case for blanket protection of identity are those accused of a crime. This is in accordance with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Extending this to those making an accusation (or third party witnesses) is something really to be decided on a case by case basis, by a competant and impartial court. Because it hinders the ability of the defendant to defend themselves. It is generally considered a worst injustice to punish the innocent (which includes a trial where there is no real prosecution case) than to let the guilty go free.
Militarily it works very well to deter some one else from attacking your country. Especially if their base of operations is something like a naval task force. Also it's prefectly legitimate to blow your own stuff up.
And this raises two problems: 1) How do you deploy the software to an existing router infrastructure to allow this back-propagation of "stop forwarding hostile traffic to me" messages. 2) How do you identify traffic as "hostile"?
There is also the nastier version of the second "How do you stop this mechanism being used for creating a DOS?"
It's very sexy to support programmers who fight 'bad' encryption routines, 'ludicrous' copyright schemes, and the like, but when it comes to skript k1ddi5 hacking OUR stuff, we want to string them up by thier fingernails.
Actually its called supporting "freedom of speach". Which includes freedom from having speach interfered with and restricted and freedom to choose to listen or not listen to what someone has to say.
Her firm had a problem with the mail relay, it's only a small firm and they'd left the relay open and some spammers had found it.
More likely they had a problem with the person who misconfigured their software. For quite a while the default has been that third party relaying is off by default (AFAIK there has never been a requirement in the RFCs to support this anyway. Indeed if it wasn't for software which demanded third party relays there would probably be less spam anyway. But some "smart alec" decided that it was too difficult to implement a queue.)
Cloud 9 terminated their connection without notice of any kind,
Probably their terms of service said something to the effect of "don't run a third party relay for anyone not at your site".
There may be hundreds of attack 'bots involved. Each one is run by a user who has no knowledge of the attack and probably very little technical knowledge. To mask all of these and hunt them down would be non-trivial (even if you just pass the info to their ISP).
Which wouldn't do much good, since you really want to find whoever is controlling them. Which involves first identifying then keeping a watch on what they do, especially when they are not in "attack mode".
Back in the day, the net (before it became internet) was the domain of techies. Now it's the internet and techies are the minority, like some great inclusive society it's got a little of every demographic in it, including spoilers.
I don't think there ever no "spoilers", just that you also didn't have a large number of apathetic people who took an SEP line if something went wrong. With the boom in CIA and FBI hiring I expect quietly there's growing an effort to track down how these things happen and then throttle the ISP's who don't do their own policing, universities or companies with an insecure server.
Remember that these same "spoilers" would jump at the chance for official sanction and immunity.
I have seen FAR TOO MANY channel/server operators kicking/banning users and throwing abuse around simply because they can, often because they feel inadequate and have no kind of power in any real life forum.
It's a variation of the theme also explored in THHGTTG that those most attracted to "power" are those least suited to use it wisely.
Now here's where the comparison breaks down. It is impossible to arrest M$. Any specific person working for the corporation, sure, but the company can not be locked up.
THis is one place where the idea of corporations as "people" breaks down. However it is possible to freeze any or even all assets of any entity. This might be a suitable castodial detention analogy.
But while the punishment phase is under review in civil cases, the party being punished usually acts on their best behavior as regards the case they were found guilty under, so as to avoid additional punishment for continuing the acts under which they were charged.
Also whilst the court case is ongoing they can be found to be "in contempt of court" and thus subject to very tough penalties. Carrying on regardless after being found guilty is a good way to show contempt.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, everyone who is a member of a criminal or terrorist is a criminal or a terrorist. Not everyone who is an employee of Microsoft is a monopolist. The vast majority of MS employees had no say in, or probably even knowledge of, MS' abusive business practices
Since criminal and terrorist organisations often have "legitimate fronts" and use perfectly legitimate businesses for various things then it's quite possible for there to be many people involved with such organisations which are perfectly "innocent". (If they are good enough to fool law enforcement then its perfectly likely theyc an fool their own employees.)
Whereas with Microsoft just about everyone who works for them is likely to know exactly who they work for...
It's NOT the business of the government or of me to guarantee any particular business a profit, or indeed that it stay in business.
Except in the case of either some kind of public utility or some kind of socialist government.
I am so sick of these dipshit corporations and anti-competitive trusts like the RIAA and MPAA who have so *little* confidence in their own products that they twist the legal system to try and force consumers to pay them "entertainment taxes".
You can also call them "anti-capitalist" and anti (consumer/retailer)globalisation". Capitalism assumes that customers will act selfishly just as much as supliers.
Why can't I legally play an imported PS2 game (which I probably paid a goodly premium for) on a modded PS2? I've voided my warranty if I mod the PS2, Sony still gets their money from the original software sale, the reseller gets their money from the sale to me, and I get to try to decipher the hirigana and kanjii in a vain attempt to understand just what the heck it is I've bought. Seems like everyone gets what they want in this circumstance.
Because that would impinge on the megacorps ability to create market boundries wherever they like. Remember "globalisation" is only for big government and "content providers", not for retailers and consumers...
However, the idea of the licence rather than buy scam is the claim that while you own the media, you don't own what is written on it.
Where the real scam bit comes in is if the media gets damaged or if the same IP becomes available on a different media.
If it was simply the case that you had a licence to the IP then, replacements of damaged media would be at cost as would changing media.
You say this like its a good thing?
It's a very good thing, most of our society used technology hundreds even thousands of years old. Where the engineering principles are well understood.
As a technical person I'm ok with it, but I (along with a lot of others) definatley see room for improvement in the areas you mentioned. If the interface has changed as little as you say then I think we've got a lot of work ahead of us if we ever want to be a suitable OS for grandma
Does this "grandma" do her own plumbing, wiring, service her own domestic appliences and car? Indeed a great many of these warn "No user servicable parts". Yet suddenly with computers it's expected that end users should be servicing them...
Carmack is right, Linux gaming isnt a viable market.
Actually what this proves is that it isn't a viable market to have games written for Windows, then ported to Linux some time afterwards.
It says nothing about what might happen were games to be released at the same tiem for different platforms or for Linux before Windows. Or even a multiplatform version on one box.
To add another wrinkle: Licensing usually says you don' *own* your copy Mystery Men, or Tribes. You merely bought the right to view or play it. If I bought/own a license to view Mystery Men, why can't I exercise that use on both VHS and DVD without having the buy two separate licenses?
Customers see this (as with issues surrounding replacement of damaged media) as attempts to rip them off. If the major cost of buying the film is the licence then changing or replacing the media should be a marginal cost. (Since magazines can give away DVD's the media coat self evidently isn't that high.
Can't we just acknowledge that some problem might possibly exist in the Linux community, and attempt to fix it? Do we really need to invent a Microsoft conspiracy to make ourselves feel better about Loki closing??
The problem about an invented Microsoft conspiracy is that it would probably be rather milder than the one they actually managed to pull off with their dodgy OEM deals. The results of which are that the whole PC and associated market are completly warped... Effectivly we have a private company controlling a market in ways not seen outside of government monopolies. The difference being that Microsoft is probably in a more secure position than most governments on the planet, since it does not face being voted out of office, revolution or military conquest.
Besides, at first glance, it seems natural: "I already paid for this game, why should I have to pay for it again?" At least until one actually sits down and thinks about the economic and business factors involved (see other posts in this thread)
In a situation of pure capitalism you have customers who selfishly look out for their own interets. Which is really all those of the "I'm prepared to pay for this once, not twice" crowd are doing. Especially since the customers are being told that they have actually bought some kind of licence to play the game.
The fact is that the core developers of the Linux system never intended it to be a Windows replacement,
However Microsoft has, for some years, pushed Windows as a "unix replacement".
Now, we have a delusional attitude that Linux is going to be some kind of MS killer, but that's just wishful thinking until the needs of the AVERAGE home user are addressed. That user doesn't want to have to know ANYTHING about the hardware behind the beige box.
In which case Windows isn't what they really want anyway. They either want something whereby applications stay entirely on read only media, be they games or wordprocessors, or they need a system which very effectivly separates the role of "user" from that of "admin"/"mechanic"/"techie". In the latter case commming with the same kind of "no user servicable parts" type label they expect to find on every other domestic appliance.
Expecting end users to be installing software, etc (which is the MS model) is as daft as expecting them to adjust the convergance on their televisions.
I think the major problem with this (or at least loki's) business model is the fact they ported games after the windows games were already out. You need to cordinate and release at the same time.
This would appear to be more a fault of the games companies concerned. The porters appear to be trying their best, just that they are in a situation where it's probably impossible for them to operate a reliable business model.
It actually works totally the other way around. *WE* pay a software company for the right to port the game. We have to pay a big chunk of money up front. These companies do not see fit to make Linux versions of games, so we have to give them money to convince them to do it
THis probably means that the game companies are happier with things than the customers.
If an individual is convicted of a crime they are put in jail to await sentencing. In the case of a corporation nothing is done while awaiting sentencing.
Indivuduals are frequently held in jails awaiting trial (and sometimes even whilst awaiting being charged with anything), if not held in jail an accused may have to make some kind of bail bond or be subject to movement restrictions or curfew. None of these are punishment, because at that point the accused have not been found guilty of anything.
but it definately has it's problems as well. Sudden and massive unemployment (at least in MS' case) is one that immediately comes to mind.
In which case the obvious option when a corporation breaks the law would be to treat them in the same was as a criminal (or terrorist) organisation. But no-one would use the excuse "going after Bin Landen, would cause too many civilan casualties".
When the official law enforcement is incapable of action, it's time the citizenry take back the power they -lent- to the police. It's time for online vigilantes. Hack the cracker sites and infect their warez. Track the bastards down and crack their systems. Mailbomb their parents to let them know that Junior is misbehaving. Give them a steady stream of virii and trojans. Granted, most of these sociopaths lead lives of self-inflicted solitude and misery, but they can't live in utter isolation. They have other sociopath confederates. So infiltrate their box and attack their friends. Get them attacking with each other.
If you are going to go in for vigilantism (regardless of if you are a hacker or a nation state) then you need to keep a very clear idea of what you are doing, who you are targeting and to show restraint. Otherwise after a short while you will end up as part of the problem, just another "script kiddie" (or "rogue state") who goes around attacking others for trivial (or bogus, even ficticious) reasons.
If any of the "enemy" is remotly smart they will have these vigilante groups fighting each other.
The typical cracker is a moron. They couldn't code "Hello World" in English. All they do is download new warez. We're smarter than they are.
That they may lack coding skills does not make them a "moron". Indeed there are many cases of crackers not needing any technical skills, but having very good skills in "social engineering".
spammers should go to jail? Why is it that information wants to be free
Most spam involves some degree to fraud (which people can go to jail for.)
For example, rape carries a stigma in many societies, and though that stigma is (IMHO) foolish, in the US most (if not all) states have victim privacy laws which prohibit release of victim information without the victim's express (often written) permission.
The problem with this idea is that protecting the identity of the alleged victim and not the identity of the alleged perpetrator is wide open to abuse. Especially if someone can be harmed simply through being accused.
The only icatagory people who there is a case for blanket protection of identity are those accused of a crime. This is in accordance with the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Extending this to those making an accusation (or third party witnesses) is something really to be decided on a case by case basis, by a competant and impartial court. Because it hinders the ability of the defendant to defend themselves. It is generally considered a worst injustice to punish the innocent (which includes a trial where there is no real prosecution case) than to let the guilty go free.
there is no legitimate use for a nuclear bomb
Militarily it works very well to deter some one else from attacking your country. Especially if their base of operations is something like a naval task force. Also it's prefectly legitimate to blow your own stuff up.
And this raises two problems: 1) How do you deploy the software to an existing router infrastructure to allow this back-propagation of "stop forwarding hostile traffic to me" messages. 2) How do you identify traffic as "hostile"?
There is also the nastier version of the second "How do you stop this mechanism being used for creating a DOS?"
It's very sexy to support programmers who fight 'bad' encryption routines, 'ludicrous' copyright schemes, and the like, but when it comes to skript k1ddi5 hacking OUR stuff, we want to string them up by thier fingernails.
Actually its called supporting "freedom of speach". Which includes freedom from having speach interfered with and restricted and freedom to choose to listen or not listen to what someone has to say.
Her firm had a problem with the mail relay, it's only a small firm and they'd left the relay open and some spammers had found it.
More likely they had a problem with the person who misconfigured their software. For quite a while the default has been that third party relaying is off by default (AFAIK there has never been a requirement in the RFCs to support this anyway. Indeed if it wasn't for software which demanded third party relays there would probably be less spam anyway. But some "smart alec" decided that it was too difficult to implement a queue.)
Cloud 9 terminated their connection without notice of any kind,
Probably their terms of service said something to the effect of "don't run a third party relay for anyone not at your site".
There may be hundreds of attack 'bots involved. Each one is run by a user who has no knowledge of the attack and probably very little technical knowledge. To mask all of these and hunt them down would be non-trivial (even if you just pass the info to their ISP).
Which wouldn't do much good, since you really want to find whoever is controlling them. Which involves first identifying then keeping a watch on what they do, especially when they are not in "attack mode".
Back in the day, the net (before it became internet) was the domain of techies. Now it's the internet and techies are the minority, like some great inclusive society it's got a little of every demographic in it, including spoilers.
I don't think there ever no "spoilers", just that you also didn't have a large number of apathetic people who took an SEP line if something went wrong. With the boom in CIA and FBI hiring I expect quietly there's growing an effort to track down how these things happen and then throttle the ISP's who don't do their own policing, universities or companies with an insecure server.
Remember that these same "spoilers" would jump at the chance for official sanction and immunity.
I have seen FAR TOO MANY channel/server operators kicking/banning users and throwing abuse around simply because they can, often because they feel inadequate and have no kind of power in any real life forum.
It's a variation of the theme also explored in THHGTTG that those most attracted to "power" are those least suited to use it wisely.
Now here's where the comparison breaks down. It is impossible to arrest M$. Any specific person working for the corporation, sure, but the company can not be locked up.
THis is one place where the idea of corporations as "people" breaks down. However it is possible to freeze any or even all assets of any entity. This might be a suitable castodial detention analogy.
But while the punishment phase is under review in civil cases, the party being punished usually acts on their best behavior as regards the case they were found guilty under, so as to avoid additional punishment for continuing the acts under which they were charged.
Also whilst the court case is ongoing they can be found to be "in contempt of court" and thus subject to very tough penalties.
Carrying on regardless after being found guilty is a good way to show contempt.
A couple of centuries ago, it was "Manifest Destiny", and the US thought they had the moral imperitive to take all land west to the Pacific.
:)
Then a hundred years later "to the pacific" became "half way across the pacific"