Valid points, both of them. I would want to see something in place that guarantees that the ads track via what you're interested in, but do not attach in any way to personal info or transactions.
Sure. Doubleclick did that. Their privacy policy assured you that your ID cookie was anonymous. And they repeated ad nausium in the press that you were anonymous and they do not and would not ever associate your ID to an identity.
Then they began the merger with Abacus Direct (the largest direct mail firm in the US), announced a program with partner sites to link IDs to names, and changed their privacy policy. Public backlash (and possibly the FCC investigation) caused them to put off these plans. The more cynical would suggest that they are biding their time until they have managed to buy the right laws before continuing.
So... exactly what kind of "guarantee" would be acceptable? I tend to think there are none.
Profitable businesses like Tim Horton's and Starbucks shouldn't have any problem covering the expense, though Starbucks has a demographic that just screams "disposable income!!!" to ad-men:)
Starbuck's charges for their service (TMobile). Basic free service is a nice edge for the local shop who has to compete with the coffeshop powerhouse.
Heck, I'd even fill out an "interests" questionnaire to generate an *anonymous* cookie if it meant that the served ads were relevant to me.
I'm behind all that you had to say until this point. The issue I have with an "anonymous" cookie is that there is no guarantee that it remains anonymous. Look at Doubleclick and its plans to merge with Abacus Direct. Part of that plan was to have client sites that link names to cookies. Suddenly, an entire history of anonymous browsing is linked to a full-on identity.
As a side note - these plans were put on hold but not (as far I know) canceled. This will be a returning issue, I'm sure.
And then small businesses can offer great things like free wi-fi without eating the overhead themselves.
Fair enough point. But then, wireless access should also be a draw to the business itself. I splurge on the local coffee shop more often now that my big-cup-o-caffeine comes with connectivity. I can nip out of the office, get some coffee, and then VPN back to work and catch up on stuff without interruptions from people dropping by my desk.
i want 1 thing from linux, a standard config setup, and a way to access that in 3 ways...
1. gui. this should be windows like, checkboxes, textboxes, menu items... lickable guiness 2. command line, with flags, recompiling(if i have to), or sub commands of something to tweak an app. 3. text file config editting. just open it in vi or openoffice.org and change the 1 to a 0.
Sounds great to me. Everyone gets to use their favorite interface. Or, better yet, use the particular method best suited at the time. A laudable goal.
Has anyone managed to do it?
I've never configured an OSX box, so I have no idea how its done there. But in my experience with various flavors of Unix and Windows, it is all a hodge-podge of various methods.
Solaris and HP/UX have some basic GUI config tools. They'll help show how to do something. Or if you're just not too experienced in some particular procedure. But otherwise, they're crutches that are best left behind as soon as possible. After all - it's Unix; heavy on commands and text configs.
Windows is full of GUI goodness. Unless you're configuring something that doesn't have a GUI option. Then you're doing a registry hack (unless you download a special tool GUI tool for said hack). Playing with the registry is remarkably like toying with a text config file - without the comments. And then there's the additional command-line tools you can get to either make configurations via scripting, etc. or when the GUI is absolutly horrid to use (IPSec filters).
They all should work, on all apps, they should be able to switch from 1 to 3 to 2 seamlessly without hickups, and they should have clear documentation on what the hell each thing means.
This and your previous point 3 brings up something I mentioned in another discussion.
I like text file configs. I especially like how the base config files in much of the Linux stuff I deal with are very well commented. Some have more documentation tucked in as comments than configuration. These comments tend to explain the option, why one may or may not want it, and some possible choices. Safe defaults are set. Additional non-standard options are available but commented out. Very few options are a 1 or 0. And, of course, I can make configurations using my favorite text editor just as easily SSH'd in from accross the country as right at the keyboard.
That's not to say I am fundimentally apposed to a nice GUI full of clicky-clicky goodness (I do plenty of clicky-clicky myself). But it seems that the text config doesn't get the credit it deserves for its versitility and usability.
Oh, wait a minute. You mean there's a tag on the shirt that the cashier scans?
And... occasional fashion trends aside... when you get home, that tag comes off. And along with it goes the UPC code.
Compare this with RFID tags. Industry spokespeople have talked about embedding the tag in the clothing. Which makes sense while you're tracking inventory (and loss prevention). However, it presents an issue once that item and its tag leaves the front door in the hands of its new owner.
These are some good points. However, while I think they're worth consideration, I don't agree with all of them.
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
I do. Really. I like the multiple windows. But then, my environment handles this gracefully. I had to go back to my Windows box at work to take a look at how it behaves in that environment - and yea, I suppose it clutters up the taskbar (I never noticed). Although, GIMP 2.0 does allow you to minimize this using tabs and docking dialogs.
Having said that... yes. Multiple windows threw me when I first fired up the GIMP. It was kind of odd. It took short while to get used to it. But I have come to prefer it.
I'm managing a remotely hosted Redhat 9 server. Does anyone know how risky (or even possible) it would be for me to upgrade to Fedora Cora 1 by simply pointing my sources.list at an FC1 repository and doing an apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade?
I did this with a laptop at work. I installed apt-get for RPM. Modified my sources. Did an "apt-get update" followed by an "apt-get dist-upgrade" followed by an "apt-get upgrade" to finalize a few trailing edge packages. It all went fairly smoothly.
There was one odd bug having to do with some library for GNOME that, once I had it figured out, required removal and re-installation of the appropriate package. Sorry - I forget the details. None-the-less... I was half expecting to have to reload the thing. Went fairly well.
Of course - this is a laptop sitting in front of me. Keep in mind that my very tired and currently fuzzy memory may not be recalling anything that would have caused massive heartache if I had been doing this process remotely.
Fedora may be the "new" Redhat Linux, but some of the more idiotic corporate users they won't have the synaptic ability to Google that correlation, and will be led to believe that RHL is no longer a "Free" "Hacker" "Distribution" but rather a "mature" "enterprise" "solution".
RedHat came out to our center last year to do a presentation. One of their claims is that Linux moves too fast for some Enterprise developer's tastes.
An enterprise application developer will get done certifying that a specific build of RedHat will work with their application to their satisfaction when they realize that the official, stable build of several libraries have already jumped a few increments. Which, of course, invalidates their entire QA process.
RedHat decided to handle this issue by developing a slower-moving "Enterprise" target. This offers a more stable and predictable platform for enterprise application developers to develop for, QA, and then provide support for their products on that certified platform.
This was before the Fedora project had been announced. However, even at that point, they were saying that the RedHat Linux we all knew would be the faster-paced, more bleeding-edge version.
And this is different from the UPC code scanned into the computer being tied to your credit card purchase in what way?
Care to point to the UPC code printed on the fabric of your pants or shirt? Do you have an idea on how one could create a UPC scanner that effectively scans all UPC codes walking past a sensor (grocery stores still have problems with this - although much more effective over the years)?
Personally, I look forward to the day when I pull my shopping cart up to the register and it gives me my total.
Sounds great. I'm all for it. As long as the RFID tags used are permamently disabled once I've made my purchase.
Shearer characterised Katherine Albrecht, RFID privacy activist and founder and director of lobby group Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, as being "confused" about the technologies that she is campaigning against. RFID tags used in retail stores, Shearer said, "[could] only measure a short distance".
Of course, 802.11 technology has an approximate range limit of 150ft. Or does it?
I understand that there's a fundimental difference between a wifi node and an RFID tag (active vs. passive). However, we all know people do things with technology that are never even considered when that tech is first introduced. And I've always seen RF as an odd bird anyway.
Oddly enough... later in that same article....
Shearer also said IBM was trialling the use of RFID tags in US schools for mentally disabled children in a move that she claimed had full support from most parents.
"These children are primarily kept indoors at the moment because they escape otherwise and might get hurt. So what we are going to do is with two of these huge schools, is to give the children an RFID bracelet that they take off at the end of the day so that we know where they are, and if they walk out the gate then we would know," said Shearer.
Anyone who works in Corporate technology who *doesn't* know about Sun isn't doing their jobs.
Yes. But when a Corporate customer is thinking Sun, are they thinking about their desktop or the server room?
My environment used to sport quite a few HP and Sun workstation labs for various scientific and engineering applications. However, there has been a very strong move to replacing those environments with Windows desktops. The only advancement of "Unix" on the desktop that I've heard of involves Linux deployments. And those are not Sun.
Maybe thats what Microsoft is most afraid of, to loose control over the heading of the software industry. Open source have control over web servers and can take control over the protocols on the web if we just do our own thing.
This shouldn't be a suprise. Of course Microsoft wants to dominate and control the industry. Obviously, it better guarantees profit. But Microsoft is far beyond worrying over the next Quarterly Report. This is really about who calls the shots on the direction of the Industry. If Microsoft can maintain dominance, it will find it easier to enact its vision for the future by laying it down as a defacto standard.
There is a subtle point to this issue. Open Source is not simply a competitor to Microsoft. It is a fundimental threat to its entire business.
Linux (and perhapse the BSD's) threaten to turn the OS in to a commodity. Remember that Microsoft rose to dominance on the raising tide of commodity hardware. That process happened because IBM misjudged the importance of microcomputers, rushed to market with a mostly OTS platform, and then lost control of that platform. If the OS goes the same route as microcomputer hardware, then Microsoft will find itself in the same position as IBM. A major player in the IT Industry... but no longer calling the shots.
However, a provisions from our friend the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201) makes it illegal to bypass an overt technological protection that restricts (a) access or (b) protects the rights of the author.
There is already a lot covering the distributed nature of the FastTrack protocol. This alone seems to nullify the argument. But let's assume that there are central servers involved. Or let's transpose this argument to IM services that certainly use central servers.
The issue is bypassing a technology that restricts access. However, no such action is being taken. Authentication and access control is adhered to. Keep in mind that the DMCA specifically allows reverse-engineering for compatibility. Although I must admit... this tidbit of the DMCA seems to be ignored.
Think of this as breaking open a safe (illegal) to get to something inside that you're allowed to copy (legal).
Think of it as opening a safe that you are authorized to open, using a combination you are authorized to use, but deciding against wearing the official Acme Safe Company safe gloves while doing it.
Still, companies like E-bay have been successful in using trespass (to chattles) to keep people off their servers if they make it clear that they don't want them on there.
Keep in mind that E-Bay is not simply a network composed of users. The content is provided by users. But the system itself is entirely owned and operated by E-Bay.
You bring up cell phones. Would it be my right to reverse engineer my cell phone, and create my own custom phone to get on their network and not pay a dime?
No - that's fraud. To be able to use that network "and not pay a dime" would involve some method of misrepresenting your identity. Now - if you reverse engineer your phone and still identify your account, sure. A simpler example would be building your own landline telephone.
It will take actually selling it in quantity to show that there is a real place for Linux in the propriatary software market.
I'm curious as to the sales for native Linux versions of first-run proprietary games. I know I've bought a few - and I'm not a big games buyer (I don't have much time). The odd thing is that as I buy games for my Linux desktop... I end up buying additional copies for members of my household who run Windows (mainly for games).
Besides, there has been no legal defense of the GPL yet since nobody has enough money to defend it. It hasn't even proven to be a truly viable license, yet.
A very interesting point.
Court cases have already upheld various parts of shrink-wrap and click-through licenses that restrict rights granted to consumers by Copyright. Meanwhile, the GPL leaves those same rights intact. Furthermore, it extends traditional Copyright rights if the licensee agrees to the license.
The court cases over shrink-wrap licensing have already established that the license only has to make the offer and the licensee can either accept or decline the offer by either discarding the material being licensed or taking action covered by the license. Therefore, the GPL is very easy to initiate by simply beginning to distribute a work based on GPL code.
So... exactly what about the GPL leads you to believe that it must be proven? After all, I doubt there are demands that each and every variation of proprietary licenses be taken before a court before they are taken seriously.
Since many administrators use nmap routinely for work, it would be a matter of your lawer showing that indeed the primary purpose of the tool is not to crack other systems.
Why should I have to even have a lawyer? If I'm in court because I am accused of unauthorized access or whatnot, then fine. But as the law is currently written, I will soon become a criminal solely because I have in my possetion an assortment of tools that MAY be used to commit a computer crime. Even if I haven't. The law makes no distinction for intent.
Let me stress this again. The law does not make a distinction for intent.
Sure - nmap is used routinely by sysadmins and assorted security types. However, it is also routinely used by crackers and assorted computer criminals. The law doesn't allow for all possible uses. It demands a definition based on primary use. And in the case of nmap, this is not as clear as you claim.
This becomes even more murky with other tools. Penetration tools, exploit code, root kits, virus code... all of this has legitimate use. Whether it is designed PRIMARILY for criminal use or not is certainly questionable. Having worked with law enforcement and other Govt agents, I am convinced that given the oportunity all this will become illegal. Despite any routine, authorized use of these tools.
And your example about the PGP creator shows what I was getting at. Just because the potential is there doesn't mean it will or is even likely to occur. Obviously somewhere higher up, someone didn't feel their case met a word with the same effect that primary is having here.
Good point. But keep in mind that PGP itself was never illegal. Exporting it was. Whether Phil Zimmerman exported PGP via putting it on the Internet was the question (I believe he always claimed someone else had posted the code).
Meanwhile, go back to DeCCS. The DMCA does make provisions for certain types of activities. And while DeCCS is certainly used for some of those activities, it still is viewed as a copy circumvention tool and runs afoul of the law.
You claim that these words make the law more solid. My observations lead me to believe that they make things far less solid.
...here is an unfortunate precedent for this company: just as users of mp3 sites wanted (at that stage) something for nothing, so linux users are generally still looking at the system as a cheaper, or free, alternative to those on the market. For Lindows to make a decent profit, it will either have to change the culture of its user base, or make serious inroads into the entrenched Windows market.
Unlike all the Windows users who like to "pirate" their applications. The workings of the scene itself may not be about free stuff. But they certainly feed a rather large mass of people who like getting stuff for free. This, of course, doesn't mean that there are no paying customers for Windows or Windows applications.
Enter Linux. Sure - people like free stuff. But that doesn't mean all Linux users won't pay for something. In every environment I've worked in for the last 9 years, the organization I worked for could afford anything they want to include Windows and all commercial Unix products. They ran all these environments... and Linux. They would even pay for Linux support and applications that ran on Linux. And today my Organization pays for RedHat Enterprise.
As for me... my own workstation at home is Debian Linux. My laptop is Mandrake - from a boxed set I purchased at the local Best Buy. I also own several commercial games that I purchased either at a local store or online. I prefer Open Source applications but will pay a fee for software when there is sufficient reason too. And I do the same at work.
Sure - Lindows has a hell of a rough road in front of them. Anybody trying to launch a desktop OS in to this market does. And fighting dominant desktop environments such as wintel and MacOS is tough enough without also competing against other Linux vendors. But whether Linux users will pay is not the issue. They will. They do.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to point out where I said I dislike targeted ads? I don't mind it. As long as I'm not being tracked to do it.
Sure. Doubleclick did that. Their privacy policy assured you that your ID cookie was anonymous. And they repeated ad nausium in the press that you were anonymous and they do not and would not ever associate your ID to an identity.
Then they began the merger with Abacus Direct (the largest direct mail firm in the US), announced a program with partner sites to link IDs to names, and changed their privacy policy. Public backlash (and possibly the FCC investigation) caused them to put off these plans. The more cynical would suggest that they are biding their time until they have managed to buy the right laws before continuing.
So... exactly what kind of "guarantee" would be acceptable? I tend to think there are none.
Starbuck's charges for their service (TMobile). Basic free service is a nice edge for the local shop who has to compete with the coffeshop powerhouse.
Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between ignorance and humor.
I'm behind all that you had to say until this point. The issue I have with an "anonymous" cookie is that there is no guarantee that it remains anonymous. Look at Doubleclick and its plans to merge with Abacus Direct. Part of that plan was to have client sites that link names to cookies. Suddenly, an entire history of anonymous browsing is linked to a full-on identity.
As a side note - these plans were put on hold but not (as far I know) canceled. This will be a returning issue, I'm sure.
Fair enough point. But then, wireless access should also be a draw to the business itself. I splurge on the local coffee shop more often now that my big-cup-o-caffeine comes with connectivity. I can nip out of the office, get some coffee, and then VPN back to work and catch up on stuff without interruptions from people dropping by my desk.
Sounds great to me. Everyone gets to use their favorite interface. Or, better yet, use the particular method best suited at the time. A laudable goal.
Has anyone managed to do it?
I've never configured an OSX box, so I have no idea how its done there. But in my experience with various flavors of Unix and Windows, it is all a hodge-podge of various methods.
Solaris and HP/UX have some basic GUI config tools. They'll help show how to do something. Or if you're just not too experienced in some particular procedure. But otherwise, they're crutches that are best left behind as soon as possible. After all - it's Unix; heavy on commands and text configs.
Windows is full of GUI goodness. Unless you're configuring something that doesn't have a GUI option. Then you're doing a registry hack (unless you download a special tool GUI tool for said hack). Playing with the registry is remarkably like toying with a text config file - without the comments. And then there's the additional command-line tools you can get to either make configurations via scripting, etc. or when the GUI is absolutly horrid to use (IPSec filters).
This and your previous point 3 brings up something I mentioned in another discussion.
I like text file configs. I especially like how the base config files in much of the Linux stuff I deal with are very well commented. Some have more documentation tucked in as comments than configuration. These comments tend to explain the option, why one may or may not want it, and some possible choices. Safe defaults are set. Additional non-standard options are available but commented out. Very few options are a 1 or 0. And, of course, I can make configurations using my favorite text editor just as easily SSH'd in from accross the country as right at the keyboard.
That's not to say I am fundimentally apposed to a nice GUI full of clicky-clicky goodness (I do plenty of clicky-clicky myself). But it seems that the text config doesn't get the credit it deserves for its versitility and usability.
And... occasional fashion trends aside... when you get home, that tag comes off. And along with it goes the UPC code.
Compare this with RFID tags. Industry spokespeople have talked about embedding the tag in the clothing. Which makes sense while you're tracking inventory (and loss prevention). However, it presents an issue once that item and its tag leaves the front door in the hands of its new owner.
I do. Really. I like the multiple windows. But then, my environment handles this gracefully. I had to go back to my Windows box at work to take a look at how it behaves in that environment - and yea, I suppose it clutters up the taskbar (I never noticed). Although, GIMP 2.0 does allow you to minimize this using tabs and docking dialogs.
Having said that... yes. Multiple windows threw me when I first fired up the GIMP. It was kind of odd. It took short while to get used to it. But I have come to prefer it.
I did this with a laptop at work. I installed apt-get for RPM. Modified my sources. Did an "apt-get update" followed by an "apt-get dist-upgrade" followed by an "apt-get upgrade" to finalize a few trailing edge packages. It all went fairly smoothly.
There was one odd bug having to do with some library for GNOME that, once I had it figured out, required removal and re-installation of the appropriate package. Sorry - I forget the details. None-the-less... I was half expecting to have to reload the thing. Went fairly well.
Of course - this is a laptop sitting in front of me. Keep in mind that my very tired and currently fuzzy memory may not be recalling anything that would have caused massive heartache if I had been doing this process remotely.
YMMV.
RedHat came out to our center last year to do a presentation. One of their claims is that Linux moves too fast for some Enterprise developer's tastes.
An enterprise application developer will get done certifying that a specific build of RedHat will work with their application to their satisfaction when they realize that the official, stable build of several libraries have already jumped a few increments. Which, of course, invalidates their entire QA process.
RedHat decided to handle this issue by developing a slower-moving "Enterprise" target. This offers a more stable and predictable platform for enterprise application developers to develop for, QA, and then provide support for their products on that certified platform.
This was before the Fedora project had been announced. However, even at that point, they were saying that the RedHat Linux we all knew would be the faster-paced, more bleeding-edge version.
Good question. Do the RFID tags run Linux?
Where do you think the RFID tag goes on that pair of jeans you buy from WalMart?
Care to point to the UPC code printed on the fabric of your pants or shirt? Do you have an idea on how one could create a UPC scanner that effectively scans all UPC codes walking past a sensor (grocery stores still have problems with this - although much more effective over the years)?
Sounds great. I'm all for it. As long as the RFID tags used are permamently disabled once I've made my purchase.
Of course, 802.11 technology has an approximate range limit of 150ft. Or does it?
I understand that there's a fundimental difference between a wifi node and an RFID tag (active vs. passive). However, we all know people do things with technology that are never even considered when that tech is first introduced. And I've always seen RF as an odd bird anyway.
Oddly enough... later in that same article....
Yes. But when a Corporate customer is thinking Sun, are they thinking about their desktop or the server room?
My environment used to sport quite a few HP and Sun workstation labs for various scientific and engineering applications. However, there has been a very strong move to replacing those environments with Windows desktops. The only advancement of "Unix" on the desktop that I've heard of involves Linux deployments. And those are not Sun.
This shouldn't be a suprise. Of course Microsoft wants to dominate and control the industry. Obviously, it better guarantees profit. But Microsoft is far beyond worrying over the next Quarterly Report. This is really about who calls the shots on the direction of the Industry. If Microsoft can maintain dominance, it will find it easier to enact its vision for the future by laying it down as a defacto standard.
There is a subtle point to this issue. Open Source is not simply a competitor to Microsoft. It is a fundimental threat to its entire business.
Linux (and perhapse the BSD's) threaten to turn the OS in to a commodity. Remember that Microsoft rose to dominance on the raising tide of commodity hardware. That process happened because IBM misjudged the importance of microcomputers, rushed to market with a mostly OTS platform, and then lost control of that platform. If the OS goes the same route as microcomputer hardware, then Microsoft will find itself in the same position as IBM. A major player in the IT Industry... but no longer calling the shots.
...or is that cry "hacker"?
Cry havoc, and let loose the rights of engineers!
There is already a lot covering the distributed nature of the FastTrack protocol. This alone seems to nullify the argument. But let's assume that there are central servers involved. Or let's transpose this argument to IM services that certainly use central servers.
The issue is bypassing a technology that restricts access. However, no such action is being taken. Authentication and access control is adhered to. Keep in mind that the DMCA specifically allows reverse-engineering for compatibility. Although I must admit... this tidbit of the DMCA seems to be ignored.
Think of it as opening a safe that you are authorized to open, using a combination you are authorized to use, but deciding against wearing the official Acme Safe Company safe gloves while doing it.
Keep in mind that E-Bay is not simply a network composed of users. The content is provided by users. But the system itself is entirely owned and operated by E-Bay.
No - that's fraud. To be able to use that network "and not pay a dime" would involve some method of misrepresenting your identity. Now - if you reverse engineer your phone and still identify your account, sure. A simpler example would be building your own landline telephone.
A New New Hope.
...years ago, you gave us something special... help us Obit. Lucas Talent... you're our only hope...
[Box Office slowly crawls accross the screen]
Fanboy:
Hmmm. There's probably a much better joke in this somewhere. But I don't feel like putting in the work.
So I'll toss in lots of special effects later.
Is that before or after Sorbo axed their main writer? I seem to remember Sorbo wanted to take the show in more directions. More boom, less talk.
I'm curious as to the sales for native Linux versions of first-run proprietary games. I know I've bought a few - and I'm not a big games buyer (I don't have much time). The odd thing is that as I buy games for my Linux desktop... I end up buying additional copies for members of my household who run Windows (mainly for games).
A very interesting point.
Court cases have already upheld various parts of shrink-wrap and click-through licenses that restrict rights granted to consumers by Copyright. Meanwhile, the GPL leaves those same rights intact. Furthermore, it extends traditional Copyright rights if the licensee agrees to the license.
The court cases over shrink-wrap licensing have already established that the license only has to make the offer and the licensee can either accept or decline the offer by either discarding the material being licensed or taking action covered by the license. Therefore, the GPL is very easy to initiate by simply beginning to distribute a work based on GPL code.
So... exactly what about the GPL leads you to believe that it must be proven? After all, I doubt there are demands that each and every variation of proprietary licenses be taken before a court before they are taken seriously.
Why should I have to even have a lawyer? If I'm in court because I am accused of unauthorized access or whatnot, then fine. But as the law is currently written, I will soon become a criminal solely because I have in my possetion an assortment of tools that MAY be used to commit a computer crime. Even if I haven't. The law makes no distinction for intent.
Let me stress this again. The law does not make a distinction for intent.
Sure - nmap is used routinely by sysadmins and assorted security types. However, it is also routinely used by crackers and assorted computer criminals. The law doesn't allow for all possible uses. It demands a definition based on primary use. And in the case of nmap, this is not as clear as you claim.
This becomes even more murky with other tools. Penetration tools, exploit code, root kits, virus code... all of this has legitimate use. Whether it is designed PRIMARILY for criminal use or not is certainly questionable. Having worked with law enforcement and other Govt agents, I am convinced that given the oportunity all this will become illegal. Despite any routine, authorized use of these tools.
Good point. But keep in mind that PGP itself was never illegal. Exporting it was. Whether Phil Zimmerman exported PGP via putting it on the Internet was the question (I believe he always claimed someone else had posted the code).
Meanwhile, go back to DeCCS. The DMCA does make provisions for certain types of activities. And while DeCCS is certainly used for some of those activities, it still is viewed as a copy circumvention tool and runs afoul of the law.
You claim that these words make the law more solid. My observations lead me to believe that they make things far less solid.
Unlike all the Windows users who like to "pirate" their applications. The workings of the scene itself may not be about free stuff. But they certainly feed a rather large mass of people who like getting stuff for free. This, of course, doesn't mean that there are no paying customers for Windows or Windows applications.
Enter Linux. Sure - people like free stuff. But that doesn't mean all Linux users won't pay for something. In every environment I've worked in for the last 9 years, the organization I worked for could afford anything they want to include Windows and all commercial Unix products. They ran all these environments... and Linux. They would even pay for Linux support and applications that ran on Linux. And today my Organization pays for RedHat Enterprise.
As for me... my own workstation at home is Debian Linux. My laptop is Mandrake - from a boxed set I purchased at the local Best Buy. I also own several commercial games that I purchased either at a local store or online. I prefer Open Source applications but will pay a fee for software when there is sufficient reason too. And I do the same at work.
Sure - Lindows has a hell of a rough road in front of them. Anybody trying to launch a desktop OS in to this market does. And fighting dominant desktop environments such as wintel and MacOS is tough enough without also competing against other Linux vendors. But whether Linux users will pay is not the issue. They will. They do.
But will they pay for Lindows?