A key feature of LinuxOpen is its ability to run on the most advanced PC workstations with devices that increase communication bandwidth, such as ADSL and cable modem.
Having only limited contact with either ADSL or cable "modems", I'm going to go out on a limb here...
The technology that'll require sophisticated proprietary device drivers? NICs. Ethernet. Plugged into the device in question. Man - that was tough.
OK... maybe there's embeded products coming down the line that'll require something more... complicated. But why?
Set up a p0rn click-through site. Fill it with content criticizing Linux. Compound it with a "feedback" extra-banner-maker feature. Watch the money roll in.
As an added bonus, offer a "Proprietary, Secret Linux Distribution bundled with Viagra and a Database listing 100s of Hot Babes who think Linux is SEXY!!!!"
File for an IPO.
Say... is this more ethical than "get rich in realestate" kits sold on TV?
Linux offers Experience
on
WinLinux 2000
·
· Score: 3
i think that if you are going to install linux, you've got to learn a few things. i sure as hell didn't do my first linux install as a *nix-virgin. i say spend a few weeks, maybe a month or two, on a shell. where you can learn basic commands and basic filesystem/compiling/kernel/lib/etc stuff.
I disagree.
I've ran into a number of folks in the IT industry who express interest in Unix. For the most part, their entire computer experience has been Microsoft products. They don't have access to Unix - but they're interested. My advice? Used hardware that'll handle Linux is dirt cheap. Buy an old Pentium, install Linux, smack it around a bit. Experiment. Learn. If you destroy it, call it a lesson learned. Re-install and repeat.
Experience is indeed the best teacher. Linux (and lets not forget *BSD) offers a low barrier option to that experience.
I think you just described a win-win situation for OEMs.... or, at least, OEMs not dedicated to white box PC clones.
1.Thin-client costs less
I'm sure the component costs area also less. Since your heavy lifting is being done by your server, which the OEM also makes, it also means less of a moving target to produce workable thin clients. You sell more of these boxes at a cheap price (and still pull down a profit per unit). Then you sell the back-end server to support them - along with support contracts, etc.
2.Business PC purchases would no longer be driving Home PC development. That means that Home PC prices (or volume) would have to rise to pick up the slack
Currently, cheap PCs are a commodity item - bussinesses discovered they don't need "latest, greatest" to run Word. So they go for cheap. Consequently, cheap also drives the consumer market. Direct business to thin clients. Direct Average Joe User to embeded devices and game consoles. What's left? Hobbyest and power users. Folks willing to blow a higher profit on power machines. Voila - stand alone PCs stop being a commodity item. Prices rise and a profit can once again be made in the PC arena.
Of course, this is more of a Devil's Advocate argument. I don't completely buy into the thin client and ebeded device concepts. It'll take a good implementation before it becomes popular. But then, the same thing was said about PDAs. Pilot did it and changed the market.
And finally, we'd have to assume software houses and white box OEMs just sit back and let it happen. I wouldn't bet on that either. Clone shops could either clone the thin clients or price white box PCs at an amazingly competative rate. Meanwhile, software houses produce products that enable existing fleets of white boxes to handle the task of a thin client (therefore saving existing fleets as well as opening up future sales of both software and hardware).
Internal documents outline the use of Elves at Apple in an unpublished commercial. They were going to dance around in shiny, colorfull suits. Then someone scuttled the idea with the "tanks and supercomputers" angle.
That's fine if you want to use SSH2. SSH2 has a very restrictive license. Its my understanding that SSH2 does not have as great a install base as SSH1 because of this. I've also seen some grumblings about performance - but nothing solid.
Personally I don't see the point with this thing at all. Ok, you can now burn a cd with more music on it, but you are still burned by physical media, and the player is still big an clumsy.
I tend to agree to a point. The media is a limitation. It requires more bulk. And having to burn a CD isn't as fluid as a flash memory solution.
But flash memory has a major drawback right now: price. Its expensive. This leads to either overpriced or under-powered solutions. I hope this will change. The demand for inexpensive memory modules will be driven by other devices such as digital cameras and PDAs. Maybe MP3 players can help fuel that demand. But until the demand enables lowered prices... flash memory is too expensive for all but premium devices.
The CD media solution offers the price break needed. CD burners are inexpensive and so is the media (depending on how many coasters you make). The media allows for a considerable amount of storage. It is the perfect solution for THIS stage - an inexpensive, widely accepted format to get MP3 players into the masses.
But CDs are NOT a step to the future. Its a lateral step - a solution using current technology. I look forward to when we can make the next step without it costing an arm and leg.
The "convergence" comment has kicked up quite a bit of dust. Detractors have called forth examples of WebTV, web browsing appliances, and running Gimp on your VCR - sheer sillyness. And I agree. The "all-in-one" ideas pushed out into consumer space the last few years seem to miss the point. But I would suggest that this is not a problem with the idea of convergence, but the implementation. Convergence shouldn't be the device; it should be a sum of devices - a network.
I feel that the idea of convergence is a good one. Convert everything to data and make that data available to everything else.
That doesn't mean opening spreadsheets and cruising the web on my refrigerator. But it might mean downloading an inventory from my fridge to my desktop, making a shoping list, then taking that shoping list to the store on my PDA (or sending it to an online grocer if you so desire).
I might be wondering what's on TV and can connect to my TV device to see what's on. Maybe there's a show I want to catch (seeing a link on a web site or having a friend send me it via IRC, email, or an instant messanger); I can program my VCR to record it... remotely, with little effort.
I'm sitting down relaxing in front of the TV. A chime rings that I've got email. I log into my desktop from my thinclient message pad. A friend has sent me email with a link to a show I would be interested in. Tapping on the link sends it to my TV device which tunes in. I like the show. I log into the TV device and tell it to save the data instead of dumping it at the end of the show. I'll send the show to my desktop and burn it to DVD after its is done.
The possiblities are endless. But the implementation relys on specialized devices networked via standardized protocols. Those protocols could be ones we already have used in creative ways, or new protocols developed to handle specialized tasks. I would favor creative use of existing protocols.
Like SUN likes to say, "The computer is the network". The architecture to make this all possible is already showing up. The marketplace is beginning to see the advantage to a home network as more workers are exposed to the technology at work. This used to mean stringing CAT5 cable through the house. Now, it means technologies such as Apple's AirPort.
The pieces are coming togeather. Now all we need are the smart VCRs instead of the WebTVs.
I hope that I don't stand alone is saying that I am sick and tired of hearing of companies that try to integrate features into products that really don't need them.
I agree to a point. However, I think that you're confusing the roles of the technologies being discussed.
Let's take the idea of a "digital VCR" being able to web browse. This doesn't mean I would want to use it to hit slashdot. It may, however, mean I can use it to hit a TV programming guide. With a few clicks, I'm set to record my favorite shows. Its a matter of what one is expected to DO with the technology, not the technology itself.
Digital VCR is a poor attempt to stop the VCR from dying at the long-sword of the DVD player.
Once again, I'd argue that you're taking an "all in one" view when its not needed. DVD provides excellent quality for pre-recorded media. This is not TiVo's niche. The "digital VCR" provides a temporary method to record a show and manipulate that data. Perhapse a TiVo device with a recordable DVD would the the best future solution? Watch a DVD movie, record TV shows, and save TV Shows to DVD if they're good.
Heh. Without giving it much thought (path to ruin right there), this doesn't sound too impossible to do. Its been done in other industries.
In paintball, there's a good deal of attention payed to splashy, fancy finnishes on customized paintguns. Usually it involves various forms of annodizing or powder coating. At the World Cup in Orlando one year, I saw an outfit that was using... stickers!
Actually, what they were using was tape used to decorate offroad vehicles. It came in a varried selection of splashy colors and the vendor warentied that the finnish would last until the user wanted it stripped and another pattern put in place (a selling feature).
I would imagine a simular thing could be done with your standard case. And it would make dealing with front panels on sensitive devices (CDROM drive) much easier.
I was just given a copy of The Unix CD Bookshelf as a gift. At first, I was suprised at the price (List price of $69.95 for six tittles - UNIX Power Tools, 2nd Edition; Learning the UNIX Operating System, 4th Edition; sed & awk, 2nd Edition; UNIX in a Nutshell, System V Edition (with a dead-tree copy included); Learning the vi Editor, 5th edition; Learning the Korn Shell). Then I was shocked to find out that the books were published in HTML with an optional Java based search engine. This leads to several questions.
First, in this day and age, electronic publications (e-books) seem to be synonymous with encryption and proprietary data formats to protect copyright. Why did O'Reilly & Associates decide to use an open, and technically unprotected, format? Do you think this is a big risk? What advantages outweigh possible risks?
Secondly, this CD set provides an amazing cost savings. UNIX Power Tools alone lists for about $60. Are electronic formats cheaper to produce? Or are the CD sets considered accompanyment to already sold paper books? Is there a risk of cutting into existing traditional book sales?
I'd like to quickly say how much I like the CD set. The open format makes using it a breeze - I got a chuckle at Lynx being listed amoung the acceptable browsers (very cool). An electronic copy makes it so much easier to keep my reference material close-at-hand (no more "damn... I left that book at home / work"). I've really enjoyed this format; please consider offering more tittles on CD.
It used to be "what happens if Linus gets hit by a bus" now its "What happens if Linus and Alan both get hit by busses". I guess someone like DaveM would take over (yes next years question is "What happens if Linus, Alan and DaveM get...")
Reading this, a strange image comes to mind....
"Thank you for coming, gentlemen..."
"Cut the crap, Bill. Why did you want us here?"
The speaker glares. "No names", he replies. "As for why I called us togeather... I understand this is highly irregular. Normally we would be attempting to tear each other apart in the marketplace. And I know that means there's no love lost towards me. However, today we are seeing a bigger enemy. All our business is dependant on proprietary technology. Today, the threat to our business models is not each other... it's open source."
There is a wave of grumblings and grudging agreements. One speaker blurts out "OK... sure... but what do we do? Many of our numbers are attempting to embrace it to survive..."
The speaker frowns. "You'll notice THEY aren't here. No... there is another solution. Destroy open source. Destroy its poster child: Linux."
More grumbling. The speaker grins.
"Obviously you think I'm insane. Gentelmen, I'm not. We have a solution. Cut off the head, and the snake dies. You'll note that a year or two ago... if a bus had hit Linus Torvalds... it may have stopped this menace before it surfaced. Now it would take two, possibly three bus incidents. Gentlemen, we must act now! The plan is simple... at the next big Linux convention, we pool our collective resources togeather and charter lots and lots of busses...."
The plot thickens. And I swear to cut down on Penguin mints...
D'oh! OK. Yea. I did forget that little annoyance.:)
I would have much preferred it if the show followed numerous groups. Maybe flyboys and groundtroops. The concept of highly trained pilots being tossed into ground conflicts (requireing completely different training) was... ahem... silly.
That's a good observation. And it begs the question of why so many get so venomous towards Microsoft? After all - they're not the only software house currently in business who puts out buggy products. They're not the only company with Corporate goals. Why pick on them?
If I were to put one complaint above all others, I would label it "arrogance". Microsoft has an abundance of pure arrogance. Granted... they've not cornered the market (some Linux advocates have their own stashes of the stuff).
Microsoft's arrogance manifests itself in many ways. MS is slow to admit to security problems. They're just as slow to admit to bugs - and these days likely to charge you to fix them. They make some rather large claims about products that often fail to live up to expectations. They tend to absorb and destroy innovation. They'll lock away a technology and scream for open standards on technology they don't own. Then once they have a grip on that standard, they again tend to "extend" it to the point of incompatability with non-Microsoft products. All this is done as they use propoganda to attack competitors.
Linux is SUPPOSED to be different. In general, Linux has no hidden agendas. Development is done in the open. If there are problems, everyone gets to know them immediately. And they get fixed. That's not to say there will never be an entity within the Linux camp that will try to pull of simular strategies as Microsoft (which is why RedHat gets so much scrutiny). After all, Microsoft learned a lot of its strategy from IBM. However, Linux is not locked to any single entity. If someone did try those tactics, there's a good chance they'll become marginalized. There's hope in that.
The ideal thing might be for Red Hat to suggest a suitable name for copies of its distribution. In the absence of such a suggestion, the community should come up with a well-recognized name of its own. We suggest "Pink Shorts" in the hopes that somebody else will come up with something better.
And really... that's the issue.
RedHat must protect its name. The public is simply not familiar with the Linux environment. In the traditional corporate OS world - when you buy SomeOS, it came from the company that produces it and includes all the usual support, documentation, etc. If not, its an illeagal copy and it means fines and/or jail time for someone. With Linux, and its distros (corporate or not), this is not the case. It is quite legal to copy and sell Debian, RedHat, and _Sprocket_OS Linux. The problem is... how to keep from confusing your average non-clued customer?
The whole issue boils down to one question. If not "Red Hat Linux", what can one call it? Take a cue from Debian and call it "Unofficial RedHat"? Or will the entire "Red Hat" name be verbotten?
I saw S:AAB as more of an origional, rather than copy. It had a very different feel to it than Star Trek, B5, or XFiles. It seemed, if anything, a "WWII Air Combat" series in space.
I miss it. I loved the show. Alas, its one of those things that weren't meant to be.
I've always thought that Intel's real reason for the ID was to aid in the tracking of stolen chips. If there are other good uses for the ID, I haven't thought of them.
Hmmm. That's actually a good possibility. Though, I'm not sure how big of an issue that actually is.
Though, I'm of the opinion that the big problem for Intel is counterfeit chips; processors that have been remarked as higher speed chips. While they've put some hardware in place to make overclocking much more difficult - I think embedding a model number would have been better. Of course... this leads to the big "Is there really a difference between X MHz and Y MHz chips" question/conspiracy theory.
Thus, your comments on the easy foiling of software methods also applies to the sending of a hardware ID since it requires software to do the sending.
OK. I can see where you misunderstood my own understanding of the issue concerning how that ID can be used. And, indeed, a solely software based scheme could effectively do the same thing. And in both cases, it would require the interaction of a user to disable. But allow me to point out two distinctions between a hardware and software ID.
The ability to remove the ID is important. If I find a software ID and delete it - its gone. For that software to work again, it will have to generate another ID. It makes it harder to continue to identify me. With a hard-coded ID, once the identifying process is running again, I can be linked with the same identity as before.
A second point is how to set up the identification scheme. A software based scheme would require access to more resources. Not only will you have to get the person to execute the code, but you'll need to store that ID somewhere on the host machine. Of course, a minor point is also having to generate more complex (and larger) code to not only read the ID, but generate and store (possibly hide) the ID. With a hardware ID, its a simple matter of reading a register. I would suspect java-enabled marketing banners could do that with ease. Since there's no writing or control of additional resources, the code will be small and unlikely to attract notice... or leave evidence of its actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Having only limited contact with either ADSL or cable "modems", I'm going to go out on a limb here...
The technology that'll require sophisticated proprietary device drivers? NICs. Ethernet. Plugged into the device in question. Man - that was tough.
OK... maybe there's embeded products coming down the line that'll require something more... complicated. But why?
As an added bonus, offer a "Proprietary, Secret Linux Distribution bundled with Viagra and a Database listing 100s of Hot Babes who think Linux is SEXY!!!!"
File for an IPO.
Say... is this more ethical than "get rich in realestate" kits sold on TV?
I disagree.
I've ran into a number of folks in the IT industry who express interest in Unix. For the most part, their entire computer experience has been Microsoft products. They don't have access to Unix - but they're interested. My advice? Used hardware that'll handle Linux is dirt cheap. Buy an old Pentium, install Linux, smack it around a bit. Experiment. Learn. If you destroy it, call it a lesson learned. Re-install and repeat.
Experience is indeed the best teacher. Linux (and lets not forget *BSD) offers a low barrier option to that experience.
1.Thin-client costs less
I'm sure the component costs area also less. Since your heavy lifting is being done by your server, which the OEM also makes, it also means less of a moving target to produce workable thin clients. You sell more of these boxes at a cheap price (and still pull down a profit per unit). Then you sell the back-end server to support them - along with support contracts, etc.
2.Business PC purchases would no longer be driving Home PC development. That means that Home PC prices (or volume) would have to rise to pick up the slack
Currently, cheap PCs are a commodity item - bussinesses discovered they don't need "latest, greatest" to run Word. So they go for cheap. Consequently, cheap also drives the consumer market. Direct business to thin clients. Direct Average Joe User to embeded devices and game consoles. What's left? Hobbyest and power users. Folks willing to blow a higher profit on power machines. Voila - stand alone PCs stop being a commodity item. Prices rise and a profit can once again be made in the PC arena.
Of course, this is more of a Devil's Advocate argument. I don't completely buy into the thin client and ebeded device concepts. It'll take a good implementation before it becomes popular. But then, the same thing was said about PDAs. Pilot did it and changed the market.
And finally, we'd have to assume software houses and white box OEMs just sit back and let it happen. I wouldn't bet on that either. Clone shops could either clone the thin clients or price white box PCs at an amazingly competative rate. Meanwhile, software houses produce products that enable existing fleets of white boxes to handle the task of a thin client (therefore saving existing fleets as well as opening up future sales of both software and hardware).
"Some companies loose their services because of a thunderstorm - it takes a major hurricane to shut down RedHat!"
In any case, its not a sight that instills warm fuzzies.
Internal documents outline the use of Elves at Apple in an unpublished commercial. They were going to dance around in shiny, colorfull suits. Then someone scuttled the idea with the "tanks and supercomputers" angle.
Pitty.
While I respect the opinions of the author, I'm not entirely sure I agree with everything he has to say.
That's fine if you want to use SSH2. SSH2 has a very restrictive license. Its my understanding that SSH2 does not have as great a install base as SSH1 because of this. I've also seen some grumblings about performance - but nothing solid.
That's a part of the SSH2 package.
I tend to agree to a point. The media is a limitation. It requires more bulk. And having to burn a CD isn't as fluid as a flash memory solution.
But flash memory has a major drawback right now: price. Its expensive. This leads to either overpriced or under-powered solutions. I hope this will change. The demand for inexpensive memory modules will be driven by other devices such as digital cameras and PDAs. Maybe MP3 players can help fuel that demand. But until the demand enables lowered prices... flash memory is too expensive for all but premium devices.
The CD media solution offers the price break needed. CD burners are inexpensive and so is the media (depending on how many coasters you make). The media allows for a considerable amount of storage. It is the perfect solution for THIS stage - an inexpensive, widely accepted format to get MP3 players into the masses.
But CDs are NOT a step to the future. Its a lateral step - a solution using current technology. I look forward to when we can make the next step without it costing an arm and leg.
I feel that the idea of convergence is a good one. Convert everything to data and make that data available to everything else.
That doesn't mean opening spreadsheets and cruising the web on my refrigerator. But it might mean downloading an inventory from my fridge to my desktop, making a shoping list, then taking that shoping list to the store on my PDA (or sending it to an online grocer if you so desire).
I might be wondering what's on TV and can connect to my TV device to see what's on. Maybe there's a show I want to catch (seeing a link on a web site or having a friend send me it via IRC, email, or an instant messanger); I can program my VCR to record it... remotely, with little effort.
I'm sitting down relaxing in front of the TV. A chime rings that I've got email. I log into my desktop from my thinclient message pad. A friend has sent me email with a link to a show I would be interested in. Tapping on the link sends it to my TV device which tunes in. I like the show. I log into the TV device and tell it to save the data instead of dumping it at the end of the show. I'll send the show to my desktop and burn it to DVD after its is done.
The possiblities are endless. But the implementation relys on specialized devices networked via standardized protocols. Those protocols could be ones we already have used in creative ways, or new protocols developed to handle specialized tasks. I would favor creative use of existing protocols.
Like SUN likes to say, "The computer is the network". The architecture to make this all possible is already showing up. The marketplace is beginning to see the advantage to a home network as more workers are exposed to the technology at work. This used to mean stringing CAT5 cable through the house. Now, it means technologies such as Apple's AirPort.
The pieces are coming togeather. Now all we need are the smart VCRs instead of the WebTVs.
I agree to a point. However, I think that you're confusing the roles of the technologies being discussed.
Let's take the idea of a "digital VCR" being able to web browse. This doesn't mean I would want to use it to hit slashdot. It may, however, mean I can use it to hit a TV programming guide. With a few clicks, I'm set to record my favorite shows. Its a matter of what one is expected to DO with the technology, not the technology itself.
Once again, I'd argue that you're taking an "all in one" view when its not needed. DVD provides excellent quality for pre-recorded media. This is not TiVo's niche. The "digital VCR" provides a temporary method to record a show and manipulate that data. Perhapse a TiVo device with a recordable DVD would the the best future solution? Watch a DVD movie, record TV shows, and save TV Shows to DVD if they're good.
In paintball, there's a good deal of attention payed to splashy, fancy finnishes on customized paintguns. Usually it involves various forms of annodizing or powder coating. At the World Cup in Orlando one year, I saw an outfit that was using... stickers!
Actually, what they were using was tape used to decorate offroad vehicles. It came in a varried selection of splashy colors and the vendor warentied that the finnish would last until the user wanted it stripped and another pattern put in place (a selling feature).
I would imagine a simular thing could be done with your standard case. And it would make dealing with front panels on sensitive devices (CDROM drive) much easier.
I believe /. had a blurb on this earlier. I remember noting that it looked like an old Monorail system. :)
First, in this day and age, electronic publications (e-books) seem to be synonymous with encryption and proprietary data formats to protect copyright. Why did O'Reilly & Associates decide to use an open, and technically unprotected, format? Do you think this is a big risk? What advantages outweigh possible risks?
Secondly, this CD set provides an amazing cost savings. UNIX Power Tools alone lists for about $60. Are electronic formats cheaper to produce? Or are the CD sets considered accompanyment to already sold paper books? Is there a risk of cutting into existing traditional book sales?
I'd like to quickly say how much I like the CD set. The open format makes using it a breeze - I got a chuckle at Lynx being listed amoung the acceptable browsers (very cool). An electronic copy makes it so much easier to keep my reference material close-at-hand (no more "damn... I left that book at home / work"). I've really enjoyed this format; please consider offering more tittles on CD.
Reading this, a strange image comes to mind....
"Thank you for coming, gentlemen..."
"Cut the crap, Bill. Why did you want us here?"
The speaker glares. "No names", he replies. "As for why I called us togeather... I understand this is highly irregular. Normally we would be attempting to tear each other apart in the marketplace. And I know that means there's no love lost towards me. However, today we are seeing a bigger enemy. All our business is dependant on proprietary technology. Today, the threat to our business models is not each other... it's open source."
There is a wave of grumblings and grudging agreements. One speaker blurts out "OK... sure... but what do we do? Many of our numbers are attempting to embrace it to survive..."
The speaker frowns. "You'll notice THEY aren't here. No... there is another solution. Destroy open source. Destroy its poster child: Linux."
More grumbling. The speaker grins.
"Obviously you think I'm insane. Gentelmen, I'm not. We have a solution. Cut off the head, and the snake dies. You'll note that a year or two ago... if a bus had hit Linus Torvalds... it may have stopped this menace before it surfaced. Now it would take two, possibly three bus incidents. Gentlemen, we must act now! The plan is simple... at the next big Linux convention, we pool our collective resources togeather and charter lots and lots of busses...."
The plot thickens. And I swear to cut down on Penguin mints...
D'oh! OK. Yea. I did forget that little annoyance. :)
I would have much preferred it if the show followed numerous groups. Maybe flyboys and groundtroops. The concept of highly trained pilots being tossed into ground conflicts (requireing completely different training) was... ahem... silly.
If I were to put one complaint above all others, I would label it "arrogance". Microsoft has an abundance of pure arrogance. Granted... they've not cornered the market (some Linux advocates have their own stashes of the stuff).
Microsoft's arrogance manifests itself in many ways. MS is slow to admit to security problems. They're just as slow to admit to bugs - and these days likely to charge you to fix them. They make some rather large claims about products that often fail to live up to expectations. They tend to absorb and destroy innovation. They'll lock away a technology and scream for open standards on technology they don't own. Then once they have a grip on that standard, they again tend to "extend" it to the point of incompatability with non-Microsoft products. All this is done as they use propoganda to attack competitors.
Linux is SUPPOSED to be different. In general, Linux has no hidden agendas. Development is done in the open. If there are problems, everyone gets to know them immediately. And they get fixed. That's not to say there will never be an entity within the Linux camp that will try to pull of simular strategies as Microsoft (which is why RedHat gets so much scrutiny). After all, Microsoft learned a lot of its strategy from IBM. However, Linux is not locked to any single entity. If someone did try those tactics, there's a good chance they'll become marginalized. There's hope in that.
I had no idea Dr. Seuss did Linux distros.
And really... that's the issue.
RedHat must protect its name. The public is simply not familiar with the Linux environment. In the traditional corporate OS world - when you buy SomeOS, it came from the company that produces it and includes all the usual support, documentation, etc. If not, its an illeagal copy and it means fines and/or jail time for someone. With Linux, and its distros (corporate or not), this is not the case. It is quite legal to copy and sell Debian, RedHat, and _Sprocket_OS Linux. The problem is... how to keep from confusing your average non-clued customer?
The whole issue boils down to one question. If not "Red Hat Linux", what can one call it? Take a cue from Debian and call it "Unofficial RedHat"? Or will the entire "Red Hat" name be verbotten?
Its just a matter of time before we'll have GAP commercials designed to apeal to Slashdot readers.
I miss it. I loved the show. Alas, its one of those things that weren't meant to be.
Next, we'll see protesting sites publishing embarassing background and family histories of LinuxPPC coders.
Hmmm. That's actually a good possibility. Though, I'm not sure how big of an issue that actually is.
Though, I'm of the opinion that the big problem for Intel is counterfeit chips; processors that have been remarked as higher speed chips. While they've put some hardware in place to make overclocking much more difficult - I think embedding a model number would have been better. Of course... this leads to the big "Is there really a difference between X MHz and Y MHz chips" question/conspiracy theory.
OK. I can see where you misunderstood my own understanding of the issue concerning how that ID can be used. And, indeed, a solely software based scheme could effectively do the same thing. And in both cases, it would require the interaction of a user to disable. But allow me to point out two distinctions between a hardware and software ID.
The ability to remove the ID is important. If I find a software ID and delete it - its gone. For that software to work again, it will have to generate another ID. It makes it harder to continue to identify me. With a hard-coded ID, once the identifying process is running again, I can be linked with the same identity as before.
A second point is how to set up the identification scheme. A software based scheme would require access to more resources. Not only will you have to get the person to execute the code, but you'll need to store that ID somewhere on the host machine. Of course, a minor point is also having to generate more complex (and larger) code to not only read the ID, but generate and store (possibly hide) the ID. With a hardware ID, its a simple matter of reading a register. I would suspect java-enabled marketing banners could do that with ease. Since there's no writing or control of additional resources, the code will be small and unlikely to attract notice... or leave evidence of its actions.