CEO Ron Hovsepian is right; the buck stops with Novell. They're to blame. Not because their retail channel needs to be tweaked. But rather, they got in to bed with Microsoft! I mean, c'mon. Your hedging your bets on a technology that your partner is busy trying to bury. Yeah, sure... Microsoft is trying to help make Windows and Linux work together. Meanwhile, Microsoft's CEO is discussing Linux and so-called IP law like Eddy Izzard discussing the mortality of Englebert Humperdink. And Novell wants people to pay for the privilege of getting in to the middle of that?
Over the past few years, I've purchased licenses for Windows, Solaris, and Linux. Not once during these procurements did the name "Novell" come to mind.
...is what, *exactly* he thinks bad people can do with sharp images of buildings that they can't do with blurry images.
He notes that with sharp, detailed images you can see vents and elevator shafts. My God, man! VENTS and ELEVATOR SHAFTS! Have none of you even SEEN "Mission: Impossible"?!
(Note: the preceding message involves sarcasm. Normally such a notice is not required, but considering the subject, apparently some people DO take these things seriously).
Because, when I was in basic training (Air Force) we were told that we would have to do details(a.k.a. cleaning bitch duties)if we didn't go to church.
Same thing here. We were told we could go to the church service of choice but, lacking a preference, I believe it was the Methodist service that was suggested. I went one time. It was the only time I attended church while in the military.
The idea that this somehow makes the USAF a haven for Evangelicals is beyond me. I met a number of individuals who were religious to varying degrees. But most folks were either not especially religious or kept it to themselves.
How... odd. Enderle is always good for a chuckle. Like this paragraph:
FOSS folks sold me, during the SCO days, that they were sincere in their claim that if they used code that belonged to someone else and it became a problem, they would simply stop using it. I saw zero risk to open source from Microsoft, but Iâ(TM)m seeing a lot of FUD coming out of the FOSS side, and now Iâ(TM)m getting concerned.
Heh. Enderle. All concerned for FOSS. A big believer in the honesty of FOSS developers. That's rich.
I liked it better the first time I heard this in the 90's; back before Google owned Doubleclick. It was so fresh back then. Back when Doubleclick claimed that they would never use their cookies to identify an individual. That's before Doubleclick aquired Abacus and then started using affiliate web sites to link cookie IDs to names.
Google's version of Doubleclick just sounds like more of the same.
And what was this "political infighting" that the article alludes to? I hope it wasn't over whether to go after Microsoft for aiding in the creation of the largest botnet to date.
It's not all about Microsoft. DHS is a new bureaucratic entity that's trying to establish itself by carving in to the fiefdoms of others. That alone leads to political infighting.
The Fine Article alludes to examples of this. A governmental body with a quick leader churn isn't a good sign - that's folks realizing they're in a bad situation and bailing. Effective organizations keep their leadership. Ineffective organizations that are comfy maintain ineffective leadership - yet the leadership remains. Within Government, an entity's funding is kind of a score keeper for their political capital, influence, and overall power. An organization that is budget-starved is an organization that is either ignored or under attack. If you go beyond TFA, you can find a whole history of wreckage.
Last night I happened to sit down and catch up on Heroes episodes quietly waiting on the 'ole Tivo. I stopped to also watch the Trek "sneak peak" trailer. It was flashy. But at the end of it, I noticed something missing. It was the "interested" feeling. I wasn't.
I dunno why. I felt like I should have been. I like Star Trek. I like flashy movies. I can go for nostalgia, fan service, nods to old standbys with new, improved special effects. What's not to like?
Not sure. But whatever it is, it kept me from being enthused in any way. Hopefully the movie is more successful.
Hey - me too. Unfortunately, Quicken doesn't run on Linux. Why should I install an entire OS just to run Quicken?
The point here isn't that you're dead-set on Quicken rather you want to be able to interface your accounting software with your bank. Most people are like this. While they don't care about the OS, they also don't care about the application. They care about the action.
Of course, there are some people who really are Quicken fans and would forsake anything that doesn't involve Quicken. Me - I'm keen on Linux so I do without Quicken.
People don't run applications, they do things. They don't want to run Photoshop; they want to edit graphics. They don't want to use IE; they want to browse their web sites. They don't want to run AIM; they want to talk to their friends / business contacts.
However, a specific subset do want to run Photoshop. A specific subset do want to run WoW. A specific subset want Firefox. And some people might even choose, say, MacOS or Linux.
And then there are variations of all these. I want to play WoW. I want to run Linux. I use Wine to make that happen (I really don't care if Wine is involved or not).
The guy makes it sound all common sense. [Artist] checks out (say) The Pirate Bay and sees their latest hit available. They run a client, jot down IP addresses, and report to the appropriate ISPs. Bad pirates get disconnected for stealing the work of [Artist]. Who could complain?
The trouble is - we know that's not how it'll work. It won't be [Artist] feverishly protecting their livelihood. It'll be [script], executed by an "IP protection" service acting as an agent for an Industry representative, running a drag-net search and spamming cease-and-desist letters. The ISP will be running [script2] to parse those emails and notify / disconnect users. The dragnet script will make mistakes. Often. Only the end users will be paying for those mistakes by trying to re-establish their (increasingly important) connection after being victim of said script.
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
The problem here is that you're confusing licenses with copyright. They're different animals. Some folks have a really hard time getting their heads wrapped around that.
What we're talking about is what one does after the establishment of the copyright. In short, we're talking licensing. What the GPL does is very different than any license using DRM to enforce it. That alone can bring valid disagreement - you can support the GPL and still be critical of other licensing.
Of course, it really goes a step beyond that. Licensing isn't what people think it is sometimes. DRM tends to enforce a draconian reading of a given license, ignoring inconvenient aspects such as fair use. It is possible to support copyright and licensing while being critical of DRM.
This is not the all-or-nothing situation you would claim it to be.
Let's take this from a different angle. Once in awhile, someone publishing code under the GPL comes up with a moral objection and seeks a way of not supporting some aspect of society that clashes with that objection. Common examples are non-military use restrictions. Trouble is - the license stops being the GPL.
It seems to me that few marketers using some of these songs are familiar with the underlying themes. Songs about heroin use used to advertise birth control, et al.
How many people in general are familiar with the underlying themes? Advertisers don't deal in logic. They deal in emotion. If anything, they're all about the absence of logic. Logic leads to uncomfortable questions like "why do I need to buy this." Emotions are much more useful if you can get a "this makes me feel good" meme going. The hippie anthems are all about emotion - either inducing them in the song itself or invoking emotions associated with the nostalgia of past lives. And as it's the former hippies they're marketing to, it makes sense to use these hippie anthems.
Really? I was thinking it was from Idiocracy. Though, they were both written and directed by Mike Judge, I don't recall "electrolytes" being used in that film.
I believe the parent poster was getting in to the feel of the film while describing it.
If this guy really owned the clipart, and they are being used commercially without permission, then he has every right to go after any involved party. Obviously they can then choose to settle, if under reasonable terms, or just remove the damn clipart.
I really don't see what's so evil about this guy. *As long as he can prove his assertions.*
It strikes me that there are a few issues going on. First there's the question over whether the guy really does own the copyright to these images. It should be the fundamental question and the ultimate focus of the issue. But a lot of attention is being drawn elsewhere; by the guy (George Riddick) himself.
He's made grandiose claims that search engines are to blame. Either he really believes search engines are to blame or he's using the big names behind those search engines to gain attention.
His letters to individuals employ numerous methods often also employed by con-men. They request / demand confidentiality. They are hostile and threatening in nature. They seek to uncover information that one wouldn't normally be interested in providing to a hostile party. They induce an artificial sense of urgency. They attempt to induce costs and complexity. And they are ultimately light on detail of the matter at hand - the actual copyright infringement.
That's not to say that any of this negates a real legal claim. But the showmanship is distracting. The more someone waves their hand around, the more attention you should pay to what it is they're hiding.
That doesn't really differentiate it from any other technology. The only difference is that the new technologies are digital and require a digital filter. For example, if HDCP starts actually getting used, the easiest way to get restricted content onto a device which doesn't support it will be to have a device which decodes the incoming signal (e.g. HDMI) and puts out the outgoing signal you're looking for (e.g. DVI or VGA@1080p.) It's not exactly a filter, but that's the effect for the user. Macrovision is intended to prevent you from making copies, e.g. to prevent you from exercising your fair use rights.
Alright. I went off the wrong direction. The difference between Macrovision and HDCP is in the details of how the mechanisms work. HDCP's use of keys to decide what devices it wants to talk with is very different from Macrovision's various "disable recording" signals and screwing with a device's automatic gain control.
Of course, the outcome is the same. It doesn't much matter to an end user whether the mechanism causing them grief is "smart" or not.
When you purchase DRM-"protected" content you are being prevented from exercising legal rights (at least in the USA - yes, even here!) so you're being robbed. But when you rent it, you're only being prevented from things you don't necessarily have a legal right to do anyway. It's still a drawback, and I understand your argument for not paying for that, but it's still (I think) a defensible use.
Fair point. I wasn't really thinking from a legal perspective but rather usability. I'm thinking of my ability to take a DVD I got from Netflix and pop it in to anything that can read DVDs - from my old DVD player to the Linux multimedia box. Furthermore, I can take that DVD in my multimedia box and stream it to my TiVo. RIPing the DVD to load on my iPod is another aspect but I do admit it gets in to questionable territory.
I do believe that all DRM harms consumers, and that you should avoid spending money on media "protected" with it at all if you believe that. On the other hand, that actually precludes renting a DVD or a VHS with Macrovision encoding, which means that you won't be able to consume any mass media video. This is almost certainly a good thing for your brain, but it will be an unpopular choice.
I'm not sure if you'd consider Macrovision a form of DRM or not. It seems like simple copy protection to me. All it's ever done to me is make hooking up my multimedia devices more difficult or require buying additional line filters. And we all know that DVDs are also copy-protected in a manner that is trivially ignored. In short, none of these induce the potential aggravation of DRM schemes. Which, of course, doesn't even begin to address the legal and ethical questions involved.
The thing is, this is one use of DRM that I think I might be able to live with: when you're renting content. Most of the things that I believe make DRM inherently unacceptable come from someone else trying to exercise control over something that I purchased and "own".
What makes DRM unacceptable for purchased media tends to remain for rented media as well. Namely - the option to play that media in ways the content producer hadn't thought of.
I've been rending VHS tapes followed by DVDs for decades. Copying those sources has always been an option. Yet the content industries and rental industry have yet to fold under the pressure of the mere possibility of copying.
You might want to check the timeline on that issue. It existed well before McCain's questions. Obama himself raised questions. Questions have been ongoing for some time. Look elsewhere for your conspiracy. This isn't it.
How much time did you spend getting your desktop running? I've run them as well (and still do), and it took a lot more time to get it running than it did the first time I ever used Windows or OS X.
It's hard to say. Back in the early days, it took a bit more to get things going just as I wanted it. Some of that was my own doing - I could have gone with defaults and been happy. But I must admit, there were times when some hardware gave me trouble.
These days aren't so bad. Ubuntu on my work laptop was plug-and-go. Right up to the point I wanted to tweak stuff around. Which I occasionally do. I put that kind of time in to the Windows desktops I've used too. Admittedly, though I've used OSX, I've never had it as "my" desktop. But I'd imagine after awhile, I'd be tweaking that too.
I'm probably a bad judge for ease of use. Most of the time I'm messing with a "normal" users' environment it's to fix something broken. Working Windows systems is a major PITA. Linux / Unix systems can be annoying but I much prefer those environments. OSX hasn't been too bad the few times I've been called to deal with it.
I haven't ever heard anyone say that they had a first-time full multimedia setup going in a FOSS OS faster than their first-time full multimedia setup in Windows or OS X. Newbs just don't know about Xine, VLC, all the codecs they'll need, where to get them, or how to handle their package management systems until they spend plenty of time reading about them. And, really, time is money, and it may cost too much in certain situations.
Because I know what to do, a few quick configs and a few minutes downloading is all I need. And then I end up with an (arguably) better multimedia environment than Windows (no real experience on OSX). I've had an easier time dealing with codecs on Linux than Windows. Of course, I'm ignoring all the sticky gray-area questions of legality. Which, honestly, everyone I know does the same with Windows.
Having said that - you're right. There's a head start with a default Windows install. The legal issues aren't an issue so there's more installed by default. So the neophyte will likely be comforted by that.
However, in short time, even the neophyte is likely to want to go beyond the default. They'll have to invest time one way or another.
I think perhaps I wasn't clear with what I meant. I meant that people aren't going to create an innovative solution as a FOSS platform, because there is no immediate reward. Because, like I said, people want and need money. As far as I know, none of the products you mentioned are open-source; by the time they are (if ever), it will be because they see no more benefit in keeping them proprietary.
None the less, innovation is happening on FOSS platforms. Some of these innovations are quietly feeding back bits and pieces to the community. Others are using it as a simple platform.
It should be noted that the same thing is going on in the proprietary world. Folks are creating tools for their own employer's use and you'll either never see it or won't see it for years. It's just as much a rabbit hole as whats going on with FOSS platforms.
We're also ignoring the fact that there are OSS projects that push boundaries ahead of Closed Source products. Web servers, media centers, protocol implementations, etc. Dig around and you'll find examples. Some of these are unique. Some are extensions of proprietary components. Some are mirrored later in the proprietary world.
So, you give FOSS a higher default rating based on an ideological reason rather than an objective one? It sounds like you let personal views cloud your judgement when making software decisions. FOSS should only be one factor in the acquisition of something for use.
No, I give FOSS a higher default rating because I understand the importance of owning our infrastructure. I've had to migrate from on
I think you're mistaken about proprietary software being on the way out. We haven't had a "Year-of-the-Linux-desktop" yet, and some proprietary software is just plain better than FOSS alternatives, if a FOSS alternative even exists.
"Year of the Linux desktop" is a red herring. Linux doesn't have to be on a desktop to gain marketshare. That route worked for Windows (although arguably it had just as much to do with riding the commodity hardware wave - something FOSS does as well). But it's not the only route to invade the Industry.
Of course, for me the "year of the Linux desktop" was years ago. And because of this, I'd like to see it more widespread. Mainly because you are right - there are some proprietary software that has no equivalent. I'd really like the option of buying said software and running it on my platform of choice. But that's not really anything more than a personal wish.
Back in my professional walk, I find solutions with fewer options really, really have to shine to warrent consideration. If they have decent competitors, the one that enables me to pick my platform gets a big boost.
I don't think most companies are ever going to innovate on a FOSS platform, because there isn't any real money there. Innovation is driven by money, and people want it. FOSS, thus far, has typtically shown itself to be promising when commoditizing solutions.
Yeah. We're never going to see a Tivo, TomTom, or Google. We're never going to see the various private architectures I've supported for my employers. Just not going to happen.
At work we also use lots of FOSS, but we also use lots of proprietary tech. I think the real value comes by using both to get the best of both worlds, and I think most people in the world that care about staying on top think this way as well.
I also use a lot of FOSS and a mix of proprietary. I always give the FOSS solutions additional points in any given consideration. I hate being beholden to any given vendor for numerous reasons. FOSS gives me options that proprietary solutions rarely (if ever) provide. But there are times that a proprietary solution is just too good to pass up. We will then risk it and deal with the risk involved (sometimes we never have to worry about it, sometimes we get bitten).
Slashdot Mirror
CEO Ron Hovsepian is right; the buck stops with Novell. They're to blame. Not because their retail channel needs to be tweaked. But rather, they got in to bed with Microsoft! I mean, c'mon. Your hedging your bets on a technology that your partner is busy trying to bury. Yeah, sure... Microsoft is trying to help make Windows and Linux work together. Meanwhile, Microsoft's CEO is discussing Linux and so-called IP law like Eddy Izzard discussing the mortality of Englebert Humperdink. And Novell wants people to pay for the privilege of getting in to the middle of that?
Over the past few years, I've purchased licenses for Windows, Solaris, and Linux. Not once during these procurements did the name "Novell" come to mind.
...is what, *exactly* he thinks bad people can do with sharp images of buildings that they can't do with blurry images.
He notes that with sharp, detailed images you can see vents and elevator shafts. My God, man! VENTS and ELEVATOR SHAFTS! Have none of you even SEEN "Mission: Impossible"?!
(Note: the preceding message involves sarcasm. Normally such a notice is not required, but considering the subject, apparently some people DO take these things seriously).
Because, when I was in basic training (Air Force) we were told that we would have to do details(a.k.a. cleaning bitch duties)if we didn't go to church.
Same thing here. We were told we could go to the church service of choice but, lacking a preference, I believe it was the Methodist service that was suggested. I went one time. It was the only time I attended church while in the military.
The idea that this somehow makes the USAF a haven for Evangelicals is beyond me. I met a number of individuals who were religious to varying degrees. But most folks were either not especially religious or kept it to themselves.
How... odd. Enderle is always good for a chuckle. Like this paragraph:
Heh. Enderle. All concerned for FOSS. A big believer in the honesty of FOSS developers. That's rich.
I liked it better the first time I heard this in the 90's; back before Google owned Doubleclick. It was so fresh back then. Back when Doubleclick claimed that they would never use their cookies to identify an individual. That's before Doubleclick aquired Abacus and then started using affiliate web sites to link cookie IDs to names.
Google's version of Doubleclick just sounds like more of the same.
And what was this "political infighting" that the article alludes to? I hope it wasn't over whether to go after Microsoft for aiding in the creation of the largest botnet to date.
It's not all about Microsoft. DHS is a new bureaucratic entity that's trying to establish itself by carving in to the fiefdoms of others. That alone leads to political infighting.
The Fine Article alludes to examples of this. A governmental body with a quick leader churn isn't a good sign - that's folks realizing they're in a bad situation and bailing. Effective organizations keep their leadership. Ineffective organizations that are comfy maintain ineffective leadership - yet the leadership remains. Within Government, an entity's funding is kind of a score keeper for their political capital, influence, and overall power. An organization that is budget-starved is an organization that is either ignored or under attack. If you go beyond TFA, you can find a whole history of wreckage.
Taxes.
Last night I happened to sit down and catch up on Heroes episodes quietly waiting on the 'ole Tivo. I stopped to also watch the Trek "sneak peak" trailer. It was flashy. But at the end of it, I noticed something missing. It was the "interested" feeling. I wasn't.
I dunno why. I felt like I should have been. I like Star Trek. I like flashy movies. I can go for nostalgia, fan service, nods to old standbys with new, improved special effects. What's not to like?
Not sure. But whatever it is, it kept me from being enthused in any way. Hopefully the movie is more successful.
It's kind of like "total cost of ownership." Just with a different market segment.
Hey - me too. Unfortunately, Quicken doesn't run on Linux. Why should I install an entire OS just to run Quicken?
The point here isn't that you're dead-set on Quicken rather you want to be able to interface your accounting software with your bank. Most people are like this. While they don't care about the OS, they also don't care about the application. They care about the action.
Of course, there are some people who really are Quicken fans and would forsake anything that doesn't involve Quicken. Me - I'm keen on Linux so I do without Quicken.
People don't run applications, they do things. They don't want to run Photoshop; they want to edit graphics. They don't want to use IE; they want to browse their web sites. They don't want to run AIM; they want to talk to their friends / business contacts.
However, a specific subset do want to run Photoshop. A specific subset do want to run WoW. A specific subset want Firefox. And some people might even choose, say, MacOS or Linux.
And then there are variations of all these. I want to play WoW. I want to run Linux. I use Wine to make that happen (I really don't care if Wine is involved or not).
The guy makes it sound all common sense. [Artist] checks out (say) The Pirate Bay and sees their latest hit available. They run a client, jot down IP addresses, and report to the appropriate ISPs. Bad pirates get disconnected for stealing the work of [Artist]. Who could complain?
The trouble is - we know that's not how it'll work. It won't be [Artist] feverishly protecting their livelihood. It'll be [script], executed by an "IP protection" service acting as an agent for an Industry representative, running a drag-net search and spamming cease-and-desist letters. The ISP will be running [script2] to parse those emails and notify / disconnect users. The dragnet script will make mistakes. Often. Only the end users will be paying for those mistakes by trying to re-establish their (increasingly important) connection after being victim of said script.
How do we know this? We can study from history.
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
The problem here is that you're confusing licenses with copyright. They're different animals. Some folks have a really hard time getting their heads wrapped around that.
What we're talking about is what one does after the establishment of the copyright. In short, we're talking licensing. What the GPL does is very different than any license using DRM to enforce it. That alone can bring valid disagreement - you can support the GPL and still be critical of other licensing.
Of course, it really goes a step beyond that. Licensing isn't what people think it is sometimes. DRM tends to enforce a draconian reading of a given license, ignoring inconvenient aspects such as fair use. It is possible to support copyright and licensing while being critical of DRM.
This is not the all-or-nothing situation you would claim it to be.
Let's take this from a different angle. Once in awhile, someone publishing code under the GPL comes up with a moral objection and seeks a way of not supporting some aspect of society that clashes with that objection. Common examples are non-military use restrictions. Trouble is - the license stops being the GPL.
Honestly, I don't know the full history of this story, nor how exactly Hulu works.
This is the point where you should have canceled your post.
It seems to me that few marketers using some of these songs are familiar with the underlying themes. Songs about heroin use used to advertise birth control, et al.
How many people in general are familiar with the underlying themes? Advertisers don't deal in logic. They deal in emotion. If anything, they're all about the absence of logic. Logic leads to uncomfortable questions like "why do I need to buy this." Emotions are much more useful if you can get a "this makes me feel good" meme going. The hippie anthems are all about emotion - either inducing them in the song itself or invoking emotions associated with the nostalgia of past lives. And as it's the former hippies they're marketing to, it makes sense to use these hippie anthems.
Really? I was thinking it was from Idiocracy. Though, they were both written and directed by Mike Judge, I don't recall "electrolytes" being used in that film.
I believe the parent poster was getting in to the feel of the film while describing it.
You'll never get an even cleaning.
You're assuming that this is about driving a vacuum cleaner. There's other things iRobot does such as their communications product.
Then there's just, you know, the hack. Neat things are done to honor the hack. Realizing that there might be a practical use for the hack comes later.
If this guy really owned the clipart, and they are being used commercially without permission, then he has every right to go after any involved party. Obviously they can then choose to settle, if under reasonable terms, or just remove the damn clipart.
I really don't see what's so evil about this guy. *As long as he can prove his assertions.*
It strikes me that there are a few issues going on. First there's the question over whether the guy really does own the copyright to these images. It should be the fundamental question and the ultimate focus of the issue. But a lot of attention is being drawn elsewhere; by the guy (George Riddick) himself.
He's made grandiose claims that search engines are to blame. Either he really believes search engines are to blame or he's using the big names behind those search engines to gain attention.
His letters to individuals employ numerous methods often also employed by con-men. They request / demand confidentiality. They are hostile and threatening in nature. They seek to uncover information that one wouldn't normally be interested in providing to a hostile party. They induce an artificial sense of urgency. They attempt to induce costs and complexity. And they are ultimately light on detail of the matter at hand - the actual copyright infringement.
That's not to say that any of this negates a real legal claim. But the showmanship is distracting. The more someone waves their hand around, the more attention you should pay to what it is they're hiding.
Technically copying DVDs hasn't been legally an option since the DMCA became law, except in cases where the DVD does not have CSS encryption.
True. But then, I'm talking about renting media where copying it isn't exactly legal either. CSS and the DMCA don't even enter in to it.
That doesn't really differentiate it from any other technology. The only difference is that the new technologies are digital and require a digital filter. For example, if HDCP starts actually getting used, the easiest way to get restricted content onto a device which doesn't support it will be to have a device which decodes the incoming signal (e.g. HDMI) and puts out the outgoing signal you're looking for (e.g. DVI or VGA@1080p.) It's not exactly a filter, but that's the effect for the user. Macrovision is intended to prevent you from making copies, e.g. to prevent you from exercising your fair use rights.
Alright. I went off the wrong direction. The difference between Macrovision and HDCP is in the details of how the mechanisms work. HDCP's use of keys to decide what devices it wants to talk with is very different from Macrovision's various "disable recording" signals and screwing with a device's automatic gain control.
Of course, the outcome is the same. It doesn't much matter to an end user whether the mechanism causing them grief is "smart" or not.
When you purchase DRM-"protected" content you are being prevented from exercising legal rights (at least in the USA - yes, even here!) so you're being robbed. But when you rent it, you're only being prevented from things you don't necessarily have a legal right to do anyway. It's still a drawback, and I understand your argument for not paying for that, but it's still (I think) a defensible use.
Fair point. I wasn't really thinking from a legal perspective but rather usability. I'm thinking of my ability to take a DVD I got from Netflix and pop it in to anything that can read DVDs - from my old DVD player to the Linux multimedia box. Furthermore, I can take that DVD in my multimedia box and stream it to my TiVo. RIPing the DVD to load on my iPod is another aspect but I do admit it gets in to questionable territory.
I do believe that all DRM harms consumers, and that you should avoid spending money on media "protected" with it at all if you believe that. On the other hand, that actually precludes renting a DVD or a VHS with Macrovision encoding, which means that you won't be able to consume any mass media video. This is almost certainly a good thing for your brain, but it will be an unpopular choice.
I'm not sure if you'd consider Macrovision a form of DRM or not. It seems like simple copy protection to me. All it's ever done to me is make hooking up my multimedia devices more difficult or require buying additional line filters. And we all know that DVDs are also copy-protected in a manner that is trivially ignored. In short, none of these induce the potential aggravation of DRM schemes. Which, of course, doesn't even begin to address the legal and ethical questions involved.
The thing is, this is one use of DRM that I think I might be able to live with: when you're renting content. Most of the things that I believe make DRM inherently unacceptable come from someone else trying to exercise control over something that I purchased and "own".
What makes DRM unacceptable for purchased media tends to remain for rented media as well. Namely - the option to play that media in ways the content producer hadn't thought of.
I've been rending VHS tapes followed by DVDs for decades. Copying those sources has always been an option. Yet the content industries and rental industry have yet to fold under the pressure of the mere possibility of copying.
You might want to check the timeline on that issue. It existed well before McCain's questions. Obama himself raised questions. Questions have been ongoing for some time. Look elsewhere for your conspiracy. This isn't it.
How much time did you spend getting your desktop running? I've run them as well (and still do), and it took a lot more time to get it running than it did the first time I ever used Windows or OS X.
It's hard to say. Back in the early days, it took a bit more to get things going just as I wanted it. Some of that was my own doing - I could have gone with defaults and been happy. But I must admit, there were times when some hardware gave me trouble.
These days aren't so bad. Ubuntu on my work laptop was plug-and-go. Right up to the point I wanted to tweak stuff around. Which I occasionally do. I put that kind of time in to the Windows desktops I've used too. Admittedly, though I've used OSX, I've never had it as "my" desktop. But I'd imagine after awhile, I'd be tweaking that too.
I'm probably a bad judge for ease of use. Most of the time I'm messing with a "normal" users' environment it's to fix something broken. Working Windows systems is a major PITA. Linux / Unix systems can be annoying but I much prefer those environments. OSX hasn't been too bad the few times I've been called to deal with it.
I haven't ever heard anyone say that they had a first-time full multimedia setup going in a FOSS OS faster than their first-time full multimedia setup in Windows or OS X. Newbs just don't know about Xine, VLC, all the codecs they'll need, where to get them, or how to handle their package management systems until they spend plenty of time reading about them. And, really, time is money, and it may cost too much in certain situations.
Because I know what to do, a few quick configs and a few minutes downloading is all I need. And then I end up with an (arguably) better multimedia environment than Windows (no real experience on OSX). I've had an easier time dealing with codecs on Linux than Windows. Of course, I'm ignoring all the sticky gray-area questions of legality. Which, honestly, everyone I know does the same with Windows.
Having said that - you're right. There's a head start with a default Windows install. The legal issues aren't an issue so there's more installed by default. So the neophyte will likely be comforted by that.
However, in short time, even the neophyte is likely to want to go beyond the default. They'll have to invest time one way or another.
I think perhaps I wasn't clear with what I meant. I meant that people aren't going to create an innovative solution as a FOSS platform, because there is no immediate reward. Because, like I said, people want and need money. As far as I know, none of the products you mentioned are open-source; by the time they are (if ever), it will be because they see no more benefit in keeping them proprietary.
None the less, innovation is happening on FOSS platforms. Some of these innovations are quietly feeding back bits and pieces to the community. Others are using it as a simple platform.
It should be noted that the same thing is going on in the proprietary world. Folks are creating tools for their own employer's use and you'll either never see it or won't see it for years. It's just as much a rabbit hole as whats going on with FOSS platforms.
We're also ignoring the fact that there are OSS projects that push boundaries ahead of Closed Source products. Web servers, media centers, protocol implementations, etc. Dig around and you'll find examples. Some of these are unique. Some are extensions of proprietary components. Some are mirrored later in the proprietary world.
So, you give FOSS a higher default rating based on an ideological reason rather than an objective one? It sounds like you let personal views cloud your judgement when making software decisions. FOSS should only be one factor in the acquisition of something for use.
No, I give FOSS a higher default rating because I understand the importance of owning our infrastructure. I've had to migrate from on
I think you're mistaken about proprietary software being on the way out. We haven't had a "Year-of-the-Linux-desktop" yet, and some proprietary software is just plain better than FOSS alternatives, if a FOSS alternative even exists.
"Year of the Linux desktop" is a red herring. Linux doesn't have to be on a desktop to gain marketshare. That route worked for Windows (although arguably it had just as much to do with riding the commodity hardware wave - something FOSS does as well). But it's not the only route to invade the Industry.
Of course, for me the "year of the Linux desktop" was years ago. And because of this, I'd like to see it more widespread. Mainly because you are right - there are some proprietary software that has no equivalent. I'd really like the option of buying said software and running it on my platform of choice. But that's not really anything more than a personal wish.
Back in my professional walk, I find solutions with fewer options really, really have to shine to warrent consideration. If they have decent competitors, the one that enables me to pick my platform gets a big boost.
I don't think most companies are ever going to innovate on a FOSS platform, because there isn't any real money there. Innovation is driven by money, and people want it. FOSS, thus far, has typtically shown itself to be promising when commoditizing solutions.
Yeah. We're never going to see a Tivo, TomTom, or Google. We're never going to see the various private architectures I've supported for my employers. Just not going to happen.
At work we also use lots of FOSS, but we also use lots of proprietary tech. I think the real value comes by using both to get the best of both worlds, and I think most people in the world that care about staying on top think this way as well.
I also use a lot of FOSS and a mix of proprietary. I always give the FOSS solutions additional points in any given consideration. I hate being beholden to any given vendor for numerous reasons. FOSS gives me options that proprietary solutions rarely (if ever) provide. But there are times that a proprietary solution is just too good to pass up. We will then risk it and deal with the risk involved (sometimes we never have to worry about it, sometimes we get bitten).