THERE was a time when GOOD stories were told, and technology was used to push the story forward and special effects were not the stars per se. Technology and special effects have been a part of film longer than the narrative. From the display of simple scenes where the draw itself was a moving picture, to other scenes where various film trickery are used to create optical illusions, technology has always been a featured star.
That doesn't mean special effects makes a particularly good movie. I also believe that story is important and truly great special effects are ones that are accepted so readily you forget that what you're seeing isn't real (Forrest Gump comes to mind). But let's not kid ourselves. There is no special time in cinemagraphic history where technology always took a back seat to the story.
Regardless of how you feel about MS hegemony, there is a certain practical logic to the argument that a naked PC is sort of a wink to piracy. Yes the owner might transferring over a legal copy of an OS purchased elsewhere. But realistically that's a tiny number. It's always a tricky argument to navigate. When is manufacturing lock picking tools a crime? They do have legitimate uses too. The argument is delicate because we've seen it abused, like with the arguments against the VCR, and these days, DVD ripping. One could go on and find all shades of grey (are people who write trojans and viruses committing crimes?)...
So how about if china were to impose a levy on all new PC's sold naked. The money would be shared out among a consortium of major OS makers. GNU/Linux should have a place at that table. I'm not quite sure in what form. But one could I think find some way to assist GNU/linux development even if there is no one recognized authority. Even if a large percentage of these systems end up with illegally copied software - how is that the consumer's problem? Why should a consumer pay an additional fee with promises that it'll go in to the right pockets to pay for something they don't get? Unless, of course, you're proposing a license to ignore copyright. Somehow I doubt that's the intent.
Having said that - its a bit of a moot point. Right now there's a law on China's books demanding a "legal" software install with each system. The devil is in the details of that law - but let's take it at face value for now. All a manufacturer has to do is pre-load a Linux distro and they're good. Or if that's too much - a FreeDOS image that runs a "this PC is working" diagnostics tool. Voila. All legal. And it does nothing to curb illegal copying of Windows.
I suspect the trick here is that Microsoft has made such a deal on Windows that the cost of installing a Linux or FreeDOS image is remarkably close to a Windows image. But with the Windows image, the price comes with goodwill from Microsoft (and more importantly Microsoft's biggest new business partner in China - the Chinese Government). So Microsoft gets its per-PC tax and enforces market lock-in... both mainstays of Microsoft's business plan no matter what continent you're on. And that's what this really is all about.
Is it just me or is anyone else hoping Microsoft drags Novell down into the muck? This would be a good lesson to anyone else considering getting in bed with them. I'd be more amused if Novell ends up having brokered a deal that lands a major blow against Microsoft's hold on the Industry. There would be a certain symmetry to it.
How do we prepare our youth for their adult lives when they see society's role models, government officials, sports superstars, members of the church, etc... committing breaches of ethics on a daily basis? By holding up these role models as examples of how not to behave. They also make good object lessons of why one does not have blind trust. And they might even make a good example of how even people who we might admire are also be human; fallible and prone to temptation. You might also, with a little effort, find that there ARE other examples of people behaving better.
I don't know how you were brought up but "everybody's doing it" never worked for me as a kid. It doesn't hold much sway with me today.
Once you have got all your infrastructure set up around one standard it isnt easy to start using a different one. Migrations are hard. What makes it even harder is dealing with proprietary data formats. If you cant' be completely sure you (or your agent) will be able to 100% understand the data format that you've committed years worth of data to... how can you be sure you can migrate if or when the time comes without loosing some of that data? A truly open standard that allows complete transparency to the data (including meta data, markups, etc.) allows the ability to automatically transcribe from one format to another; freedom to migrate. Or at the very least, one less hurdle in an already difficult task.
That is what "lock-in" is about. It's not about the cost of migration. It's about whether committing to an infrastructure means you have little chance to migrate to another in the future.
And why should I trust one of the members of the Open Document Foundation to give a truthful analysis of Microsoft's formats? For the same reason you might think Microsoft is providing a truly open document format despite historical precedence. If you want to really give the benefit of the doubt, you should listen to both sides of a debate.
Microsoft's fortune was made on riding the wave - making money off the shift in the industry from proprietary hardware platforms to commodity based platforms. IBM was the big loser as it lost control of the platform they made popular. Meanwhile, every single (or close enough) "PC" was a payment to Microsoft no matter if it was IBM, Compaq, or Joe's Whitebox Store.
Linux is a large part of the next wave - shifting the OS as proprietary product to commodity platform. But instead of IBM, this shift directly threatens not only Microsoft's core products but a large portion of their business model (and development). Microsoft is looking for a way to get on top of this wave as well.
The IP shennanigans going on is simply Microsoft's attempt to gain control of Linux and hash out a way so that every commodity hardware platform that runs a commodity OS (specifically Linux) also includes a payment to Microsoft.
Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries! Unless, they're a King of Queen... sure. Or a totalitarian ruler / despot. OK. Only by Kings, Queens, and despots... and other various heads of state. Maybe the wealthy. So power is only used outside America by Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State and the inordinately wealthy. OK. But not corporations! Not at all! Unless one of the aforementioned also runs a corporation. Or they have an agreement with one. Maybe then. But the important thing is that only in America... umm... hmm...
What is more likely to happen? These guys getting silenced and quietly removing their presentation or these guys figuring out they were wrong and quietly removing their presentation.
While I definitely agree that its very plausible the researchers simply discovered that they goofed, I would also note that there is historical precedent for other motivations.
Every security system in existance has a vulnerability, wether its the passwords, the keys, or the algorithms involved. Every security system in existance is only secure while this information is unknown, therefore every security system in existance is essentially 'security through obscurity'. Close. The "security through obscurity" mantra is about how much knowledge is required to defeat a system. Knowing the algorithms involved shouldn't be enough. One should have direct access to the system's key(s).
The issue isn't that there's a piece of secret knowledge that unlocks the system. That's a given - passwords, cryptographic keys, etc. are referred to as "secrets" and have nothing to do with the "obscurity" part of the mantra. The issue is whether enough study of a system or general knowledge of a system is enough to bypass it. It is much easier to control a secret (in the cryptographic sense) than the inner workings of a system.
The term 'security by obscurity' has it's place, but it seems like another phrase in a growing list that Slashbots just seem to latch onto whenever they feel like karma whoring (like 'DMCA invocation'). I do agree on this point. One should understand the concept behind a tidy little catch-phrase before trying to use it.
That's an important detail. Any legal rights that Microsoft bestowed would be limited to the software they distributed under the GPL, if they wrote some custom app and released it under the GPL it wouldn't affect any other application, but if they did legally redistribute Ubuntu then they're now bound to the GPL for the kernel, gcc, OpenOffice, and any other app included in there.
Oh - I quite agree. The Devil in the details isn't GPL code itself (nothing new to Microsoft - "viral" FUD not withstanding). As you've noted, the point of interest would be the specific software packages and their GPL licensing.
Microsoft can certainly fire the employee, but they nevertheless distributed Ubuntu, which includes alot of GPL-software. This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL. Among other things, this means that:
Microsoft has distributed GPL software in the past (Services for Unix). Just not Linux per se.
I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.
It's not about making money. There's plenty of examples of companies making money off GPL code that they didn't originate (or write). The difference between the choices you've noted are the requirements and ownership of the code. GPL requires in-turn contribution of changes made and maintains copyright to the author. BSD requires credit and retains copyright. The public domain is simply abandonment of copyright and any associated restrictions.
Whether your requirements line up to any one of these particular models is up to you. However, in general, the GPL is still a very fundamental part of a growing software ecosystem. Obviously it encourages "share and share alike" behavior and thus participation in this ecosystem by commercial interests. But even more important is that it allows those interests to participate while protecting them from giving advantages away to their competitors (who in turn must contribute their changes - all cards on the table, if you will).
And what is 'meritorious' about playing a computer game 20 hours a day? I'd say having a real job and then playing a computer game a couple hours a day tops is more meritorious. Just because the most productive thing YOU can do with your life might be working at McDonalds doesn't mean someone who has a job that lets them buy some gold pieces is an aristocrat.
Are you playing the game, or looking for an online status symbol to reflect your career? The merit in the game is achievement from having played it. Such achievements really shouldn't have much weight out here in the Big Blue Room. And by the same regard, your achievements in your career should have little to do with whats going on in the game.
We don't immediately put marks down on your golf card because you have a "real job". Nor do you get a head start during your softball league game. Why should an online game be different?
are you really comparing gold farming and its effect on gameplay in a stupid distraction, a GAME, with robbing someone only a little richer than you?
You were the one to bring up "steal from the rich, give to the poor". I'm just sticking with your analogy.
It seems you have a real strong empathy for the poor worker and little regard for the gamer. Perhaps you need a different perspective. Let's say we feed one of those "farmers" with the money you're spending on resources to make your film you advertise in your sig. We'll impact your hobby. I'm sure you won't mind because anyone with the access to even meager film making equipment is "rich" by comparison and therefore it's only just. Right?
I'm all for these "farmers" making money and bettering their lives (finding better working conditions is a huge plus too). But because they're poor doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they can to bring this about.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean special effects makes a particularly good movie. I also believe that story is important and truly great special effects are ones that are accepted so readily you forget that what you're seeing isn't real (Forrest Gump comes to mind). But let's not kid ourselves. There is no special time in cinemagraphic history where technology always took a back seat to the story.
So how about if china were to impose a levy on all new PC's sold naked. The money would be shared out among a consortium of major OS makers. GNU/Linux should have a place at that table. I'm not quite sure in what form. But one could I think find some way to assist GNU/linux development even if there is no one recognized authority. Even if a large percentage of these systems end up with illegally copied software - how is that the consumer's problem? Why should a consumer pay an additional fee with promises that it'll go in to the right pockets to pay for something they don't get? Unless, of course, you're proposing a license to ignore copyright. Somehow I doubt that's the intent.
Having said that - its a bit of a moot point. Right now there's a law on China's books demanding a "legal" software install with each system. The devil is in the details of that law - but let's take it at face value for now. All a manufacturer has to do is pre-load a Linux distro and they're good. Or if that's too much - a FreeDOS image that runs a "this PC is working" diagnostics tool. Voila. All legal. And it does nothing to curb illegal copying of Windows.
I suspect the trick here is that Microsoft has made such a deal on Windows that the cost of installing a Linux or FreeDOS image is remarkably close to a Windows image. But with the Windows image, the price comes with goodwill from Microsoft (and more importantly Microsoft's biggest new business partner in China - the Chinese Government). So Microsoft gets its per-PC tax and enforces market lock-in... both mainstays of Microsoft's business plan no matter what continent you're on. And that's what this really is all about.
I don't know how you were brought up but "everybody's doing it" never worked for me as a kid. It doesn't hold much sway with me today.
That is what "lock-in" is about. It's not about the cost of migration. It's about whether committing to an infrastructure means you have little chance to migrate to another in the future.
...do I click setup.exe, setup.msi , install.bat ? Just clicky-clicky on whatever was attached to your email and be done with it.Microsoft's fortune was made on riding the wave - making money off the shift in the industry from proprietary hardware platforms to commodity based platforms. IBM was the big loser as it lost control of the platform they made popular. Meanwhile, every single (or close enough) "PC" was a payment to Microsoft no matter if it was IBM, Compaq, or Joe's Whitebox Store.
Linux is a large part of the next wave - shifting the OS as proprietary product to commodity platform. But instead of IBM, this shift directly threatens not only Microsoft's core products but a large portion of their business model (and development). Microsoft is looking for a way to get on top of this wave as well.
The IP shennanigans going on is simply Microsoft's attempt to gain control of Linux and hash out a way so that every commodity hardware platform that runs a commodity OS (specifically Linux) also includes a payment to Microsoft.
OK... OK... Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State, the inordinately wealthy, Scientologists, and other religious or quasi-religious entities.
Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries! Unless, they're a King of Queen... sure. Or a totalitarian ruler / despot. OK. Only by Kings, Queens, and despots... and other various heads of state. Maybe the wealthy. So power is only used outside America by Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State and the inordinately wealthy. OK. But not corporations! Not at all! Unless one of the aforementioned also runs a corporation. Or they have an agreement with one. Maybe then. But the important thing is that only in America... umm... hmm...
While I definitely agree that its very plausible the researchers simply discovered that they goofed, I would also note that there is historical precedent for other motivations.
The issue isn't that there's a piece of secret knowledge that unlocks the system. That's a given - passwords, cryptographic keys, etc. are referred to as "secrets" and have nothing to do with the "obscurity" part of the mantra. The issue is whether enough study of a system or general knowledge of a system is enough to bypass it. It is much easier to control a secret (in the cryptographic sense) than the inner workings of a system. The term 'security by obscurity' has it's place, but it seems like another phrase in a growing list that Slashbots just seem to latch onto whenever they feel like karma whoring (like 'DMCA invocation'). I do agree on this point. One should understand the concept behind a tidy little catch-phrase before trying to use it.
I don't know - what did it say in your contract when you agreed to begin contributing?
Oh - I quite agree. The Devil in the details isn't GPL code itself (nothing new to Microsoft - "viral" FUD not withstanding). As you've noted, the point of interest would be the specific software packages and their GPL licensing.
Services for Unix also includes various GNU utilities licensed under the GPL. Just for giggles:
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/interix/interix2
Microsoft has distributed GPL software in the past (Services for Unix). Just not Linux per se.
SCENE: MR BALLMER IN A WHITE LINEN SUIT ON A LARGE WICKER CHAIR.
BALLMER: Microsoft... the un-Ubuntu. Freedom - never had it, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha. [BIG SMILE]
You've confused "freedom" with "anarchy".
It's not about making money. There's plenty of examples of companies making money off GPL code that they didn't originate (or write). The difference between the choices you've noted are the requirements and ownership of the code. GPL requires in-turn contribution of changes made and maintains copyright to the author. BSD requires credit and retains copyright. The public domain is simply abandonment of copyright and any associated restrictions.
Whether your requirements line up to any one of these particular models is up to you. However, in general, the GPL is still a very fundamental part of a growing software ecosystem. Obviously it encourages "share and share alike" behavior and thus participation in this ecosystem by commercial interests. But even more important is that it allows those interests to participate while protecting them from giving advantages away to their competitors (who in turn must contribute their changes - all cards on the table, if you will).
It's been going on for years. The CAIB Report even has a side-bar that talks about ear-tags and their overall effect on NASA's budget.
Outsourced.
In Capitalist United States, your operating system sues YOU. Is same with "use".
Are you playing the game, or looking for an online status symbol to reflect your career? The merit in the game is achievement from having played it. Such achievements really shouldn't have much weight out here in the Big Blue Room. And by the same regard, your achievements in your career should have little to do with whats going on in the game.
We don't immediately put marks down on your golf card because you have a "real job". Nor do you get a head start during your softball league game. Why should an online game be different?
You were the one to bring up "steal from the rich, give to the poor". I'm just sticking with your analogy.
It seems you have a real strong empathy for the poor worker and little regard for the gamer. Perhaps you need a different perspective. Let's say we feed one of those "farmers" with the money you're spending on resources to make your film you advertise in your sig. We'll impact your hobby. I'm sure you won't mind because anyone with the access to even meager film making equipment is "rich" by comparison and therefore it's only just. Right?
I'm all for these "farmers" making money and bettering their lives (finding better working conditions is a huge plus too). But because they're poor doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they can to bring this about.
Yeah. I'm sure "extensive knowledge of epic drops and mote grinding" will go real big on the resume.