FTFA:
"Ballbot has an onboard computer that reads balance information from its internal sensors, activating rollers that mobilize the ball on which it moves -- a system that is essentially an inverse mouse-ball drive. When Ballbot is not in operation, it stands in place on three retractable legs."
One word: lint. This sucker will fall down as soon as the rollers get clogged up, same as your mouse stops working.
Or try spilling some oil from your salad on the ground. Or leave a few pieces of duct tape, sticky side up, lying around,
I'll welcome our robot overlords to follow me... down this flight of stairs, you motherf*ckers!:-)
"Hollis is working to prove that dynamically stable robots like Ballbot can outperform their static counterparts."
Humans are also dynamically stable. Even when we're standing still, we're dynamically balanced, as muscles alternately contract and release to maintain our balance. He doesn't have to "prove" this - its something evolution worked out long ago.
Your example actually makes my claims more plausible. If the majority of laptop manufacturers only make locked-down ms-compatible laptops, then the few who don't will get "more than their share" of action, won't they? Or are you saying that somehow when it comes to DRM, that the market is not a "free market", and that somehow or other everyone will be mystically prevented from manufacturing non-locked-down hardware?
DRM'd hardware doesn't remove your freedom to run the software elsewhere, just not on that hardware. What's the big deal? You still have ALL the freedoms of free software, including the right to the source code, the right to modify it, the right to run it on other hardware. That it won't run modified on a particular piece of hardware doesn't affect these freedoms, any mor than your old amiga software not running on an intel box.
I agree that the whole drm'd tivo thing sucks, but again, nobody is being forced to buy a tivo. You can buy other dvrs that allow you to make copies. You can buy dvd recorders that will record your tv shows directly to dvd for $150.00 at the local grocery store, so what's all this tivo tivo tivo shit? You have choices. You have alternatives.
I figure that if that's the only way its going to get built (because of market dynamics, etc) then its better than nothing. I guess that's the difference between a glass half full, and a glass half empty. Now if someone could explains WTF the difference really is between a glass that's half full and one that's half empty... because to me that saying doesn't make sense. At least "free as in beer" does.
Buying an iPod is supporting a business (Apple) that is doing its best to be THE drm content provider. So, don't be so quick with the "who's the idiot" bit. If you're against drm, don't buy Apple products that support drm.
"Here's a thought in return for yours: Why not apply some of that economic darwinism to the licencing arena? Let RMS and Eben Moglen do their stuff and then see which licences survive contact with the real world? The devs and users will vote with their feet, and we'll see what's really viable and what not. Let's let the market sort it out:D"/i>
I'm with you on that one. And yes, I think we'll see a lot of projects hard-coding GPLv2 as their license (we already see it with the linux kernel).
Here's a thought... what is the GPLv4 going to contain, if this goes through? Perhaps a restriction that GPL'd software can only be run on GPL'd operating systems? Or that all modifications have to be pushed back into the public pool, even if they're totally irrelevant to anyone else's needs, or even if there's no "distribution"?
Or... and this HAS been proposed... that modifying GPL'd software and using it to serve up content should also be considered "distribution". If you want to kill off a LOT of open-source projects, that's a good way to do it. Imagine having to take your copy of wordpress or drupal or postnuke that you've customized, and having to guarantee that you'll make all mods available for 3 years, even though you haven't distributed any of it to anyone else; you've just fixed it up so it works the way YOU want. Most people would be saying "screw that."
Proprietary software is part of the mix. It covers a lot of things, including the modification of GPL'd software for use internally or on customer-facing servers. Those modifications are proprietary, and as long as there is no distribution, there should be no need to disclose anything. The ability to use GPL'd software in this way encourages people to use it, and some of those people are going to "put back" into the pool.
Is google "stealing" because they haven't made googlefs available to everyone? No.
Now apply this to the DRM issue. As long as the source is made available if the product is being distributed, I don't see what the problem is. Because there is a very effective work-around to the GPL, and you can bet that it will be used if this goes through: devices will not be sold, just "lent" to the customer; you sign up for a tivo-like service and you're lent a receiver at no extra charge. Since the receiver never becomes the property of the customer, there is no "distribution". With hardwaqre getting cheaper and cheaper, this becomes a viable alternative.
To argue otherwise (that distribution DOES occur even though n property changes ownership) would cause a HUGE problem for a lot of businesses right now. For example, say Company A modifies some GPL'd software and sticks it on an in-house server. That server needs to be sent out for repairs. You can't argue that "disribution" has taken place because Company B temporarily took delivery of the server to repair it... ownership never transferred. If you were successful in arguing this, then you'd see a lot of support contracts just disappear - and a lot of development leave linux and go to bsd because of this sort of risk.
In fact, I'd go so far as to predict that the GPLv3, and more restrictive definitions of "redistribution" could ultimately result in the resurgence of bsd at the expense of linux. Its not like there's all that much difference as far as most users would be concerned.
No, I'm saying the same thing Linus said - that DRM is not going to go away because we change a license - its going to go away only if consumers reject it.
If consumers embrace it, then GPLv3 is irrelevant, since people won't care, and will stick with DRM'd solutions anyway.
If consumers reject it, then GPLv3 is irrelevant, because people won't be using DRM'd solutions anyway.
Its not relevant under either scenario. ultimately, DRM is a social problem, not a licensing problem.
And yes, the ability for any Joe Sixpack to slap together a computer with only a bit of knowledge was a very liberating thing... or have you forgotten that before the advent of personal computers, everything was centrally controlled off a few machines, with access strictly limited.
The battlefield isn't between developers and manufacturers -its totally with the consumers. Toyota understood this, and GM didn't, so while Toyota built cars for consumers, GM built cars to compete against their competitor Ford. That's why either this year or next, Toyota will be the largest car manufacturer in the world and GM and Ford are both facing bankruptcy.
"Companies like TiVo are benefiting from the same communities they're undermining, using GNU and Linux to create their products while simultaneously undermining the freedom of their users"
How has Tivo prevented you from using any GPL'd code on other hardware? Have they made the bits disappear? Made them proprietary? Changed the license? No. So you can't run modified binaries on Tivo... nothing stopping you or someone else from using the same code to compete in the marketplace by offering a superior hardware product.
And there's no law that says you have a constitutional right to own a Tivo.
If you're so opposed to their practices, just don't buy one. Enough people do, someone (they're called "competitors") will see a marketing opportunity.
You have the choice not to buy those dvds. Nobody is forcing you to. So you go without. Big deal. If enough people did it, the producers would say "fuck that shit". Why? Because you're hurting them where it huts most.
"The choices that need to be available for consumers to deal with this issue are non-existant."
Really? You mean to tell me that the mobo I bought in February has drm on it? I don't think so, Clyde. Ditto my monitors, my video card, etc. No drm to be found. I'd have to go out of my way to find a mobo that has palladium (trusted computing platform)... I'd have to break into some lab somewhere and STEAL it. Why? Because nobody' selling that shit yet. No consumer demand.
"We already have one source of media, movies, now completely locked up by DRM schemes and where the only workarounds are illegal"
... really? Gee, I guess my el cheapo region-free dvd player is a figment of my imagination. And the last time I looked, it was quite happy to play non-drm'd content.
As far as the laws are concerned, all bad laws do is get people to ignore them, and disrespect their proponents. We're seeing a pushback against these stupid attacks on fair use. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen, the same as other stupidities like laws against gays and lesbians, or criminalizing soft drugs, or "my country right or wrong".
Come on, there's no way it takes more than an hour to slap together a box, never mind a day. And the cpu comes with thermal paste on it (and you can even skip THAT step if you get a cpu/mobo combo).
So, lets see...
Take combo cpu/mobo out of box;
Slap the memory in
Screw the 6 stand-offs to the case
Screw the mobo to the stand-offs with 6 screws
snap the drive cables to the connectors on the mobo
set the jumpers for the hard drive and dvd burner both to master
connect the cables - 1 for hd, 1 for dvd
screw the hd and dvd into the case - 4 screws each
If the case didn't come with a power supply already installed, 4 screws fixes that
plug the power supply to the mobo (1 or 2 cables), dvd and hd
run sound cable from sound pins on mobo to dvd player
plug it in - if it boots up, close the case and you're good to go.
There's no need to fool around with floppy cables or drives, usb wiring, the cpu, network card, sound card, video card. If this takes you a day, you have serious problems. As for the parts information, all you had to do was ask a clerk, or the kid next door. Assembling a computer is a LOT easier than changing the spark plugs on a car, which on a sideways v-6 is a real pita.
As for installing the operating system and applications - Windows loses big-time here in terms of ease as well as cost.
If Aunt Mildred can't in stall Linux, she certainly can't install Windows. But I'd bet if you gave her that bare box and an ubuntu disk in the dvd drive, she'd be able to click the shit out of the "install" icon and install linux. Windows, Office, an antivirus, and all those comparable applications, then entering product keys from that itty bitty sticker that you need a magnifying glass to fucking read (or you se the photocopier to make a double-sized copy)? Bwahahahahaha...
The ONLY thing that will prevent the proliferation of DRM is the consumer not buying it.
As long as there is a demand for non-drm hardware, manufacturers WILL make it, because they can make money off it.
Linus has stated that this is a 20-year battle, not something that can be resolved in a day. Its not going to change just because of the GPLv3 - that only affects software. The problem is hardware, not software. Vote with your wallet, and if a significant number of people do, then non-drm hardware remains available.
You have only yourself to blame if you own an iPod, or pay to download drm'd music. You've already voted with your $$$, saying "I'll buy drm'd shite"
Fucktards. You can't have it both ways. You can't go and say "oh, drm is BAD" and then get all weak-kneed and gooey-eyed because you want your drm'd music. All you iPod-toting freaks have whored yourselves out, and real cheap too... 99 cents.
Its like the guy who sees a pretty woman:
Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Wow, sure!
Man: How about for a buck?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We've already established that with the first question. Now we're just haggling over price.
If its bad, boycott it at the consumer level. Vote with your wallet. THAT will fix the problem. (Hint: Ask Sony about how well their r00tkit program went).
Same with Windows. Don't want vendor lockin at the OS level? Don't support Microsoft or Apple, because they're pushing for it. The hardware vendors don't give a damn one way or another... they'll make anything the market wants.
But don't go around throwing rocks at Linus for pointing out that all you iPod-toting Windows weenies are emperors without clothes, and that the GPLv3 doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is the choices that YOU as a consumer make.
No it doesn't. There's nothing preventing someone from cherry-picking any new, neat feature you come up with, and duplicating it (w/o looking at the source), and doing whatever they want with it.
So all you end up doing is creating forks. Proprietary forks. Not good.
Which would you rather have - Tivo running linux, or Tivo running Windows? A win for linux or a win for Microsoft? Really, think about it...
If you have a choice between the "latest and greatest, shiniest, sleekest" hardware with drm, and some slightly older, or plainer, much cheaper hardware w/o drm, you have only yourself to blame for being distracted by "oh, look - shiney...."
I don't know many people who go out and buy a "name brand" computer - they mostly either go to a baige-box assembler, or build it themselves, or get someone else to. For one thing, the hardware comes with better warranties when you build it yourself. For example - if I buy a retail computer, it comes with a 1-year warranty. If I build it myself, the cpu has a 3-year warranty, the hard drives are warranted for between 3 and 5 years, the memory for life, etc. The money I save can buy a nice-looking case, etc. And I STILL have a better warranty than if I go to a name-brand store.
Its not like asembling a computer is rocket science any more. 15 minutes and you have a working box. A kid can do it. No thechnical knowledge needed. The motherboard comes with a do-it-yourself manual, and even the "engrish" is getting better. Assembling a vacuum cleaner is more complicated. Assembling your own computer is on about the level of changing the oil and spark plugs on your car. Millions of people do this themselves every day.
You can't "generate pressure further up the chain" if the consumer doesn't vote with their wallet.
As for the relative availability argument, look at new cars - GM is sitting on a huge unsold inventory , trying to give cars away with huge discounts and zero financing, and Toyota is selling everything they can make at full sticker price.
Put it another way - if you're in the market for non-drm'd hardware, its irrelevant if there are 100 drm'd devices - you'll only consider the 5 non-drm'd devices.
And yes, I "do blame the victim" in cases like this. People bitch and moan about Windows, but they continue to use it when they have options. They keep whining about how linux is "too complicated" or "not yet ready for the desktop", when in reality linux is easier and quicker to install, and, without the virus worries, MUCH more capable as a desktop box.
Same with drm'd hardware and software and music. Nobody is forcing people to buy from iTunes, then lose all their songs when they have a crash. The solution for that has been available for more than 2 years, but we still hear it all the time.
There IS an "interesting" provision in the GPLv3 "This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions, if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using, selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in compliance with this License."
Unfortunately, this provision is pretty useless. It doesn't prevent another SCO, for example. Anyone could still make, use, redistribute unmodified versions while asserting patent claims. The reason they couldn't all use (including unmodified versions) is because you can't "lose your rights" to something because of actions of a 3rd party.
Put another way - if you modify the source and include your own patented stuff, you can't distribute it, then claim patent infringement for use in that software. But you know something? No court would have found otherwise with GPLv2. So why bother?
Ubuntu and RedHat are going after 2 different markets. Plus, ubuntu isn't there yet for a lot of us. I don't buy the "server admins ar going to switch" angle. Sure, we'll stick it on our users' computers, and for a Windows user, I think ubuntu can work and said so here, but it doesn't meet MY needs, which is why I'm sticking with SuSE, and why others will stick with RedHat (and I'm going to say the same when I get around to writing up my review of SSuSE 10.1).
Its the euthanasia injection of choice by those who don't want to get caught. Give them a couple of ativan to get them "out of it", then inject them with KCl.
Yep. A truck with a couple of magnetic signs on the side (for quick removal), and nobody questions it, even if you're there with a slim jim popping open the door and the alarms going crazy.
Even easier - get a job driving the truck for AAA. During "slack time" while you're waiting for a call you can swipe a car or two.
Or make friends with the salesmen at the local car lot, and have them leave at night with the keys, make dupes, and replace them in the morning. Or make keys of their "drivers" - the cars they drive around that are later sold as "demos". Car salesmen are a pretty shifty lot.
We had one case up here where 2 employees swiped at least 159 cars "to order". Lots of proof that the owner of the lot was involved, but not enough to get a conviction.
RTFA a little closer. The car had RFID keys and shouldn't be able to start without the physical key being present, making theft considerably more difficult. While new in the US, such technology has been fairly common in Europe for over a decade.
Read what I wrote a little closer. I said "since when do you need the keys to steal a car?" The answer is simple - you don't.
Two words... Tow Truck.
Shove that Navigator into a nearby container and even a lojack can't find it (the condainer makes a nice faraday cage, blocking all radio signals).
Q: What do you call someone whoo thinks a key is perfect protection against theft?
A: A pigeon.
Read "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham for an account of some of the dirty practices of insurance companies in denying claims.
FTFA summary: "Their forensic examiner concluded that since all the keys were accounted for, there was no way the engine could have been started"
Since when do you need the keys to steal a vehicle? And if all the keys WEREN'T accounted for, the claim would have been denied because "obviously the claimant was negligent and someone else got a key from them."
Even with your example, that doesn't prevent anyone from modifying the source and running it... just not on that particular hardware. So your freedom to modify the source and run it hasn't gone bye-bye. You don't have to even buy the hardware to get the source - just find someone who already has a copy.
Nothing is preventing you from competing with Tivo and offering a better product, based on their code.
Slashdot Mirror
"It uses the phone's built-in Bluetooth to link to the PC, so cool!"
First time I've seen "dumb" spelled "c-o-o-l".
FTFA: "Ballbot has an onboard computer that reads balance information from its internal sensors, activating rollers that mobilize the ball on which it moves -- a system that is essentially an inverse mouse-ball drive. When Ballbot is not in operation, it stands in place on three retractable legs."
One word: lint. This sucker will fall down as soon as the rollers get clogged up, same as your mouse stops working.
Or try spilling some oil from your salad on the ground. Or leave a few pieces of duct tape, sticky side up, lying around,
I'll welcome our robot overlords to follow me ... down this flight of stairs, you motherf*ckers! :-)
"Hollis is working to prove that dynamically stable robots like Ballbot can outperform their static counterparts."
Humans are also dynamically stable. Even when we're standing still, we're dynamically balanced, as muscles alternately contract and release to maintain our balance. He doesn't have to "prove" this - its something evolution worked out long ago.
Your example actually makes my claims more plausible. If the majority of laptop manufacturers only make locked-down ms-compatible laptops, then the few who don't will get "more than their share" of action, won't they? Or are you saying that somehow when it comes to DRM, that the market is not a "free market", and that somehow or other everyone will be mystically prevented from manufacturing non-locked-down hardware?
DRM'd hardware doesn't remove your freedom to run the software elsewhere, just not on that hardware. What's the big deal? You still have ALL the freedoms of free software, including the right to the source code, the right to modify it, the right to run it on other hardware. That it won't run modified on a particular piece of hardware doesn't affect these freedoms, any mor than your old amiga software not running on an intel box.
I agree that the whole drm'd tivo thing sucks, but again, nobody is being forced to buy a tivo. You can buy other dvrs that allow you to make copies. You can buy dvd recorders that will record your tv shows directly to dvd for $150.00 at the local grocery store, so what's all this tivo tivo tivo shit? You have choices. You have alternatives.
I figure that if that's the only way its going to get built (because of market dynamics, etc) then its better than nothing. I guess that's the difference between a glass half full, and a glass half empty. Now if someone could explains WTF the difference really is between a glass that's half full and one that's half empty ... because to me that saying doesn't make sense. At least "free as in beer" does.
Buying an iPod is supporting a business (Apple) that is doing its best to be THE drm content provider. So, don't be so quick with the "who's the idiot" bit. If you're against drm, don't buy Apple products that support drm.
"Here's a thought in return for yours: Why not apply some of that economic darwinism to the licencing arena? Let RMS and Eben Moglen do their stuff and then see which licences survive contact with the real world? The devs and users will vote with their feet, and we'll see what's really viable and what not. Let's let the market sort it out :D"/i>
I'm with you on that one. And yes, I think we'll see a lot of projects hard-coding GPLv2 as their license (we already see it with the linux kernel).
Here's a thought ... what is the GPLv4 going to contain, if this goes through? Perhaps a restriction that GPL'd software can only be run on GPL'd operating systems? Or that all modifications have to be pushed back into the public pool, even if they're totally irrelevant to anyone else's needs, or even if there's no "distribution"?
Or ... and this HAS been proposed ... that modifying GPL'd software and using it to serve up content should also be considered "distribution". If you want to kill off a LOT of open-source projects, that's a good way to do it. Imagine having to take your copy of wordpress or drupal or postnuke that you've customized, and having to guarantee that you'll make all mods available for 3 years, even though you haven't distributed any of it to anyone else; you've just fixed it up so it works the way YOU want. Most people would be saying "screw that."
Proprietary software is part of the mix. It covers a lot of things, including the modification of GPL'd software for use internally or on customer-facing servers. Those modifications are proprietary, and as long as there is no distribution, there should be no need to disclose anything. The ability to use GPL'd software in this way encourages people to use it, and some of those people are going to "put back" into the pool.
Is google "stealing" because they haven't made googlefs available to everyone? No.
Now apply this to the DRM issue. As long as the source is made available if the product is being distributed, I don't see what the problem is. Because there is a very effective work-around to the GPL, and you can bet that it will be used if this goes through: devices will not be sold, just "lent" to the customer; you sign up for a tivo-like service and you're lent a receiver at no extra charge. Since the receiver never becomes the property of the customer, there is no "distribution". With hardwaqre getting cheaper and cheaper, this becomes a viable alternative.
To argue otherwise (that distribution DOES occur even though n property changes ownership) would cause a HUGE problem for a lot of businesses right now. For example, say Company A modifies some GPL'd software and sticks it on an in-house server. That server needs to be sent out for repairs. You can't argue that "disribution" has taken place because Company B temporarily took delivery of the server to repair it ... ownership never transferred. If you were successful in arguing this, then you'd see a lot of support contracts just disappear - and a lot of development leave linux and go to bsd because of this sort of risk.
In fact, I'd go so far as to predict that the GPLv3, and more restrictive definitions of "redistribution" could ultimately result in the resurgence of bsd at the expense of linux. Its not like there's all that much difference as far as most users would be concerned.
No, I'm saying the same thing Linus said - that DRM is not going to go away because we change a license - its going to go away only if consumers reject it.
If consumers embrace it, then GPLv3 is irrelevant, since people won't care, and will stick with DRM'd solutions anyway.
If consumers reject it, then GPLv3 is irrelevant, because people won't be using DRM'd solutions anyway.
Its not relevant under either scenario. ultimately, DRM is a social problem, not a licensing problem.
And yes, the ability for any Joe Sixpack to slap together a computer with only a bit of knowledge was a very liberating thing ... or have you forgotten that before the advent of personal computers, everything was centrally controlled off a few machines, with access strictly limited.
The battlefield isn't between developers and manufacturers -its totally with the consumers. Toyota understood this, and GM didn't, so while Toyota built cars for consumers, GM built cars to compete against their competitor Ford. That's why either this year or next, Toyota will be the largest car manufacturer in the world and GM and Ford are both facing bankruptcy.
"Companies like TiVo are benefiting from the same communities they're undermining, using GNU and Linux to create their products while simultaneously undermining the freedom of their users"
How has Tivo prevented you from using any GPL'd code on other hardware? Have they made the bits disappear? Made them proprietary? Changed the license? No. So you can't run modified binaries on Tivo ... nothing stopping you or someone else from using the same code to compete in the marketplace by offering a superior hardware product.
And there's no law that says you have a constitutional right to own a Tivo.
If you're so opposed to their practices, just don't buy one. Enough people do, someone (they're called "competitors") will see a marketing opportunity.
My point is that acceptance of DRM raises the barrier to entry for free software, and that this is a bad thing.
Whose acceptance? If the consumer rejects it, it doesn't matter how much everyone else down the line thinks its the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Edsel, Corvair, New Coke, Microsoft Bob and Clippy, the Newton, slavery, Prohibition ...
Take a long, hard look at that last one - Prohibition - and see what the consequences are for trying to defy the general publics' will.
You have the choice not to buy those dvds. Nobody is forcing you to. So you go without. Big deal. If enough people did it, the producers would say "fuck that shit". Why? Because you're hurting them where it huts most.
"The choices that need to be available for consumers to deal with this issue are non-existant."
Really? You mean to tell me that the mobo I bought in February has drm on it? I don't think so, Clyde. Ditto my monitors, my video card, etc. No drm to be found. I'd have to go out of my way to find a mobo that has palladium (trusted computing platform) ... I'd have to break into some lab somewhere and STEAL it. Why? Because nobody' selling that shit yet. No consumer demand.
"We already have one source of media, movies, now completely locked up by DRM schemes and where the only workarounds are illegal"
As far as the laws are concerned, all bad laws do is get people to ignore them, and disrespect their proponents. We're seeing a pushback against these stupid attacks on fair use. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen, the same as other stupidities like laws against gays and lesbians, or criminalizing soft drugs, or "my country right or wrong".
So, lets see ...
-
Take combo cpu/mobo out of box;
-
Slap the memory in
-
Screw the 6 stand-offs to the case
-
Screw the mobo to the stand-offs with 6 screws
-
snap the drive cables to the connectors on the mobo
-
set the jumpers for the hard drive and dvd burner both to master
-
connect the cables - 1 for hd, 1 for dvd
-
screw the hd and dvd into the case - 4 screws each
-
If the case didn't come with a power supply already installed, 4 screws fixes that
-
plug the power supply to the mobo (1 or 2 cables), dvd and hd
-
run sound cable from sound pins on mobo to dvd player
-
plug it in - if it boots up, close the case and you're good to go.
There's no need to fool around with floppy cables or drives, usb wiring, the cpu, network card, sound card, video card. If this takes you a day, you have serious problems. As for the parts information, all you had to do was ask a clerk, or the kid next door. Assembling a computer is a LOT easier than changing the spark plugs on a car, which on a sideways v-6 is a real pita.As for installing the operating system and applications - Windows loses big-time here in terms of ease as well as cost.
If Aunt Mildred can't in stall Linux, she certainly can't install Windows. But I'd bet if you gave her that bare box and an ubuntu disk in the dvd drive, she'd be able to click the shit out of the "install" icon and install linux. Windows, Office, an antivirus, and all those comparable applications, then entering product keys from that itty bitty sticker that you need a magnifying glass to fucking read (or you se the photocopier to make a double-sized copy)? Bwahahahahaha ...
Give it up. Windows is harder to install.
The ONLY thing that will prevent the proliferation of DRM is the consumer not buying it.
As long as there is a demand for non-drm hardware, manufacturers WILL make it, because they can make money off it.
Linus has stated that this is a 20-year battle, not something that can be resolved in a day. Its not going to change just because of the GPLv3 - that only affects software. The problem is hardware, not software. Vote with your wallet, and if a significant number of people do, then non-drm hardware remains available.
You have only yourself to blame if you own an iPod, or pay to download drm'd music. You've already voted with your $$$, saying "I'll buy drm'd shite"
Fucktards. You can't have it both ways. You can't go and say "oh, drm is BAD" and then get all weak-kneed and gooey-eyed because you want your drm'd music. All you iPod-toting freaks have whored yourselves out, and real cheap too ... 99 cents.
Its like the guy who sees a pretty woman:
Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Wow, sure!
Man: How about for a buck?
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am?
Man: We've already established that with the first question. Now we're just haggling over price.
If its bad, boycott it at the consumer level. Vote with your wallet. THAT will fix the problem. (Hint: Ask Sony about how well their r00tkit program went).
Same with Windows. Don't want vendor lockin at the OS level? Don't support Microsoft or Apple, because they're pushing for it. The hardware vendors don't give a damn one way or another ... they'll make anything the market wants.
But don't go around throwing rocks at Linus for pointing out that all you iPod-toting Windows weenies are emperors without clothes, and that the GPLv3 doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is the choices that YOU as a consumer make.
No it doesn't. There's nothing preventing someone from cherry-picking any new, neat feature you come up with, and duplicating it (w/o looking at the source), and doing whatever they want with it.
So all you end up doing is creating forks. Proprietary forks. Not good.
Which would you rather have - Tivo running linux, or Tivo running Windows? A win for linux or a win for Microsoft? Really, think about it ...
If you have a choice between the "latest and greatest, shiniest, sleekest" hardware with drm, and some slightly older, or plainer, much cheaper hardware w/o drm, you have only yourself to blame for being distracted by "oh, look - shiney ...."
I don't know many people who go out and buy a "name brand" computer - they mostly either go to a baige-box assembler, or build it themselves, or get someone else to. For one thing, the hardware comes with better warranties when you build it yourself. For example - if I buy a retail computer, it comes with a 1-year warranty. If I build it myself, the cpu has a 3-year warranty, the hard drives are warranted for between 3 and 5 years, the memory for life, etc. The money I save can buy a nice-looking case, etc. And I STILL have a better warranty than if I go to a name-brand store.
Its not like asembling a computer is rocket science any more. 15 minutes and you have a working box. A kid can do it. No thechnical knowledge needed. The motherboard comes with a do-it-yourself manual, and even the "engrish" is getting better. Assembling a vacuum cleaner is more complicated. Assembling your own computer is on about the level of changing the oil and spark plugs on your car. Millions of people do this themselves every day.
You can't "generate pressure further up the chain" if the consumer doesn't vote with their wallet.
As for the relative availability argument, look at new cars - GM is sitting on a huge unsold inventory , trying to give cars away with huge discounts and zero financing, and Toyota is selling everything they can make at full sticker price.
Put it another way - if you're in the market for non-drm'd hardware, its irrelevant if there are 100 drm'd devices - you'll only consider the 5 non-drm'd devices.
And yes, I "do blame the victim" in cases like this. People bitch and moan about Windows, but they continue to use it when they have options. They keep whining about how linux is "too complicated" or "not yet ready for the desktop", when in reality linux is easier and quicker to install, and, without the virus worries, MUCH more capable as a desktop box.
Same with drm'd hardware and software and music. Nobody is forcing people to buy from iTunes, then lose all their songs when they have a crash. The solution for that has been available for more than 2 years, but we still hear it all the time.
There IS an "interesting" provision in the GPLv3 "This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions, if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using, selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in compliance with this License."
Unfortunately, this provision is pretty useless. It doesn't prevent another SCO, for example. Anyone could still make, use, redistribute unmodified versions while asserting patent claims. The reason they couldn't all use (including unmodified versions) is because you can't "lose your rights" to something because of actions of a 3rd party.
Put another way - if you modify the source and include your own patented stuff, you can't distribute it, then claim patent infringement for use in that software. But you know something? No court would have found otherwise with GPLv2. So why bother?
GPLv3 is, more and more, a can of worms.
Don't be silly.
Ubuntu and RedHat are going after 2 different markets. Plus, ubuntu isn't there yet for a lot of us. I don't buy the "server admins ar going to switch" angle. Sure, we'll stick it on our users' computers, and for a Windows user, I think ubuntu can work and said so here, but it doesn't meet MY needs, which is why I'm sticking with SuSE, and why others will stick with RedHat (and I'm going to say the same when I get around to writing up my review of SSuSE 10.1).
And yes, I'm one of those who says that Vista wil mark the death of Microsoft's monopoly. That doesn't make me an automatic ubuntu supporter.
potassium chloride.
Its the euthanasia injection of choice by those who don't want to get caught. Give them a couple of ativan to get them "out of it", then inject them with KCl.
Yep. A truck with a couple of magnetic signs on the side (for quick removal), and nobody questions it, even if you're there with a slim jim popping open the door and the alarms going crazy.
Even easier - get a job driving the truck for AAA. During "slack time" while you're waiting for a call you can swipe a car or two.
Or make friends with the salesmen at the local car lot, and have them leave at night with the keys, make dupes, and replace them in the morning. Or make keys of their "drivers" - the cars they drive around that are later sold as "demos". Car salesmen are a pretty shifty lot.
We had one case up here where 2 employees swiped at least 159 cars "to order". Lots of proof that the owner of the lot was involved, but not enough to get a conviction.
RTFA a little closer. The car had RFID keys and shouldn't be able to start without the physical key being present, making theft considerably more difficult. While new in the US, such technology has been fairly common in Europe for over a decade.
Read what I wrote a little closer. I said "since when do you need the keys to steal a car?" The answer is simple - you don't.
Two words ... Tow Truck.
Shove that Navigator into a nearby container and even a lojack can't find it (the condainer makes a nice faraday cage, blocking all radio signals).
Q: What do you call someone whoo thinks a key is perfect protection against theft?
A: A pigeon.
Read "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham for an account of some of the dirty practices of insurance companies in denying claims.
FTFA summary: "Their forensic examiner concluded that since all the keys were accounted for, there was no way the engine could have been started"
Since when do you need the keys to steal a vehicle? And if all the keys WEREN'T accounted for, the claim would have been denied because "obviously the claimant was negligent and someone else got a key from them."
Well, I do have a large collection of jokes, puns, etc., and if you wait long enough, or drink enough, one of them is bound to be funny.
If she remarried, she is no longer a widow - she's a married woman (thugh she will still be husband #1's widow).
Same as if you divorce someone, then remarry. You're not divorced, you're married (though you are still your previous spouse's ex).
Even with your example, that doesn't prevent anyone from modifying the source and running it ... just not on that particular hardware. So your freedom to modify the source and run it hasn't gone bye-bye. You don't have to even buy the hardware to get the source - just find someone who already has a copy.
Nothing is preventing you from competing with Tivo and offering a better product, based on their code.