Now I don't want this to come out the wrong way, and I'm already starting to wander a little offtopic, but wouldn't it be better to post a story once with all of the information than posting it several times with fragmented information?
IANAJ (I am not a journalist) but it would seem more important to have all the facts than to get that proverbial "first post". It doesn't matter if someone else breaks the story first, as long as you have the better/more complete information. That makes you (and Slashdot) look more professional and less knee-jerk.
"Can I use Linux to watch a Disney DVD I've legally purchased on open source DVD playing software? Is there anything which artificially restricts Linux' ability to do so? (Here in the US there certainly is)"
When you put it that way, it sounds to me more like a deficiency in the open source DVD playing software, not the DVD itself.
I'll burn a little kharma to let you know that your post made me a Fan. It's about goddamned time somebody spelled all of that out. It's really kinda sad that some people are so addicted to media that they'll steal to get it... sounds like crack or something.
Heads up, people. If you don't like the product, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT!
"Are we trying to make the Best Operating System or the Most Popular Operating System?"
You seem to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree. There is no reason why an OS/desktop environment cannot be both intuitive and customizable. The fact that Redhat chose a look & feel similar to Windows XP does not detract from the OS (except from the perspective of frothing Linux zealots who fly into seizures at the thought of anything open-source resembling anything Microsoft).
There will always be differences, but Redhat shouldn't be disparaged for trying to bring their product to the masses by providing them with a familiar environment. If anything, they should be applauded.
"Apparently this new technology is an offshoot of USB2 and it can remove the limitation of the master slave operation of normal USB devices, where you need a Host PC (the Master) to talk with the peripherals (the slaves)."
Comon people, this is the 21st century for Christ's sake! As progressive, technologically savvy people, we should be horrified that the institution of slavery is still a common practice in the computer industry.
On a more serious note, I wonder when the PC (politically-correct, not personal computer) crowd will take exception to the technological "master/slave" terminology.
You're lucky I don't happen to have mod points at the moment. -1: Slashbotting
But seriously your argument about why desktop managers should not look and feel like Windows is flawed, or at the very least you don't understand why at least some similarities with Windows is necessary for the continued success of Linux.
One of the main goals of this site, I would venture, is to promote Linux as an OS that is both innovative enough for geeks, and practical enough for everyday users. Like it or not, most everyday users use Windows. And like it or not, the only way you are going to get most Windows users to switch to Linux is to provide them with a familiar, comfortable environment.
Put your elitism aside for a minute and you will realize that for now, at least, providing a desktop environment similar to that of Windows is a Good Thing (TM). Unless, of course, you feel that your ego is threatened by the idea of the everyday dumb Joe-user preferring your 'l33T OS.
...they're going to have to learn how to play the game.
I've read the reviews and it would appear that there's a lot of potential in Lindows 2.0. However I have a problem with the fact (or at least the perception) that the driving force behind Lindows' marketing is deception.
Say what you will about it's differences, 'Lindows' CAN imply a connection, or at least a similarity, to the popular Microsoft offering. This latest news only strengthens the perception that Lindows is trying to achieve success/market share by deceiving it's target customers.
If Lindows is going to gain any credibility, it has to be a little more careful about the face it shows to the public. It would be a shame if a great product (who can't like a $199 computer system?) is never realized because it's creators can't play by the rules.
"(of course by community they mean the few guys they personally know and who make money using their MS knowledge)"
I think we all could have gotten the point of the story without the editorial. I'm not talking about censoring the guy, I'm just saying that it detracts from an otherwise decent story.
Speaking of Microsoft buying things...
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"While it is understandable from Microsoft, it is interesting that IBM, who often claims to be a defender of Open Source Software, would be so negative."
I don't suppose it ever occured to the submitter of the story that IBM might have taken an objective look at MySQL and formulated it's remarks based on first-hand observations, instead of the rehearsed and oft-repeated rhetoric of open-source fanaticism.
A lynching is not majority rule. It is mob rule, where a vocal minority act out on what others may feel, but respect the law and do not act on their feelings.
I never said there were "deep moral problems" with embryonic stem cell research. My words were "deep moral and scientific implications", suggesting that there is much to be considered before embracing the controversial research.
like I also stated, I have no desire to put religious dogma in the way of medical progress. The point I'm making is that (as President) there is no point in pissing off a whole lot of people who believe that embryonic stem cell research is wrong by supporting what is little more than theory. Call it political if you wish, but I call it sound judgement.
"but what if a film was edited so that the "terrorists" in [insert favorite Arnold Schwarzenegger film] looked more compassionate or justified in their actions"
Apples and oranges.
As I understand it, the only editing going on in these films is the omission of nudity, profanity, and objectionable that do nothing to change the story. Your comparison suggests that the story itself is being revised.
I'd be willing to bet that's not what is taking place, and that the storylines of these films are not being altered in any way.
Granted it would be considerate of Clean Flicks to consult the directors, but since they own the films (the VHS tapes, not the story itself, mind you) they have no (legal) obligation to seek consent.
Whether or not the beliefs are religious in nature or not, this country has always been a matter of majority-rule.
I don't think President Bush's decision on this was motivated solely by his moral apprehensions. Rather I don't believe there was sufficient scientific evidence that this course of action is yet appropriate. Another reader commented that (as far as he/she knew) there has been little or no embrionic research done on animals.
If I were the president, I'd certainly want evidence that something with such deep moral and scientific implications worked before I encouraged and/or spent taxpayers' money to fund such a program.
An interesting point, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not represent a particularly large segment of the American population or their beliefs.
Now if there were 100 million Jehova's Witnesses in America, this might be a relevant (and somewhat scary) comparison.
Now I agree tha we cannot let religious dogma interfere with potentially life-saving/enriching medicine, but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.
...to CleanFlicks for bringing their business to customers who wouldn't otherwise have purchased these films.
I think this is a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. It makes absolutely no business sense whatsoever, and if the egos of these directors interferes with their cash flow, who are we to save them from themselves?
...exactly how is this "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?
Unless Slashdot has abandoned it's focus on geeky things like computers, Linux, sci-fi, and cool gadgets, and instead is switching to political commentary about the have's and the have-not's, I don't see how this story belongs here.
Like the parent post said, as well as the article, "This software conflict somehow triggered a copy protection scheme known as 5C, which is designed to prevent mass duplication of television shows and movies."
Now assuming you yourself read the article, you will observe that this was caused by a bug that triggered the DRM software, NOT caused by the DRM software itself.
No matter how hard you try to pin this one on DRM, it still goes back to simple human error.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAJ (I am not a journalist) but it would seem more important to have all the facts than to get that proverbial "first post". It doesn't matter if someone else breaks the story first, as long as you have the better/more complete information. That makes you (and Slashdot) look more professional and less knee-jerk.
When you put it that way, it sounds to me more like a deficiency in the open source DVD playing software, not the DVD itself.
Heads up, people. If you don't like the product, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT!
You seem to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree. There is no reason why an OS/desktop environment cannot be both intuitive and customizable. The fact that Redhat chose a look & feel similar to Windows XP does not detract from the OS (except from the perspective of frothing Linux zealots who fly into seizures at the thought of anything open-source resembling anything Microsoft).
There will always be differences, but Redhat shouldn't be disparaged for trying to bring their product to the masses by providing them with a familiar environment. If anything, they should be applauded.
Comon people, this is the 21st century for Christ's sake! As progressive, technologically savvy people, we should be horrified that the institution of slavery is still a common practice in the computer industry.
On a more serious note, I wonder when the PC (politically-correct, not personal computer) crowd will take exception to the technological "master/slave" terminology.
Wow, 5 dimensions (2D + 3D) for the price of 3 (2D * 1.5). Ya can't beat a deal like that!
He must have meant 5 DAYS.
...because that's probably the only way I'm going to be able to afford one of these. Now what do I tell my bank...?
What economy are they referring to? Certainly not the American economy...
But seriously your argument about why desktop managers should not look and feel like Windows is flawed, or at the very least you don't understand why at least some similarities with Windows is necessary for the continued success of Linux.
One of the main goals of this site, I would venture, is to promote Linux as an OS that is both innovative enough for geeks, and practical enough for everyday users. Like it or not, most everyday users use Windows. And like it or not, the only way you are going to get most Windows users to switch to Linux is to provide them with a familiar, comfortable environment.
Put your elitism aside for a minute and you will realize that for now, at least, providing a desktop environment similar to that of Windows is a Good Thing (TM). Unless, of course, you feel that your ego is threatened by the idea of the everyday dumb Joe-user preferring your 'l33T OS.
I've read the reviews and it would appear that there's a lot of potential in Lindows 2.0. However I have a problem with the fact (or at least the perception) that the driving force behind Lindows' marketing is deception.
Say what you will about it's differences, 'Lindows' CAN imply a connection, or at least a similarity, to the popular Microsoft offering. This latest news only strengthens the perception that Lindows is trying to achieve success/market share by deceiving it's target customers.
If Lindows is going to gain any credibility, it has to be a little more careful about the face it shows to the public. It would be a shame if a great product (who can't like a $199 computer system?) is never realized because it's creators can't play by the rules.
...there seems something very wrong with associating the word "tiny" with a "home theater".
Here's proof of this hypocrisy in living color.
I think we all could have gotten the point of the story without the editorial. I'm not talking about censoring the guy, I'm just saying that it detracts from an otherwise decent story.
...looks like game companies aren't all that Microsoft has been able to buy.
I don't suppose it ever occured to the submitter of the story that IBM might have taken an objective look at MySQL and formulated it's remarks based on first-hand observations, instead of the rehearsed and oft-repeated rhetoric of open-source fanaticism.
I never said there were "deep moral problems" with embryonic stem cell research. My words were "deep moral and scientific implications", suggesting that there is much to be considered before embracing the controversial research.
like I also stated, I have no desire to put religious dogma in the way of medical progress. The point I'm making is that (as President) there is no point in pissing off a whole lot of people who believe that embryonic stem cell research is wrong by supporting what is little more than theory. Call it political if you wish, but I call it sound judgement.
Apples and oranges.
As I understand it, the only editing going on in these films is the omission of nudity, profanity, and objectionable that do nothing to change the story. Your comparison suggests that the story itself is being revised.
I'd be willing to bet that's not what is taking place, and that the storylines of these films are not being altered in any way.
Granted it would be considerate of Clean Flicks to consult the directors, but since they own the films (the VHS tapes, not the story itself, mind you) they have no (legal) obligation to seek consent.
I don't think President Bush's decision on this was motivated solely by his moral apprehensions. Rather I don't believe there was sufficient scientific evidence that this course of action is yet appropriate. Another reader commented that (as far as he/she knew) there has been little or no embrionic research done on animals.
If I were the president, I'd certainly want evidence that something with such deep moral and scientific implications worked before I encouraged and/or spent taxpayers' money to fund such a program.
Now if there were 100 million Jehova's Witnesses in America, this might be a relevant (and somewhat scary) comparison.
Now I agree tha we cannot let religious dogma interfere with potentially life-saving/enriching medicine, but until there is sufficient evidence that embryonic stem cells can actually produce what many scientists and doctors theorize they can, I will be suspicious of it.
I think this is a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. It makes absolutely no business sense whatsoever, and if the egos of these directors interferes with their cash flow, who are we to save them from themselves?
If I hadn't read it on Slashdot, I never would have thought it possible to so willingly invite litigation upon oneself.
Your point is well taken. Consider my question answered!
Unless Slashdot has abandoned it's focus on geeky things like computers, Linux, sci-fi, and cool gadgets, and instead is switching to political commentary about the have's and the have-not's, I don't see how this story belongs here.
Now assuming you yourself read the article, you will observe that this was caused by a bug that triggered the DRM software, NOT caused by the DRM software itself.
No matter how hard you try to pin this one on DRM, it still goes back to simple human error.