I had thought about this kind of thing as a way for the MPAA to fight the Pirate Bay. If they provide a way to access PB torrents, through RSS or something, PB would lose ad revenue. There would be no signup, just view and access torrents posted on PB without the ads. Maybe put in some movie preview torrents (also hosted by PB) to get more people into theaters.
I'm sure there are safeguards that check ips before you can join a torrent so I'm not sure if this is even viable. It was just a thought.
Dude, cloning existing good software, assigning it a 0.1 version number, giving it away for nothing, and telling everyone they should be using the clone instead is what Open Source is all about.
Not sure exactly how TOR works but it seems to me like a node could choose to deny connections to certain sites. It this not possible? Or does everyone running a node not care who they are helping?
That sounds good, but even if most consumers decide a price is fair, because it is available in digital form, there will always be someone who would prefer a price of $0. And once it's available for $0, why pay?
All this really does is make things worse for everyone. Now there will need to be a bigger better DRM lock which will most likely reduce the number of hours you can run on a single charge.
Right. It says "You may not..." not "We may not..." so unless you strike the "or later versions" clause, you don't really control how others use your code, the author of the GPL does.
I agree on some points. The problem with Stallman is his principles don't scale beyond UNIX commands, which are atomic in nature. If I want control over how a UNIX command works, I need the source. As software gets larger and more extendable, the less I need the source code to make it do what I want. I can write a Firefox extension, an Apache module, etc. without looking at the source code.
So as programs become more extendable, the less Stallman's reasoning make sense, the less his goals outweight the need to make a living (for me they never did).
Stallman is pushing for GPL3 in Linux because it is the flagship OSS project. He was so caught up in his myopic B.S. crusade that he didn't think Linus would say no. When Linus said no, Stallman then made the classy move of suggesting other kernel hackers go against Linus' wishes and license their parts of the kernel as GPL3.
As Linus said, I don't need to recompile the kernel on my toaster or PVR. The FSF view does not scale well when it's not used against a monopoly. For RMS it was the UNIX monopoly, for this gen it's Microsoft. But when you use a software license to fight someone like TiVo, the cause doesn't seem as righteous... because they are just trying to make a buck. If the FSF really knew what was best for everyone then we wouldn't be discussing this, we'd be running the HURD kernel.
You had me until "Then you win because software is more valuable" because Open Source is only an alternative to other software that will play nice with DRM. Closed source softeware is also valuable, in fact you could argue that it is more valuable to Dell and Gateway. Actually, no need to argue, it IS more valuable to hardware vendors.
1: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. 2: Don't put the knife to your own neck.
The GPL3 says, stay open or else. The message that needs to be sent is, stay open, that's what your customers want.
The only advantage they have is that they think people won't care or won't notice.
Trusted Computing is coming, so how is making the GPL completely incompatible going to help anything? If people buy into this idea, Open Source will just get squashed. The idea that being able to use Open Source on your hardware can be used as a bartering chip in this fight is laughable. If this comes to pass, Ballmer should put posters of RMS up in his office, buy him a new car, a new suit, and a locked down machine that only runs Windows.
This fight can only be fought with wallets. Consumers have to know what they are buying, and why they don't want a crippled machine. Is that more difficult that adding a few paragraphs to a document? Of course. But it is not in the interest of Dell, Gateway, or Apple to sell crippled computer. They need to know that doing so will lose them money. Hardware vendors should be fighting the Content providers pushing for this, not the FSF.
No, RMS does not force anyone to use GPL. But he has tried to leverage someone else's more successful project to give the GPL3 more steam. Linus didn't like it, so RMS tried to subvert his control by saying Linus can't make other Linux developers not use the GPL3.
That's the problem I have with OSS purists. There is this sense of entitlement to free code and no notion of rewarding someone who works hard besides a pat on the back. I believe this hurts OSS as a whole. I don't think the openness of code, which is a good thing, should be tightly coupled with getting something for nothing.
You could say it fuels projects by forcing contributions but I believe popular OSS projects take off for different reasons, not because people had to pitch in, but because they wanted to.
Just make use of a feature unique to Intel chips that are used in Macs. This would be done to improve performance rather than prevent hacking, that's just gravy (assuming that's what you want) This would mean hackers would need to try hack out the optimized code to make it work on all PCs. At some point, the task of reimplementing the same code becomes too large. If they really wanted to put an end to this, they could add another specialized processor and make heavy use of it.
That said, I don't think that's what Apple wants, they've said so. I think they want to keep their options open. They could release OS X for PCs and just bundle it with Macs. Raise the price for the full version and provide an Upgrade edition at the current price.
One hour to download? That's still faster than getting movies from NetFlix, and you won't have to wait for popular movies.
I would pay for a download rental type service, maybe with an option to buy and burn it to DVD. I'd pay a little more than netflix since I don't have to wait.
How big would HD movies be when compressed with H.264? Would it even fit on a 4.7GB DVD?
One thing he didn't touch on was the audio. I was looking at getting the $499 model with bluetooth and connecting it to my Airport Express for playing music, since it has an optical out, and the mini doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
The Open Source community's biggest weakness: paranoia.
I had thought about this kind of thing as a way for the MPAA to fight the Pirate Bay. If they provide a way to access PB torrents, through RSS or something, PB would lose ad revenue. There would be no signup, just view and access torrents posted on PB without the ads. Maybe put in some movie preview torrents (also hosted by PB) to get more people into theaters.
I'm sure there are safeguards that check ips before you can join a torrent so I'm not sure if this is even viable. It was just a thought.
"If you can't do, preach."
Dude, cloning existing good software, assigning it a 0.1 version number, giving it away for nothing, and telling everyone they should be using the clone instead is what Open Source is all about.
Not sure exactly how TOR works but it seems to me like a node could choose to deny connections to certain sites. It this not possible? Or does everyone running a node not care who they are helping?
That sounds good, but even if most consumers decide a price is fair, because it is available in digital form, there will always be someone who would prefer a price of $0. And once it's available for $0, why pay?
All this really does is make things worse for everyone. Now there will need to be a bigger better DRM lock which will most likely reduce the number of hours you can run on a single charge.
Right. It says "You may not..." not "We may not..." so unless you strike the "or later versions" clause, you don't really control how others use your code, the author of the GPL does.
So your wifi and 3dcard work without a hitch.
...while recompiling his graphics drivers for the lastest kernel...
I kid.
If everyone gets it then why do they keep getting it wrong?
Because they care so little about his point that they can't see it.
You might, but you're more likely screw something up than have it do what you want. Both programs come with very flexible extension framework.
It's like saying, what if I don't want to just change the wheels? What if I want to replace the frame? What do I do then?
I agree on some points. The problem with Stallman is his principles don't scale beyond UNIX commands, which are atomic in nature. If I want control over how a UNIX command works, I need the source. As software gets larger and more extendable, the less I need the source code to make it do what I want. I can write a Firefox extension, an Apache module, etc. without looking at the source code.
So as programs become more extendable, the less Stallman's reasoning make sense, the less his goals outweight the need to make a living (for me they never did).
You'll scream! I'll vmsplice ya, it's gonna hurt.
Tivo gave code back. But that wasn't good enough. They locked down the platform to make their business model work. They sell the units at a loss.
Stallman is pushing for GPL3 in Linux because it is the flagship OSS project. He was so caught up in his myopic B.S. crusade that he didn't think Linus would say no. When Linus said no, Stallman then made the classy move of suggesting other kernel hackers go against Linus' wishes and license their parts of the kernel as GPL3.
As Linus said, I don't need to recompile the kernel on my toaster or PVR. The FSF view does not scale well when it's not used against a monopoly. For RMS it was the UNIX monopoly, for this gen it's Microsoft. But when you use a software license to fight someone like TiVo, the cause doesn't seem as righteous... because they are just trying to make a buck. If the FSF really knew what was best for everyone then we wouldn't be discussing this, we'd be running the HURD kernel.
You had me until "Then you win because software is more valuable" because Open Source is only an alternative to other software that will play nice with DRM. Closed source softeware is also valuable, in fact you could argue that it is more valuable to Dell and Gateway. Actually, no need to argue, it IS more valuable to hardware vendors.
1: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
2: Don't put the knife to your own neck.
The GPL3 says, stay open or else. The message that needs to be sent is, stay open, that's what your customers want.
The only advantage they have is that they think people won't care or won't notice.
Trusted Computing is coming, so how is making the GPL completely incompatible going to help anything? If people buy into this idea, Open Source will just get squashed. The idea that being able to use Open Source on your hardware can be used as a bartering chip in this fight is laughable. If this comes to pass, Ballmer should put posters of RMS up in his office, buy him a new car, a new suit, and a locked down machine that only runs Windows.
This fight can only be fought with wallets. Consumers have to know what they are buying, and why they don't want a crippled machine. Is that more difficult that adding a few paragraphs to a document? Of course. But it is not in the interest of Dell, Gateway, or Apple to sell crippled computer. They need to know that doing so will lose them money. Hardware vendors should be fighting the Content providers pushing for this, not the FSF.
No, RMS does not force anyone to use GPL. But he has tried to leverage someone else's more successful project to give the GPL3 more steam. Linus didn't like it, so RMS tried to subvert his control by saying Linus can't make other Linux developers not use the GPL3.
But no, he doesn't force anyone.
That's the problem I have with OSS purists. There is this sense of entitlement to free code and no notion of rewarding someone who works hard besides a pat on the back. I believe this hurts OSS as a whole. I don't think the openness of code, which is a good thing, should be tightly coupled with getting something for nothing.
You could say it fuels projects by forcing contributions but I believe popular OSS projects take off for different reasons, not because people had to pitch in, but because they wanted to.
Just make use of a feature unique to Intel chips that are used in Macs. This would be done to improve performance rather than prevent hacking, that's just gravy (assuming that's what you want) This would mean hackers would need to try hack out the optimized code to make it work on all PCs. At some point, the task of reimplementing the same code becomes too large. If they really wanted to put an end to this, they could add another specialized processor and make heavy use of it.
That said, I don't think that's what Apple wants, they've said so. I think they want to keep their options open. They could release OS X for PCs and just bundle it with Macs. Raise the price for the full version and provide an Upgrade edition at the current price.
One hour to download? That's still faster than getting movies from NetFlix, and you won't have to wait for popular movies.
I would pay for a download rental type service, maybe with an option to buy and burn it to DVD.
I'd pay a little more than netflix since I don't have to wait.
How big would HD movies be when compressed with H.264? Would it even fit on a 4.7GB DVD?
One thing he didn't touch on was the audio. I was looking at getting the $499 model with bluetooth and connecting it to my Airport Express for playing music, since it has an optical out, and the mini doesn't.
May be this is why there are so many fast cuts during movies nowadays.
If the Stanley Mouse version was at all entertaining then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
It hurt to watch Monsters Inc.
Good thing Nintendo makes money off the boxes... I wonder... how much more is a gamecube in Hong Kong because of piracy? (I'm too lazy to look)