I don't think you want this. The current system guides the clueless programmers into working on clueless projects (perhaps learning something) and leave the real ones alone. If just anyone was allowed to work on every project, you'd see a lot of shoddy programs no matter how good the original design was. One bad programmer can really screw up the code.
The problem is trying to find the "real" projects. I suppose it would be great to have a magic oracle to tell us which projects are good and which are script kiddie fodder without having to try them out.
That suggestion usually leads to a RIAA/MPAA tax on something, like they do with CD burners and blank CDs. I don't want to pay "royalties" to the media companies every time I pay for a computer, connection to the internet, or a doughnut. I don't violate their copyrights, so why should I be forced to pay?
Voluntary "honor" systems might work.
Well the current system is a "voluntary honor system" except without honor. It is hardly just the "consumers" causing the problems.
"The copy protection screws up your TV? Sorry, can't return that DVD. Guess you'll just have to go out and buy another TV so you can watch it. Oh, and have fun watching all the splash screens and advertisements you can't skip."
"That game doesn't work? Sucks to be you. No refunds."
"Don't like the oppressive EULA with your digital camera? Come on, you don't want to let anyone outside your family use it anyway. Well, okay, we'll pay you back minus our 25% restocking fee...wait...it has some software. Sorry! No refund for you!"
Some counter scheme for determining how much of some public (or otherwise) fund goes to which creators might work.
It's called compulsary licensing. Look it up. You'll see big media has tight control of it.
ensured that malicious worms could not be trusted and executed on the machine.
Just sign code with digital signatures and write the OS so it only executes code signed by the proper key(s). The plans to extend this to the processor itself doesn't require DRM either, just a proper signature. Be careful who is allowed to sign your binaries. If it's only one specific vendor and not you, prepare for some massive lock in.
I'm not sure how much extra security this will add to those who execute random binaries in the first place. If they get a box saying "this is M1cr0$0ft C0rp0rat1on's certificate, do you wish to add this into the trusted list?" they will probably click yes, and all those security features will be useless. I suppose if it's configured to only accept code from the "one true software vendor", then they won't have that problem, but they'll be screwing themselves in other ways.
As for buffer overflows, instead of checking signatures embedded into each instruction (or whatever the plan was), I'd put faith into more realistic reasearch anyway.
Or that the consumer could use to ensure that, say, a malicious government could not crack their documents.
Sounds like standard encryption to me.
You don't need DRM to do what you are saying. DRM is a system to control accessing and copying data no mater what the owner of the computer wants to do. With DRM your computer tells you what you should do with your files, instead of the other way around. DRM doesn't really help the end user, that is just FUD put out by the cartel.
If "average users" aren't downloading critical updates, does that mean more responsible users won't be allowed to?
This is funny because if no one is allowed to download updates, the ISPs bandwith will be saturated with astronomical numbers of worms and DDoS attacks. It'll lead to a downward spiral of destruction for the internet in general. I guess what they say is true: commercial interests will destroy the internet.;-)
Cable in particular normally allocates 1/10th of their bandwidth to upstream and 90% to downstream. Too much going out and everyone loses.
This is exactly the problem. They're assuming the internet is some sort of TV service where everyone downloads and doesn't participate, so they design their networks this way. That and they try to claim "unlimited" internet in their ads, but really want to limit how mach resources are used and what can be done with their service--hardly unlimited. I suppose they won't be happy unless everyone just sticks to reading email and the supplemental entertainment services they provide.
Yes, it's true he said it would be too expensive for his server if he tried to relay NAT users. But much of his rant was also about how it makes internet users into consumers and are dependant upon centralized servers. If you read the rant linked in the EOL announcement, it gives the heart of his reasoning and why he wrote SpeakFreely in the first place. (no, I didn't read it all either, it's huge!)
Over the last two years I have become deeply and increasingly pessimistic about the future of liberty and freedom of speech, particularly in regard to the Internet. This a complete reversal of the almost unbounded optimism I felt during the 1994-1999 period when public access to the Internet burgeoned and innovative new forms of communication appeared in rapid succession. In that epoch I was firmly convinced that universal access to the Internet would provide a countervailing force against the centralisation and concentration in government and the mass media which act to constrain freedom of expression and unrestricted access to information. Further, the Internet, properly used, could actually roll back government and corporate encroachment on individual freedom by allowing information to flow past the barriers erected by totalitarian or authoritarian governments and around the gatekeepers of the mainstream media.
So convinced was I of the potential of the Internet as a means of global unregulated person-to-person communication that I spent the better part of three years developing Speak Freely for Unix and Windows, a free (public domain) Internet telephone with military-grade encryption. Why did I do it? Because I believed that a world in which anybody with Internet access could talk to anybody else so equipped in total privacy and at a fraction of the cost of a telephone call would be a better place to live than a world without such communication.
The rest seems to discuss how his dreams were/will be squashed, but IMO, he appears to still have his rose colored glasses on.
Yeah, but you knew they existed. There isn't any tar.gz in the 4.2 directory, plus the directory listed in the howto no longer exists. I tried both of those, and thought a tarball must not exist. I'm wrong, but they don't make it quite so easy to see there is one.
Well, you found it, sort of. I was looking in the 4.2.x directory. 4.1 isn't the latest version, but close enough I guess. At least it's only a two package process to installing it on a non-rpm system.
You didn't even bother to read the last half of my post. Show me where they distribute the source for the RedHat Package Manager in a format I can read without installing RedHat's distro or somehow having the program already installed. They only supply it in rpm form. How do I read an rpm if the program to read it is hidden in an rpm format? Am I supposed to extract the files with a hex editor?
Maybe, but your response raises the question: how is Red Hat not a proprietary software company? Don't they keep some of their projects closed? I don't use their crap, but I'm certain I've heard people say some of their higher end programs are closed source. They're also the ones who forced the god awful rpm format on the Linux community. The M$ wannabes really snarfed that one up.
Just about every project insists upon using the latest version of rpm to package Linux binaries, so one has to somehow install RedHat's latest package manager which, of course, the binaries are "conveniently" stored in the latest rpm format, so you can't install the thing until after you've installed it! It'd be easier to just install Red Hat's distro on your machine than try to get the newest version of their package manager on your system.
You have a point, but most of the plans for "just compensation" are not very just to those who don't want RIAA crap.
How would you like it if you volunteered at a soup kitchen, then some thugs came and mugged all the homeless people to "justly compensate" food service workers. You don't even get any of the money either--as if you'd want it if they offered.
A bunch of retailers complain about shoplifting, so they get congress to pass a law which requires auto manufacturers to pay a tax to retailers for "just compensation." Because we all know shoplifters use cars to transport their stolen goods (not always true), so therefore everyone who owns a car must be a shoplifter. (yeah, right. They've been smoking that SCO crack, haven't they).
Again, a bunch of retailers complain, so they get congress to pass a law to "help curb" shoplifting. This law allows any retailer to file a complaint to the owner of any building and say a tenant is a shoplifter. If the owner doesn't comply, he/she can be sued for anything the tenant stole. So guess what happens? The retailer spam out complaint without checking to see if their victims are really shoplifters, and because the owners don't want to risk being sued, a lot of people get kicked out of their apartments regardless of whether or not they are a shoplifter.
How about if someone shoved you into a box, and if you want to speak to anyone or even move your hands, you have to ask permisson from some company. A company who likes to censor what you say. A company who sells hand motion directions, so they won't give you permission to move your hands unless you buy from them. Do you think this is fair?
That about sums up the ideas for "just compensation" of the "artists." Notice people who don't want anything to do with the RIAA get screwed bigtime.
You are full of shit and you know it. That's why you are posting as an anonymous coward. Windows isn't designed for the "average american" it's designed for the fuckihng idiots who are too stupid to know when they're getting screwed. Installing Windows isn't that easy unless everything happens to go right, and Microsoft programmers are such fucking incompetent idiots that things usually go wrong. If you ever stop fucking your sister and step out of your parent's basement, you'd see it.
No, they'd just yell "look at all these pirates!" and sue those with infected computers. In fact, I'm surprized they haven't already tried launching a virus like this, certainly wouldn't be below them.
Interesting...I received a similar email, except it's from a midspring dialup customer (or so the Recevied: line says), then it passed through an Earthlink server (this one must be correct because it's the one my ISP's mail server put on). The content-type says audio/x-wav, but the file is really an exe--both by the extension and the data header.
I assumed this was an old virus. You think it's new?
I have an IBM KB-9910 too, and it's great. The only thing I don't like about it is the Windows keys--have to reach further for the control key, but all keyboards have those now. Oh, and I think I got it for $20(US) beat that.;-P
The guy was just illustrating the way Microsoft behaves. They screw people over (or get sloppy with their products), so many try non-MS alternatives. Then MS tries to get them back by being nice and cleaning up their act (or at least faking it). People go back to using MS products. After a while MS decides they can get away with being nasty again, so they start the whole process over.
This is much like an abusive spouse who fakes nice when he/she is about to lose his/her mate, and when the mate comes back, he/she slowly returns to the yelling, beating and crap as if nothing had ever happened. It's an endless cycle. Some people would rather not be in such a cycle in the first place.
It isn't a literal thing. When someone calls an internet troll a troll, do you think they are saying the user is really a hairy person who lives under a bridge and eats people? When someone calls unsolicited commerical email a spam, do you think the spammer is sending meat through the internet?
Whatever you fucking idiot. Not everyone is a computer expert, and if they can't install a poorly designed piece of shit, it doesn't mean they are disabled. Just because you are a shitheaded geek wannabe and all your dickhead friends are the same doesn't mean normal people are. Why don't you go back to you inbred parent's basement in fucking hell where you came from you shit-munching pig-fucking dolphin.
First off, there are GUI config tools for XFree86. You didn't even say what distro you used, so for all I know, you chose one which requires a manual editing of all config files or is completely brain dead.
Second, I've never heard of an IgnoreEDID option. It is probably a nVidia specific thing. Sometimes card manufacturers require you to change some settings which are specific to your driver. It goes that way for Windows too. Editing a registry key (the exact equivalent of this) is just as difficult as editing a text file. Part of the problem is nVidia doesn't have much experience making drivers for Linux.
Go back a few years ago, and you had the same problem with 3D video cards in Windows. People had to mess with the registry or try installing the latest driver and sometimes they never got it working properly. Once nVidia works out all the kinks, you probably won't have to tweak config options. I don't have a nVidia card, though I have heard the open source drivers work fine, but they don't have all the features--nVidia won't release the specs. You'd have the same problems with making an open source driver for Windows too. Doing a google search, the IgnoreEDID option sounds like it's required because of a bug in the nVidia driver.
I have an ATI TV card, and when I tried it in Windows, with the manufacturer's supplied drivers no less, but the computer would keep rebooting every time I tried to use it, yet it works fine with the open source drivers in Linux. I guess by your logic, no TV cards will ever work in Windows.
Lastly, who said Red Hat has the most "idiot proof" install??? I didn't. My friend lost his network card drivers because he thought the "easy" (or whatever they call it) install option wouldn't wipe out his second hard drive. He didn't have a floppy for that machine (and the drivers were on a floppy), so it was a pain in the ass to get the drivers back on that system. He isn't exactly an idiot, then again, he is a Windows programmer.
Your dad must know much more about computers than most people. None of my roommates could install Windows to save their lives, nor could my parents. In fact, the only person I know besides myself who can install Windows by himself is the programming friend mentioned above, and he likes to buy computers with Windows pre-installed because it's easier. Your dad certainly sounds like an exception to me. Let me guess, he either has an engineering degree or has been using computers for a few decades. Try finding some people who have never used computers before or have only used computers for simple things like word processing--people who have never tried to install anything, and try to get them to install Windows by themselves. I doubt they will be able to do it, especially if the drivers aren't on the Windows install disk.
Assuming the artist wants to be compensated in the first place. Or are you suggesting taking money from people who legally download a song which the artist has released on a license which allows copying?
Ahoy me mateys! T'at tis no reason to copy the evil siren's song. Arrr! Me thinks ye 'as been drinkin' too much grog. We should shake their bow and shiver their timbers until they lift the levy! If we a don't g't er way we'll make thems land lubbers walk the plank! The nerve 'ey 'ave. Associatin' us pirates wit' copyright infringers, and a chargin' 'oyalites on media they don't a even produce. Why should I, as a sea goin' pirate have to pay the RIAA so I can share the wind of me own design that my hornpipe blows? Do 'ey own me hornpipe now too? I a jus' want to capture a few wenches and ransack some booty like a good pirate does. What's a wrong with that?
cable modem...I have it set for unlimited upload, but for some reason it seems to top out at around 30kB/s
How much does your cable ISP limit the upstream connection? Mine limits it to 256 kbits/s (or 32 kbytes/sec). Sounds like yours does the same.
Could something like BT be used for web sites?
Not likely. BT was made for large files only. Most normal web pages are usually somewhat small and broken up into different files--assuming images. Without images, it is a single file, but really small, sometimes even fitting in a single packet. Doesn't work with BT...I don't know...maybe some sort of minor redesign may make your idea work with the protocol, then again I haven't studied it too closely. I suppose BT is good for a single archive file of the entire site.
Maybe you are wanting Freenet for this? It seems designed to work with web sites, and the more people using it, the better it works...assuming their caches are big enough. Freenet doesn't seem to work well with big files...the caches will turn over too fast. Maybe someone will come up with a hybrid: uses a Freenet style system to distribute web sites and small files, and allows the use of BT for the larger files.
I find it amusing that people still expect companies to make tires for Ford cars. If you're really a driver you need to get on Yugo plain and simple. I don't like Yugoslavia or Yugos but I'm at least realistic about the situation.
And no, cars made by Chevy or Toyota don't count as a real driver's vehicle.
Ummm...configuring Linux more difficult than Windows? I'm not so sure about that. That hasn't been my experience. My "computer expert" roommates couldn't install Windows to save their lives. More likely Windows is "easier to configure" because most people buy their computers with Windows preinstalled. If people bought Linux preinstalled and ready to go, they'd probably start saying Linux is "easy to configure" too. At least with Linux the configuration won't change on its own...unless you have a really insane distro like Red Hat.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you want this. The current system guides the clueless programmers into working on clueless projects (perhaps learning something) and leave the real ones alone. If just anyone was allowed to work on every project, you'd see a lot of shoddy programs no matter how good the original design was. One bad programmer can really screw up the code.
The problem is trying to find the "real" projects. I suppose it would be great to have a magic oracle to tell us which projects are good and which are script kiddie fodder without having to try them out.
That suggestion usually leads to a RIAA/MPAA tax on something, like they do with CD burners and blank CDs. I don't want to pay "royalties" to the media companies every time I pay for a computer, connection to the internet, or a doughnut. I don't violate their copyrights, so why should I be forced to pay?
Well the current system is a "voluntary honor system" except without honor. It is hardly just the "consumers" causing the problems.
"The copy protection screws up your TV? Sorry, can't return that DVD. Guess you'll just have to go out and buy another TV so you can watch it. Oh, and have fun watching all the splash screens and advertisements you can't skip."
"That game doesn't work? Sucks to be you. No refunds."
"Don't like the oppressive EULA with your digital camera? Come on, you don't want to let anyone outside your family use it anyway. Well, okay, we'll pay you back minus our 25% restocking fee...wait...it has some software. Sorry! No refund for you!"
It's called compulsary licensing. Look it up. You'll see big media has tight control of it.
Just sign code with digital signatures and write the OS so it only executes code signed by the proper key(s). The plans to extend this to the processor itself doesn't require DRM either, just a proper signature. Be careful who is allowed to sign your binaries. If it's only one specific vendor and not you, prepare for some massive lock in.
I'm not sure how much extra security this will add to those who execute random binaries in the first place. If they get a box saying "this is M1cr0$0ft C0rp0rat1on's certificate, do you wish to add this into the trusted list?" they will probably click yes, and all those security features will be useless. I suppose if it's configured to only accept code from the "one true software vendor", then they won't have that problem, but they'll be screwing themselves in other ways.
As for buffer overflows, instead of checking signatures embedded into each instruction (or whatever the plan was), I'd put faith into more realistic reasearch anyway.
Sounds like standard encryption to me.
You don't need DRM to do what you are saying. DRM is a system to control accessing and copying data no mater what the owner of the computer wants to do. With DRM your computer tells you what you should do with your files, instead of the other way around. DRM doesn't really help the end user, that is just FUD put out by the cartel.
This is funny because if no one is allowed to download updates, the ISPs bandwith will be saturated with astronomical numbers of worms and DDoS attacks. It'll lead to a downward spiral of destruction for the internet in general. I guess what they say is true: commercial interests will destroy the internet. ;-)
This is exactly the problem. They're assuming the internet is some sort of TV service where everyone downloads and doesn't participate, so they design their networks this way. That and they try to claim "unlimited" internet in their ads, but really want to limit how mach resources are used and what can be done with their service--hardly unlimited. I suppose they won't be happy unless everyone just sticks to reading email and the supplemental entertainment services they provide.
Yes, it's true he said it would be too expensive for his server if he tried to relay NAT users. But much of his rant was also about how it makes internet users into consumers and are dependant upon centralized servers. If you read the rant linked in the EOL announcement, it gives the heart of his reasoning and why he wrote SpeakFreely in the first place. (no, I didn't read it all either, it's huge!)
The rest seems to discuss how his dreams were/will be squashed, but IMO, he appears to still have his rose colored glasses on.
Yeah, but you knew they existed. There isn't any tar.gz in the 4.2 directory, plus the directory listed in the howto no longer exists. I tried both of those, and thought a tarball must not exist. I'm wrong, but they don't make it quite so easy to see there is one.
Well, you found it, sort of. I was looking in the 4.2.x directory. 4.1 isn't the latest version, but close enough I guess. At least it's only a two package process to installing it on a non-rpm system.
You didn't even bother to read the last half of my post. Show me where they distribute the source for the RedHat Package Manager in a format I can read without installing RedHat's distro or somehow having the program already installed. They only supply it in rpm form. How do I read an rpm if the program to read it is hidden in an rpm format? Am I supposed to extract the files with a hex editor?
I don't understand. Where does that paper explain how to connect when both computers are behind NATs without using a server?
The poster called it "GNU/Linux" because some idiot thought it was a bright idea to insist everyone call anything Linux "GNU/Linux."
Maybe, but your response raises the question: how is Red Hat not a proprietary software company? Don't they keep some of their projects closed? I don't use their crap, but I'm certain I've heard people say some of their higher end programs are closed source. They're also the ones who forced the god awful rpm format on the Linux community. The M$ wannabes really snarfed that one up.
Just about every project insists upon using the latest version of rpm to package Linux binaries, so one has to somehow install RedHat's latest package manager which, of course, the binaries are "conveniently" stored in the latest rpm format, so you can't install the thing until after you've installed it! It'd be easier to just install Red Hat's distro on your machine than try to get the newest version of their package manager on your system.
"The best way to get RPM is to install Red Hat Linux." From their own rpm Howto. Note the alternative link to get the program (probably source) doesn't work anymore! Sounds like a proprietary software company to me.
You have a point, but most of the plans for "just compensation" are not very just to those who don't want RIAA crap.
How would you like it if you volunteered at a soup kitchen, then some thugs came and mugged all the homeless people to "justly compensate" food service workers. You don't even get any of the money either--as if you'd want it if they offered.
A bunch of retailers complain about shoplifting, so they get congress to pass a law which requires auto manufacturers to pay a tax to retailers for "just compensation." Because we all know shoplifters use cars to transport their stolen goods (not always true), so therefore everyone who owns a car must be a shoplifter. (yeah, right. They've been smoking that SCO crack, haven't they).
Again, a bunch of retailers complain, so they get congress to pass a law to "help curb" shoplifting. This law allows any retailer to file a complaint to the owner of any building and say a tenant is a shoplifter. If the owner doesn't comply, he/she can be sued for anything the tenant stole. So guess what happens? The retailer spam out complaint without checking to see if their victims are really shoplifters, and because the owners don't want to risk being sued, a lot of people get kicked out of their apartments regardless of whether or not they are a shoplifter.
How about if someone shoved you into a box, and if you want to speak to anyone or even move your hands, you have to ask permisson from some company. A company who likes to censor what you say. A company who sells hand motion directions, so they won't give you permission to move your hands unless you buy from them. Do you think this is fair?
That about sums up the ideas for "just compensation" of the "artists." Notice people who don't want anything to do with the RIAA get screwed bigtime.
You are full of shit and you know it. That's why you are posting as an anonymous coward. Windows isn't designed for the "average american" it's designed for the fuckihng idiots who are too stupid to know when they're getting screwed. Installing Windows isn't that easy unless everything happens to go right, and Microsoft programmers are such fucking incompetent idiots that things usually go wrong. If you ever stop fucking your sister and step out of your parent's basement, you'd see it.
No, they'd just yell "look at all these pirates!" and sue those with infected computers. In fact, I'm surprized they haven't already tried launching a virus like this, certainly wouldn't be below them.
Interesting...I received a similar email, except it's from a midspring dialup customer (or so the Recevied: line says), then it passed through an Earthlink server (this one must be correct because it's the one my ISP's mail server put on). The content-type says audio/x-wav, but the file is really an exe--both by the extension and the data header.
I assumed this was an old virus. You think it's new?
I have an IBM KB-9910 too, and it's great. The only thing I don't like about it is the Windows keys--have to reach further for the control key, but all keyboards have those now. Oh, and I think I got it for $20(US) beat that. ;-P
Hmmm...at CompUSA, (yeah, yeah, I know: they suck) on sale for about $16 now, but sold out. The white ones appear to be in stock, and 80 cents cheaper!
The guy was just illustrating the way Microsoft behaves. They screw people over (or get sloppy with their products), so many try non-MS alternatives. Then MS tries to get them back by being nice and cleaning up their act (or at least faking it). People go back to using MS products. After a while MS decides they can get away with being nasty again, so they start the whole process over.
This is much like an abusive spouse who fakes nice when he/she is about to lose his/her mate, and when the mate comes back, he/she slowly returns to the yelling, beating and crap as if nothing had ever happened. It's an endless cycle. Some people would rather not be in such a cycle in the first place.
It isn't a literal thing. When someone calls an internet troll a troll, do you think they are saying the user is really a hairy person who lives under a bridge and eats people? When someone calls unsolicited commerical email a spam, do you think the spammer is sending meat through the internet?
Whatever you fucking idiot. Not everyone is a computer expert, and if they can't install a poorly designed piece of shit, it doesn't mean they are disabled. Just because you are a shitheaded geek wannabe and all your dickhead friends are the same doesn't mean normal people are. Why don't you go back to you inbred parent's basement in fucking hell where you came from you shit-munching pig-fucking dolphin.
First off, there are GUI config tools for XFree86. You didn't even say what distro you used, so for all I know, you chose one which requires a manual editing of all config files or is completely brain dead.
Second, I've never heard of an IgnoreEDID option. It is probably a nVidia specific thing. Sometimes card manufacturers require you to change some settings which are specific to your driver. It goes that way for Windows too. Editing a registry key (the exact equivalent of this) is just as difficult as editing a text file. Part of the problem is nVidia doesn't have much experience making drivers for Linux.
Go back a few years ago, and you had the same problem with 3D video cards in Windows. People had to mess with the registry or try installing the latest driver and sometimes they never got it working properly. Once nVidia works out all the kinks, you probably won't have to tweak config options. I don't have a nVidia card, though I have heard the open source drivers work fine, but they don't have all the features--nVidia won't release the specs. You'd have the same problems with making an open source driver for Windows too. Doing a google search, the IgnoreEDID option sounds like it's required because of a bug in the nVidia driver.
I have an ATI TV card, and when I tried it in Windows, with the manufacturer's supplied drivers no less, but the computer would keep rebooting every time I tried to use it, yet it works fine with the open source drivers in Linux. I guess by your logic, no TV cards will ever work in Windows.
Lastly, who said Red Hat has the most "idiot proof" install??? I didn't. My friend lost his network card drivers because he thought the "easy" (or whatever they call it) install option wouldn't wipe out his second hard drive. He didn't have a floppy for that machine (and the drivers were on a floppy), so it was a pain in the ass to get the drivers back on that system. He isn't exactly an idiot, then again, he is a Windows programmer.
Your dad must know much more about computers than most people. None of my roommates could install Windows to save their lives, nor could my parents. In fact, the only person I know besides myself who can install Windows by himself is the programming friend mentioned above, and he likes to buy computers with Windows pre-installed because it's easier. Your dad certainly sounds like an exception to me. Let me guess, he either has an engineering degree or has been using computers for a few decades. Try finding some people who have never used computers before or have only used computers for simple things like word processing--people who have never tried to install anything, and try to get them to install Windows by themselves. I doubt they will be able to do it, especially if the drivers aren't on the Windows install disk.
Assuming the artist wants to be compensated in the first place. Or are you suggesting taking money from people who legally download a song which the artist has released on a license which allows copying?
Ahoy me mateys! T'at tis no reason to copy the evil siren's song. Arrr! Me thinks ye 'as been drinkin' too much grog. We should shake their bow and shiver their timbers until they lift the levy! If we a don't g't er way we'll make thems land lubbers walk the plank! The nerve 'ey 'ave. Associatin' us pirates wit' copyright infringers, and a chargin' 'oyalites on media they don't a even produce. Why should I, as a sea goin' pirate have to pay the RIAA so I can share the wind of me own design that my hornpipe blows? Do 'ey own me hornpipe now too? I a jus' want to capture a few wenches and ransack some booty like a good pirate does. What's a wrong with that?
How much does your cable ISP limit the upstream connection? Mine limits it to 256 kbits/s (or 32 kbytes/sec). Sounds like yours does the same.
Not likely. BT was made for large files only. Most normal web pages are usually somewhat small and broken up into different files--assuming images. Without images, it is a single file, but really small, sometimes even fitting in a single packet. Doesn't work with BT...I don't know...maybe some sort of minor redesign may make your idea work with the protocol, then again I haven't studied it too closely. I suppose BT is good for a single archive file of the entire site.
Maybe you are wanting Freenet for this? It seems designed to work with web sites, and the more people using it, the better it works...assuming their caches are big enough. Freenet doesn't seem to work well with big files...the caches will turn over too fast. Maybe someone will come up with a hybrid: uses a Freenet style system to distribute web sites and small files, and allows the use of BT for the larger files.
I find it amusing that people still expect companies to make tires for Ford cars. If you're really a driver you need to get on Yugo plain and simple. I don't like Yugoslavia or Yugos but I'm at least realistic about the situation.
And no, cars made by Chevy or Toyota don't count as a real driver's vehicle.
Ummm...configuring Linux more difficult than Windows? I'm not so sure about that. That hasn't been my experience. My "computer expert" roommates couldn't install Windows to save their lives. More likely Windows is "easier to configure" because most people buy their computers with Windows preinstalled. If people bought Linux preinstalled and ready to go, they'd probably start saying Linux is "easy to configure" too. At least with Linux the configuration won't change on its own...unless you have a really insane distro like Red Hat.