Nah. You're being too democratic, ya gotta be more Nietzsche. Laws are created and enforced by the people with the power. If a law isn't in the interest of the ruling class then it will be ignored.. until such time that it actually starts affecting them, then it will be brutally enforced. No matter how much we might care to think so, few of us living in societies where the majority control the power. We pretend that's the case, but unfortunately the majority of us are more than willing to hand the power over to whoever doesn't rock the boat too much.
society doesn't. Society considers it a good compromise to allow creators a limited monopoly on the distribution of their works so as to encourage greater creation of those works. It's just unfortunate that society has no means to test and monitor the effectiveness of this deal.
Yeah, and it's not like you can go grab a recently printed score of Bach, scan it and put it on the web. Although Bach's work may not be covered by copyright, the particular printing you're copying probably is. Yes, that's right, the actual way the printing company formats the score and arranges it on the page is copyrightable. So what are you going to do, track down an ancient piece of parchment and scan that? No. The only sane thing you could do is get out your favourite paint program (not score program, they probably copyright the output of it) and draw your own score, preferably from memory, then put it under a permissive license. Just be sure to note that you're not claiming copyright over the public domain work, otherwise your copyright will be easily challenged. Putting the whole thing into the public domain might be possible.. although I suppose you could be sued for negligence if you made a mistake in your transcription.
the daughters of senators and district attorneys and other rich people tell their parents that YouTube is great. Napster was a little too hard for the estemed gentleman's little princess to figure out, but YouTube isn't.
Uhhhh.. this is my point, and I'll reiterate it: either Microsoft is vetting every single driver and only signing the ones that are safe or they are handing out code signing certificates and anyone who has one can sign whatever they like. If it's the former then that is a totally unacceptable situation we find ourselves in - it gives way too much power to Microsoft. If it's the later then this is all pointless because every man and his dog will have a code signing certificate.. you'll be able to pick them up on ebay.. they will get stolen off computers by hackers and sold to spyware companies. So which is it?
Yeah, but as for which signatures the kernel will actually accept, that's a totally different matter.. I wasn't claiming that Microsoft won't accept any old code signing certificate, but it would appear that, if they do, this isn't much of a barrier.
And neither of them will be getting Microsoft approval to do anything in the kernel. It's really simple, the kernel is a hill, if you're on the hill, you can defend it, if you're not on the hill, all you can do is watch as others take the hill.
Sure. It is a microkernel after all. But some things do need to run in ring 0 and if Microsoft gets to choose which of those things can run then I doubt we'll all be better off.
Yeah, that's what happens when you clump people together and claim they all hold the same opinion, you get contradictions like that. Some of us think it should be locked down. Some of us think that's a terrible idea. We're not the fuckin' Borg. What's your opinion? I mean, shit, this is the ancient choice between freedom or security.
Signed by who though? I have no idea. Is it signed by any code signing certificate issued by Microsoft? How hard is it to get one of those? Sounds like a nice thing for hackers to steal and sell to spyware makers.
kernel overflows.. same way you modify a linux kernel after it's had the "no more modules may be installed" bit turned on. See, it's really easy for hackers, they just grab the latest kernel bug that has been found and plug it in to their rootkit. Same with dodgee spyware people. But legitimate software developers can't do that. It'd be unethical.
Yeah, ok. There's so many things wrong with your world view that I'm having trouble understanding where to start. Hmm.. ok. First off, spyware doesn't typically modify your kernel, and yet, spyware doesn't really have much trouble spying on you. AV software, on the other hand, typically does modify the kernel, because you need that sort of low level stuff to detect spyware reliably. Otherwise the spyware can just hide itself in places you can't look unless you're the kernel. Does that make sense to you? Ok, great. Now let's say that you're quite happy living under the thumb of Microsoft and are quite happy to trust that they are doing a good job. It sounds like you are. What happens when you tell Microsoft they fucked up and they just ignore you? "We'll I'll take my business to some other AV software supplier!" Yah, that ones you just advocated neutering.
I'm trying to understand what you're in favour of here (and what the article is all about). As I understand it, Windows Vista 64bit Edition will simply not allow kernel drivers to load unless they are signed with Microsoft's private key. Which means that you'll need to either exploit kernel bugs to load your own code (which they'll plug eventually) or boot off a CD and patch the kernel files on disk to disable this checking (which will be hard to do without destablizing the whole system). If that's what we're talking about (and I have no idea if it is) how can you possibly be in favour of it? I mean, it sounds like The Right To Read all over again.
Yeah. Kinda makes me thing you need a corporate entity to find work for programmers. I know, as soon as you set up such an entity they'll just pay the programmers a salary and pocket the profits.. I've seen many consulting companies that do exactly that. The only other alternative is some kind of co-op.
Slashdot Mirror
No-one is going to pass (or enforce) a law that puts their own children in jail, end of story.
And are you trying to suggest that we're not ruled by the rich?
Nah. You're being too democratic, ya gotta be more Nietzsche. Laws are created and enforced by the people with the power. If a law isn't in the interest of the ruling class then it will be ignored.. until such time that it actually starts affecting them, then it will be brutally enforced. No matter how much we might care to think so, few of us living in societies where the majority control the power. We pretend that's the case, but unfortunately the majority of us are more than willing to hand the power over to whoever doesn't rock the boat too much.
society doesn't. Society considers it a good compromise to allow creators a limited monopoly on the distribution of their works so as to encourage greater creation of those works. It's just unfortunate that society has no means to test and monitor the effectiveness of this deal.
Yeah, and it's not like you can go grab a recently printed score of Bach, scan it and put it on the web. Although Bach's work may not be covered by copyright, the particular printing you're copying probably is. Yes, that's right, the actual way the printing company formats the score and arranges it on the page is copyrightable. So what are you going to do, track down an ancient piece of parchment and scan that? No. The only sane thing you could do is get out your favourite paint program (not score program, they probably copyright the output of it) and draw your own score, preferably from memory, then put it under a permissive license. Just be sure to note that you're not claiming copyright over the public domain work, otherwise your copyright will be easily challenged. Putting the whole thing into the public domain might be possible.. although I suppose you could be sued for negligence if you made a mistake in your transcription.
Who the hell knows? Ask 5 lawyers and you'll get 5 different answers.
the daughters of senators and district attorneys and other rich people tell their parents that YouTube is great. Napster was a little too hard for the estemed gentleman's little princess to figure out, but YouTube isn't.
your immortal soul.
Uhhhh.. this is my point, and I'll reiterate it: either Microsoft is vetting every single driver and only signing the ones that are safe or they are handing out code signing certificates and anyone who has one can sign whatever they like. If it's the former then that is a totally unacceptable situation we find ourselves in - it gives way too much power to Microsoft. If it's the later then this is all pointless because every man and his dog will have a code signing certificate.. you'll be able to pick them up on ebay.. they will get stolen off computers by hackers and sold to spyware companies. So which is it?
Yeah, but as for which signatures the kernel will actually accept, that's a totally different matter.. I wasn't claiming that Microsoft won't accept any old code signing certificate, but it would appear that, if they do, this isn't much of a barrier.
And neither of them will be getting Microsoft approval to do anything in the kernel. It's really simple, the kernel is a hill, if you're on the hill, you can defend it, if you're not on the hill, all you can do is watch as others take the hill.
Does your computer have an open source BIOS ? How about the various bits of firmware on the hardware - got the source code for that ?
No. Be nice to though.
Sure. It is a microkernel after all. But some things do need to run in ring 0 and if Microsoft gets to choose which of those things can run then I doubt we'll all be better off.
If he's capable of articulating it, sure.
Yeah, that's what happens when you clump people together and claim they all hold the same opinion, you get contradictions like that. Some of us think it should be locked down. Some of us think that's a terrible idea. We're not the fuckin' Borg. What's your opinion? I mean, shit, this is the ancient choice between freedom or security.
Signed by who though? I have no idea. Is it signed by any code signing certificate issued by Microsoft? How hard is it to get one of those? Sounds like a nice thing for hackers to steal and sell to spyware makers.
kernel overflows.. same way you modify a linux kernel after it's had the "no more modules may be installed" bit turned on. See, it's really easy for hackers, they just grab the latest kernel bug that has been found and plug it in to their rootkit. Same with dodgee spyware people. But legitimate software developers can't do that. It'd be unethical.
Yeah, ok. There's so many things wrong with your world view that I'm having trouble understanding where to start. Hmm.. ok. First off, spyware doesn't typically modify your kernel, and yet, spyware doesn't really have much trouble spying on you. AV software, on the other hand, typically does modify the kernel, because you need that sort of low level stuff to detect spyware reliably. Otherwise the spyware can just hide itself in places you can't look unless you're the kernel. Does that make sense to you? Ok, great. Now let's say that you're quite happy living under the thumb of Microsoft and are quite happy to trust that they are doing a good job. It sounds like you are. What happens when you tell Microsoft they fucked up and they just ignore you? "We'll I'll take my business to some other AV software supplier!" Yah, that ones you just advocated neutering.
Actually, I was trying to imply that the dude I replied to was being short sighted.. I didn't say anything about Bill Gates (and typically don't).
I'm trying to understand what you're in favour of here (and what the article is all about). As I understand it, Windows Vista 64bit Edition will simply not allow kernel drivers to load unless they are signed with Microsoft's private key. Which means that you'll need to either exploit kernel bugs to load your own code (which they'll plug eventually) or boot off a CD and patch the kernel files on disk to disable this checking (which will be hard to do without destablizing the whole system). If that's what we're talking about (and I have no idea if it is) how can you possibly be in favour of it? I mean, it sounds like The Right To Read all over again.
Yeah, and no-one really needs more than 640k of ram.
Yeah. Kinda makes me thing you need a corporate entity to find work for programmers. I know, as soon as you set up such an entity they'll just pay the programmers a salary and pocket the profits.. I've seen many consulting companies that do exactly that. The only other alternative is some kind of co-op.
That's cause no-one gives a shit about RSS except smelly Web2.0 freaks.
$50/hr is hardly anything to sneeze at.. especially if you're a college student or living in a country where $50 will feed your family for a month.
Everyone knows it blows but Starfleet mandates its continued use.
Less rollercoaster venture capital. More hippies.