A click-through license does nothing more then help ensure that the user had the opportunity to view the license. If the files are compress and encrypted and the installer presents the license to the user who is trying to install the package and requires the installer to do something that indicates the acceptance of the license presented then if push comes to shove, it is more arguable in court that the user was or should have been aware of the terms of the licensing agreement.
This can help protect both closed and open source products.
Packaging is more difficult but I think that we can handle it.
Transgamming is doing a good job of making Windows versions of games run on Linux but the problem is the speed. There is usually a BIG performance hit.
So, what this means is that if you want to play an older game that was developed when computer speeds were slower then they'll probably be fine but if you try to play one that is pushing the current performance envelope in Windows it will be a painful experience to play it under WINEX.
One of the main advantages of bringing Linux into the main stream is that eventually there will be more games that run natively. Linux is a vary capable gamming OS. The version of Quake 3 that runs under Linux actually has a higher frame rate than the Windows version.
Except to say that we should secure the physical access points to our networks. Of course if you allow strangers to plug into your network they are going to be able to find a way to talk to the outside world.
Most TCP/IP networks nowadays runs DHCP so just plugging in will usually get you a valid IP and from there you can pretty much guess the gateway or sniff it out. The important thing is not to allow unauthorized people to plug-in in the first place.
Most compromises are not high tech. Most compromises are a result of either a disgruntled employee or an employee that foolishly gives out password information.
Maybe the hacker calls a company's I.S. shop and says that he's from Cisco. The router is having problems and he needs the logon password to fix it. Or maybe a hacker just walks in to a large building with a laptop, RJ45 cord and big balls. He plugs in and starts sniffing.
We have a Group of people in Washington State Government that goes around and tests security. One guy told me that once he walked into a Department building, plugged in and was sniffing usernames and passwords. Someone asked him who he was so he gave them some bogus story and they asked if he wanted coffee! So he sat there eating their donuts, drinking their coffee and breaching their security!!
I never thought of that but you're right. If the media makes a campaign contribution they can almost be assured that they'll get at least part of it back AND, although I'm not up on my tax laws, don't they get to deduct it?
Of course there is always the problem of one corporation owning a large part of another. Who owns CNN? Do you think that CNN will come down very hard on corporations that own large shares of the CNN corporation?
It's really hard to get the word out about injustices done by the corporations who control the means of getting that word out.
As long as people act like sheep they can expect to be treated as such. The DMCA is proof of that.
The sad fact is that most people don't want to get involved. They just go about their lives and unless something really painful hits them square in the nose they are oblivious to the problems of others or even their own impending problems.
Let me tell you a truth about politicians. We like to think of them as intelligent, caring individuals who are well informed about our problems and are working toward solutions.
Wrong! If you ever get a chance to really talk to these people you'll find that for the most part they are egocentric fools who haven't a clue about the issues. The ONLY thing that they care about is getting re-elected.
How do they get re-elected? By being visible and using rhetoric to make people believe that they are intelligent, caring individuals who are well informed about our problems and are working toward solutions.
High visibility costs money. Television spots, campaign ads etc. In comes the corporations to the politician's rescue. In order to ensure that campaign financing doesn't dry up these greedy bastards (Like Senator HOLLINGS from SC) will draft legislation that is favorable to the corporations.
Look at Microsoft. They were getting slaughtered in the court system until Microsoft started giving HEAVY donations to various political groups. Before the donations started the government's legal branch was ready to come down on Microsoft but after the donations started flowing the government went down on Microsoft instead.
The only thing that could turn the situation around is if enough people got pissed off and started voting out these bastards. But then sheep don't vote.
Can we get this guy to tweek his program to repell RIAA personel?
The best interface is no interface...
on
GUIs for Everyone
·
· Score: 1
The article didn't go into much detail about how the Linux GUI should be different. Mostly the author just repeated his theme that it should somehow be different.
Personally, I think that the best interface would be no GUI at all. We say that we are in the computer age but I think maybe only the beginning of it. We will know we are really in the computer age when computers are all around us and we are unaware of their presents.
When we can interact with computers in a natural way that allows us to just be people doing what we do and not having to interact with computers in awkward, unnatural ways.
Really, when you think about it, sitting at a computer screen and clicking a "mouse cursor" over hot-points on a screen isn't very natural. We are forced to observer the computer and input into it to get what we want.
Someday, far in the future, I believe that computers will observe us and anticipate what we want. Rarely will we ever have to interface with the computer but when we do it will be in a far more natural way than with a keyboard, mouse and video screen.
"If it does, or if there is a similar bill, then obviously the proponents have put forth better arguments than the opponents. But I don't think it will pass because of the attention it's drawn."
You really don't understand politics do you? The arguments do not determine the outcome. The facts, although interesting are irrelevant. The only thing that matters to most of our political leaders is being re-elected. They get re-elected by spending money campaigning so if Microsoft and the entertainment industry pays them a significant sum that will allow them to be re-elected they will do what the Corporations want so that the funding won't dry up.
The only thing that would swing it the other way is if people get outraged enough that they fear losing too many votes. It should be obvious by your own attitude that this is unlikely to happen.
"Again it won't matter to me because I won't buy the products if they won't work the way I expect them to. That's more money in my bank, and less in the product providers bank, which means I win."
You say so but I really doubt that when push comes to shove, you'll stop buying computers after your computer dies.
"So we should instead use poorly informed idle speculation to think about what it might mean?"
Microsoft has laid out the fundamentals of what the Palladium strategy means. We don't know exactly how it will be implemented but we do know the general direction. And it's not a good direction.
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html
Oh, do you mean this part:
"It is possible to imagine that a Palladium-hardware-aware version of Linux could be created and could make full use of Palladium's hardware features in order to achieve trust comparable to the Windows implementation. Microsoft is only writing an implementation for Windows, but plans to publish all the technical details."
Smoke and mirrors. This says nothing about open source software. Open source will NEVER be allowed to incorporate any technology that is patented by Microsoft. Further encrypted streams from the entertainment industry will never be allowed to be used by "untrusted" software. That's one of the things that Pallidum is about. Open source software will never be given the certification required.
Even closed source software will be required to pay a fee to get certified and that's not going to happen and Microsoft know's it.
"Actually no, that's not at all correct."
Nothing to respond to here...
"Ohwell. That just means it won't have the same functionality."
One of my points was that Microsoft is doing this to gain an unfair advantage. I'm glad that you agree.
"No, it will be the only OS that will be able to view streamed music and video from content providers who demand DRM. But that's a decision on your part, if you want to view these companies content, then you play by their rules. If you don't want to play by their rules then you create your own content and stream it however you want."
Again, Microsoft is doing this to try to gain an unfair advantage. The fact that you don't care doesn't really matter. There are a LOT of people that do care and are tired of Microsoft's dirty tricks and outright illegal behavor. That's why Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law.
"It seems to me like you need to stop whining and start doing"
Another insult.
Look obviously you have nothing of substance to contribute so let's just agree to disagree. You have repeatedly insulted me and I have not replied in kind. So go do your Microsoft thing, pay, pay, pay for various Microsoft fees and have a great life.
"The.NET runtime is seriously cool technology. Sure, the motivation for creating it may be sinister, but who really cares?.Net is simply a better mousetrap and MS should be rewarded."
How should we reward them? By sticking our willy into their better mouse trap and letting them slam it shut maybe?
"When my mother can install Mandrake like she installed XP, then I might agree with you."
I think that Linux does have a long ways to go before it is widely adopted as the preferred desktop environment. However I don't find anything difficult about Mandrake's installation.
The CD auto boots and if you select the default install its completely automatic. You do have to swap the CD's as the installation progresses but other than that just accept all defaults. How could XP be easier than that?
"We need to build a vibrant and healthy developer community."
Open source and closed source software work on completely different fundamental principals. In the case of open source, cooperation between individuals is encouraged and nurtured by it's very nature, while this is not the case for proprietary software.
This spirit of cooperation is one of the reasons that Linux, a relatively insignificant operating system from the corporate sales point of view, has such a vibrant developer base. Whereas the Linux developer community has a cooperative attitude, much of the proprietary software community has an adversarial point of view. Don't talk about the company code or be fired, sued, imprisoned, etc.
The open source environment nurtures cooperation but is an adversary to proprietary development. The two types of software can exist side by side but the proprietary vendor is always at risk that someone will like his product and choose to emulate it in an open source project. This can happen on Windows as well but by far open source is more prevalent on Linux.
Once an open source project is started that competes against a proprietary product it will become increasingly hard for the proprietary product to maintain enough added value to make its expense justifiable.
The proprietary market developer for the Windows platform, also must worry that Microsoft may make their product irrelevant. The very people who sold the developer's the tools to develop for the Windows platform may, if the product appears to be lucrative enough or have the potential of being so, decide to compete for that market share.
Netscape, Word Perfect, and Quicken are a few examples. In the case of Netscape, Microsoft crushed its competition though the inclusion of a competing product in an operating system that controlled a monopoly market share. Word Perfect is still alive and kicking but has lost almost the entire market share that it had.
How did Microsoft take away so much market share from Word Perfect?
Let me use an analogy. Let's pretend that you are in a long distance, cross-country race (you wish to build an application) in a land with which you are unfamiliar (Windows operating system). Your opponent (Microsoft) was raised there (Developed the operating system) and knows every inch. You are provided with a map (a list of Application Programming Interface calls), however your map is missing all of the short cuts (Undocumented API calls) that your opponent will surly use.
Who do you think will win this race?
Quicken is a shining exception. They have survived and actually kept a greater market share than Microsoft's Money application. However, all Microsoft would have to do to crush quicken, if it decided that it would be lucrative enough to warrant doing so, would be to "add value" to it's operating system by including a scaled back version of Money. Within a few years people would stop buying Quicken and start using the included version of Money. Microsoft could then offer a paid version that would compete with it's free version. (Like Word Pad and Word)
The bottom line is that open source nurtures cooperation whereas the Corporate environment does not. Not truly.
Well then let me respond to your points and let's cut the insults.
"Well it's certainly not based on any facts, more like poorly informed idle speculation, which is why I label it FUD."
Insult not worth a serious response.
"There are certain concerns with Holling's bill, and I don't think it will pass."
If no one objects it or a similar bill will almost certainly pass.
"But as far as the DRM stuff, that's a non-issue. If the entertainment people think they can sell their product that way, I say let them. I don't care because I won't buy something I don't want. (Yeah, I know, silly me... I should instead pretend to be all outraged like yourself, when really I'm just concerned I won't be able to pirate music and movies.)"
Well good for you, but the point is that DRM will be mandated by law if Senator Hollings has his way. So you will buy it.
"As far as Palladium... we don't know what that is because it's years out yet."
Yes, it is. But that's irrelevant. If we wait until it's here it will be too late.
"But your claims have already been denied by Microsoft..."
I don't think that they have. I claimed that they would do whatever they could to ensure as little software as possible would run on Linux and use the streaming technologies definitely not open source. So me a link where they deny this.
"...and quite frankly I can't think of any logistical way in which they could accomplish your fantasy."
Not a fantasy and very easily accomplished. Patents, fees and copyrights. Lawyers, litigations and court costs. Problem solved.
Linux won't be able to remain free if it incorporates expensive technologies. So those technologies won't be incorporated. Microsoft's OS will be the only OS that will be able to view streamed music and video. Great selling point.
"I should instead pretend to be all outraged like yourself, when really I'm just concerned I won't be able to pirate music and movies."
If you have read many of my posts you will see that I'm absolutely against piracy of any kind. But then I guess it's human nature to throw insults when one lacks facts.
They are looking toward the future when bandwidth, hardware and technology will allow quality programming to be streamed to paying customers. A lot of people will be pissed but have no choice but to pay or go without.
Most people are mindless sheep and will end up paying and paying and paying...
The amount for each stream will probably be small at first as to avoid an uprising but as choice dwindles and comp lacy sets in the cost will be ratcheted up. How much and how fast will depend on several factors:
1. How arrogant are the heads of the entertainment industry? 2. How soon can the populace be placated? 3. What is the maximum the market will bear?
Remember that our feelings don't enter into the equation unless they hurt the Corporate bottom line.
Yes, let's let private companies commit crimes. Sounds good to me. I mean they are already commiting crimes and if we legalize it, it will save a a lot of money in court costs.
Seriously though, this is a stupid idea. To allow a private company to hack into our computers if the suspect that we have illegal intellectual property on our hard drives!
How is the music industry going to tell the difference between a MP3 that is pirated and a MP3 that is the result of someone exercising his fair use rights?
It seems to me that they have put the horse in front of the cart. They first need to have one of their Senators take away our fair use rights. I would suggest using Senator Hollings from SC. They have already purchased him so they might as well get all the mileage they can from their purchase. (I think he comes with a five outrageous bill guarantee.)
"Re:It seems clear to me... (Score:2) by sheldon on Thursday July 25, @02:05PM (#3952551) (User #2322 Info | http://www.sodablue.org/) It seems clear enough to me. Microsoft and the entertainment industry are in bed together. Both have something to gain from DRM.
Microsoft's position on this is quite understandable. They aren't in bed together, but Microsoft feels that if they do not incorporate DRM into their applications and utilities someone else will and that application will become supplant Windows as a desired choice."
I'm not buying it. With all of the applications out there and over 90% of computers in the entire world running a Microsoft OS there is no OS poised to "supplant Windows as a desired choice."
In their recent FUD they claimed that the reason for their Palladium strategy is to protect customer's from evil hackers and "un-trusted" code. Yet it will not do a thing to prevent the majority of attacks. This initiative is mostly about hurting open source for Microsoft and about curtailing future P2P file swapping for the entertainment industry.
You bet Microsoft is in bed the entertainment industry.
One more partner that I didn't mention in my previous post was the hardware manufacturers. To pull this off they have to play along as well. All of them need to exclusively sell DRM enabled hardware because if any of them are not on board with this scheme then people will have a choice. Given the choice of hardware that the entertainment industry and Microsoft controls or uncrippled hardware, you can guess what people will choose. So we must not be allowed a choice.
And just in case some of the hardware companies are reluctant to play along Microsoft and the entertainment industry have bought and paid for SENATOR HOLLINGS FROM SC. This is one corrupt SOB that needs to be removed from the equation. If you are from SC I would suggest voting the bastard out.
As far as my opinion being FUD, I think not. It is by far more based on fact then fear, uncertainty and doubt.
"There's also a Reuters report and a NYTimes story on the same subject, which includes the interesting line: "Microsoft also warned today that the era of "open computing," the free exchange of digital information that has defined the personal computer industry, is ending." It isn't clear if Microsoft is talking about something happening beyond their control, or if they're boasting about ending it."
It seems clear enough to me. Microsoft and the entertainment industry are in bed together. Both have something to gain from DRM.
The entertainment industry can stop music and movie pirating, take away our fair use rights and set the stage for a future market. That market being the sale of digital video and music which will be streamed directly to hardware. It is important to the entertainment industry that we are not allowed to record the digital data because once recorded we, as individuals, could illegally swap the files with others. Obviously, that would greatly reduce the incentive to pay again and again for the privilege of having the entertainment industry stream it to us. So say good-by to your fair use rights.
Microsoft has a lot to gain here also, on an entirely different front. They are fighting for their Corporate lives against a foe unlike any they have had to deal with before. Linux can not be made to go bankrupt, it cannot be sued into oblivion and it is steadily gaining popularity. How can Microsoft deal with this specter of doom? They must use any weapon available to them.
1. FUD. Yep, good ol' fear, uncertainty and doubt has always helped Microsoft in the past. It hasn't worked very well against Linux because their FUD has been too transparent. People just weren't buying it. They need a more complex strategy.
2. The Law. Make open source illegal. Hmmm... I'm sure they thought about that one... but how?
How about using FUD, a grain of truth to paint open source users as pirates, thieves and other assorted forms of lower life. Then join together with the entertainment industry to buy a senator like say.... SENATOR HOLLINGS FROM SC. And have him draft legislation that will ram DRM down our throats.
One all hardware is DRM enabled, only the entertainment industries bed partner will be allowed to receive digital data that will be streamed by this industry. Microsoft will do it's part to ensure that as few applications as possible will be allowed to run on Linux and have access to this new market. Definitely not open source. Thus they prevent competition. Typical strategy for Microsoft. Being afraid of competition they don't go head to head unless they can ensure themselves an advantage.
by the fifteen year asteroid annihilation project but the asteroid killer satellite was destroyed when it slammed into the asteroid. Apparently calculations were done based on feet instead of meters.
Some of these bills are the most outrageous that I've ever seen:
"Berman has not introduced his bill yet, but his description says that it will immunize copyright holders from civil and criminal liability who use technological methods such as hacking to "prevent the unauthorized distribution of their copyrighted works via P2P networks."
So, the bill would allow copyright holders to hack into my PC if they feel I have taken their intellectual property. If they do and they don't find anything will I have legal recourse? If not can I hack into Hollywood's computers and poke around? I mean I think maybe they have some of my intellectual property and isn't turn about fair play?
This is truly outrageous. We are suppose to be protected from search and seizure from the government but now this stupid bill would allow Corporations a right of trespass! What's next? Maybe allow Microsoft to break into my home, hold me at gun point and rifle thought my software looking for copies of software that I didn't keep proof of purchase?
Maybe next they can introduce a bill that will allow corporations to punish violators without due process? They find intellectual property without proof of purchase and the corporation can take your equipment maybe?
You know, even if they hack into your computer and find MP3s it doesn't prove that you stole them. We DO have fair use rights and if we own a CD it is perfectly legal to create MP3s and keep them on our PCs. I find it much easier to do that than keep all of my CDs at my desk.
If you haven't figured it out by the tone of this message, these guys are really starting to piss me off!
Slashdot Mirror
A click-through license does nothing more then help ensure that the user had the opportunity to view the license. If the files are compress and encrypted and the installer presents the license to the user who is trying to install the package and requires the installer to do something that indicates the acceptance of the license presented then if push comes to shove, it is more arguable in court that the user was or should have been aware of the terms of the licensing agreement.
This can help protect both closed and open source products.
Packaging is more difficult but I think that we can handle it.
Transgamming is doing a good job of making Windows versions of games run on Linux but the problem is the speed. There is usually a BIG performance hit.
So, what this means is that if you want to play an older game that was developed when computer speeds were slower then they'll probably be fine but if you try to play one that is pushing the current performance envelope in Windows it will be a painful experience to play it under WINEX.
One of the main advantages of bringing Linux into the main stream is that eventually there will be more games that run natively. Linux is a vary capable gamming OS. The version of Quake 3 that runs under Linux actually has a higher frame rate than the Windows version.
Except to say that we should secure the physical access points to our networks. Of course if you allow strangers to plug into your network they are going to be able to find a way to talk to the outside world.
Most TCP/IP networks nowadays runs DHCP so just plugging in will usually get you a valid IP and from there you can pretty much guess the gateway or sniff it out. The important thing is not to allow unauthorized people to plug-in in the first place.
Most compromises are not high tech. Most compromises are a result of either a disgruntled employee or an employee that foolishly gives out password information.
Maybe the hacker calls a company's I.S. shop and says that he's from Cisco. The router is having problems and he needs the logon password to fix it. Or maybe a hacker just walks in to a large building with a laptop, RJ45 cord and big balls. He plugs in and starts sniffing.
We have a Group of people in Washington State Government that goes around and tests security. One guy told me that once he walked into a Department building, plugged in and was sniffing usernames and passwords. Someone asked him who he was so he gave them some bogus story and they asked if he wanted coffee! So he sat there eating their donuts, drinking their coffee and breaching their security!!
I never thought of that but you're right. If the media makes a campaign contribution they can almost be assured that they'll get at least part of it back AND, although I'm not up on my tax laws, don't they get to deduct it?
Of course there is always the problem of one corporation owning a large part of another. Who owns CNN? Do you think that CNN will come down very hard on corporations that own large shares of the CNN corporation?
It's really hard to get the word out about injustices done by the corporations who control the means of getting that word out.
As long as people act like sheep they can expect to be treated as such. The DMCA is proof of that.
The sad fact is that most people don't want to get involved. They just go about their lives and unless something really painful hits them square in the nose they are oblivious to the problems of others or even their own impending problems.
Let me tell you a truth about politicians. We like to think of them as intelligent, caring individuals who are well informed about our problems and are working toward solutions.
Wrong! If you ever get a chance to really talk to these people you'll find that for the most part they are egocentric fools who haven't a clue about the issues. The ONLY thing that they care about is getting re-elected.
How do they get re-elected? By being visible and using rhetoric to make people believe that they are intelligent, caring individuals who are well informed about our problems and are working toward solutions.
High visibility costs money. Television spots, campaign ads etc. In comes the corporations to the politician's rescue. In order to ensure that campaign financing doesn't dry up these greedy bastards (Like Senator HOLLINGS from SC) will draft legislation that is favorable to the corporations.
Look at Microsoft. They were getting slaughtered in the court system until Microsoft started giving HEAVY donations to various political groups. Before the donations started the government's legal branch was ready to come down on Microsoft but after the donations started flowing the government went down on Microsoft instead.
The only thing that could turn the situation around is if enough people got pissed off and started voting out these bastards. But then sheep don't vote.
Can we get this guy to tweek his program to repell RIAA personel?
The article didn't go into much detail about how the Linux GUI should be different. Mostly the author just repeated his theme that it should somehow be different.
Personally, I think that the best interface would be no GUI at all. We say that we are in the computer age but I think maybe only the beginning of it. We will know we are really in the computer age when computers are all around us and we are unaware of their presents.
When we can interact with computers in a natural way that allows us to just be people doing what we do and not having to interact with computers in awkward, unnatural ways.
Really, when you think about it, sitting at a computer screen and clicking a "mouse cursor" over hot-points on a screen isn't very natural. We are forced to observer the computer and input into it to get what we want.
Someday, far in the future, I believe that computers will observe us and anticipate what we want. Rarely will we ever have to interface with the computer but when we do it will be in a far more natural way than with a keyboard, mouse and video screen.
"In other words it was an accurate statement."
Yet another reiteration of a worthless insult.
"If it does, or if there is a similar bill, then obviously the proponents have put forth better arguments than the opponents. But I don't think it will pass because of the attention it's drawn."
You really don't understand politics do you? The arguments do not determine the outcome. The facts, although interesting are irrelevant. The only thing that matters to most of our political leaders is being re-elected. They get re-elected by spending money campaigning so if Microsoft and the entertainment industry pays them a significant sum that will allow them to be re-elected they will do what the Corporations want so that the funding won't dry up.
The only thing that would swing it the other way is if people get outraged enough that they fear losing too many votes. It should be obvious by your own attitude that this is unlikely to happen.
"Again it won't matter to me because I won't buy the products if they won't work the way I expect them to. That's more money in my bank, and less in the product providers bank, which means I win."
You say so but I really doubt that when push comes to shove, you'll stop buying computers after your computer dies.
"So we should instead use poorly informed idle speculation to think about what it might mean?"
Microsoft has laid out the fundamentals of what the Palladium strategy means. We don't know exactly how it will be implemented but we do know the general direction. And it's not a good direction.
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html
Oh, do you mean this part:
"It is possible to imagine that a Palladium-hardware-aware version of Linux could be created and could make full use of Palladium's hardware features in order to achieve trust comparable to the Windows implementation. Microsoft is only writing an implementation for Windows, but plans to publish all the technical details."
Smoke and mirrors. This says nothing about open source software. Open source will NEVER be allowed to incorporate any technology that is patented by Microsoft. Further encrypted streams from the entertainment industry will never be allowed to be used by "untrusted" software. That's one of the things that Pallidum is about. Open source software will never be given the certification required.
Even closed source software will be required to pay a fee to get certified and that's not going to happen and Microsoft know's it.
"Actually no, that's not at all correct."
Nothing to respond to here...
"Ohwell. That just means it won't have the same functionality."
One of my points was that Microsoft is doing this to gain an unfair advantage. I'm glad that you agree.
"No, it will be the only OS that will be able to view streamed music and video from content providers who demand DRM. But that's a decision on your part, if you want to view these companies content, then you play by their rules. If you don't want to play by their rules then you create your own content and stream it however you want."
Again, Microsoft is doing this to try to gain an unfair advantage. The fact that you don't care doesn't really matter. There are a LOT of people that do care and are tired of Microsoft's dirty tricks and outright illegal behavor. That's why Microsoft was found guilty of breaking the law.
"It seems to me like you need to stop whining and start doing"
Another insult.
Look obviously you have nothing of substance to contribute so let's just agree to disagree. You have repeatedly insulted me and I have not replied in kind. So go do your Microsoft thing, pay, pay, pay for various Microsoft fees and have a great life.
"The .NET runtime is seriously cool technology. Sure, the motivation for creating it may be sinister, but who really cares? .Net is simply a better mousetrap and MS should be rewarded."
How should we reward them? By sticking our willy into their better mouse trap and letting them slam it shut maybe?
"When my mother can install Mandrake like she installed XP, then I might agree with you."
I think that Linux does have a long ways to go before it is widely adopted as the preferred desktop environment. However I don't find anything difficult about Mandrake's installation.
The CD auto boots and if you select the default install its completely automatic. You do have to swap the CD's as the installation progresses but other than that just accept all defaults. How could XP be easier than that?
"We need to build a vibrant and healthy developer community."
Open source and closed source software work on completely different fundamental principals. In the case of open source, cooperation between individuals is encouraged and nurtured by it's very nature, while this is not the case for proprietary software.
This spirit of cooperation is one of the reasons that Linux, a relatively insignificant operating system from the corporate sales point of view, has such a vibrant developer base. Whereas the Linux developer community has a cooperative attitude, much of the proprietary software community has an adversarial point of view. Don't talk about the company code or be fired, sued, imprisoned, etc.
The open source environment nurtures cooperation but is an adversary to proprietary development. The two types of software can exist side by side but the proprietary vendor is always at risk that someone will like his product and choose to emulate it in an open source project. This can happen on Windows as well but by far open source is more prevalent on Linux.
Once an open source project is started that competes against a proprietary product it will become increasingly hard for the proprietary product to maintain enough added value to make its expense justifiable.
The proprietary market developer for the Windows platform, also must worry that Microsoft may make their product irrelevant. The very people who sold the developer's the tools to develop for the Windows platform may, if the product appears to be lucrative enough or have the potential of being so, decide to compete for that market share.
Netscape, Word Perfect, and Quicken are a few examples. In the case of Netscape, Microsoft crushed its competition though the inclusion of a competing product in an operating system that controlled a monopoly market share. Word Perfect is still alive and kicking but has lost almost the entire market share that it had.
How did Microsoft take away so much market share from Word Perfect?
Let me use an analogy. Let's pretend that you are in a long distance, cross-country race (you wish to build an application) in a land with which you are unfamiliar (Windows operating system). Your opponent (Microsoft) was raised there (Developed the operating system) and knows every inch. You are provided with a map (a list of Application Programming Interface calls), however your map is missing all of the short cuts (Undocumented API calls) that your opponent will surly use.
Who do you think will win this race?
Quicken is a shining exception. They have survived and actually kept a greater market share than Microsoft's Money application. However, all Microsoft would have to do to crush quicken, if it decided that it would be lucrative enough to warrant doing so, would be to "add value" to it's operating system by including a scaled back version of Money. Within a few years people would stop buying Quicken and start using the included version of Money. Microsoft could then offer a paid version that would compete with it's free version. (Like Word Pad and Word)
The bottom line is that open source nurtures cooperation whereas the Corporate environment does not. Not truly.
... just write an article about it and post it on this site. They be slash dotted. Kind of like a legal DoS!
Well then let me respond to your points and let's cut the insults.
"Well it's certainly not based on any facts, more like poorly informed idle speculation, which is why I label it FUD."
Insult not worth a serious response.
"There are certain concerns with Holling's bill, and I don't think it will pass."
If no one objects it or a similar bill will almost certainly pass.
"But as far as the DRM stuff, that's a non-issue. If the entertainment people think they can sell their product that way, I say let them. I don't care because I won't buy something I don't want. (Yeah, I know, silly me... I should instead pretend to be all outraged like yourself, when really I'm just concerned I won't be able to pirate music and movies.)"
Well good for you, but the point is that DRM will be mandated by law if Senator Hollings has his way. So you will buy it.
"As far as Palladium... we don't know what that is because it's years out yet."
Yes, it is. But that's irrelevant. If we wait until it's here it will be too late.
"But your claims have already been denied by Microsoft..."
I don't think that they have. I claimed that they would do whatever they could to ensure as little software as possible would run on Linux and use the streaming technologies definitely not open source. So me a link where they deny this.
"...and quite frankly I can't think of any logistical way in which they could accomplish your fantasy."
Not a fantasy and very easily accomplished. Patents, fees and copyrights. Lawyers, litigations and court costs. Problem solved.
Linux won't be able to remain free if it incorporates expensive technologies. So those technologies won't be incorporated. Microsoft's OS will be the only OS that will be able to view streamed music and video. Great selling point.
"I should instead pretend to be all outraged like yourself, when really I'm just concerned I won't be able to pirate music and movies."
If you have read many of my posts you will see that I'm absolutely against piracy of any kind. But then I guess it's human nature to throw insults when one lacks facts.
They are looking toward the future when bandwidth, hardware and technology will allow quality programming to be streamed to paying customers. A lot of people will be pissed but have no choice but to pay or go without.
Most people are mindless sheep and will end up paying and paying and paying...
The amount for each stream will probably be small at first as to avoid an uprising but as choice dwindles and comp lacy sets in the cost will be ratcheted up. How much and how fast will depend on several factors:
1. How arrogant are the heads of the entertainment industry?
2. How soon can the populace be placated?
3. What is the maximum the market will bear?
Remember that our feelings don't enter into the equation unless they hurt the Corporate bottom line.
Yes, let's let private companies commit crimes. Sounds good to me. I mean they are already commiting crimes and if we legalize it, it will save a a lot of money in court costs.
Seriously though, this is a stupid idea. To allow a private company to hack into our computers if the suspect that we have illegal intellectual property on our hard drives!
How is the music industry going to tell the difference between a MP3 that is pirated and a MP3 that is the result of someone exercising his fair use rights?
It seems to me that they have put the horse in front of the cart. They first need to have one of their Senators take away our fair use rights. I would suggest using Senator Hollings from SC. They have already purchased him so they might as well get all the mileage they can from their purchase. (I think he comes with a five outrageous bill guarantee.)
"Re:It seems clear to me... (Score:2)
by sheldon on Thursday July 25, @02:05PM (#3952551)
(User #2322 Info | http://www.sodablue.org/)
It seems clear enough to me. Microsoft and the entertainment industry are in bed together. Both have something to gain from DRM.
Microsoft's position on this is quite understandable. They aren't in bed together, but Microsoft feels that if they do not incorporate DRM into their applications and utilities someone else will and that application will become supplant Windows as a desired choice."
I'm not buying it. With all of the applications out there and over 90% of computers in the entire world running a Microsoft OS there is no OS poised to "supplant Windows as a desired choice."
In their recent FUD they claimed that the reason for their Palladium strategy is to protect customer's from evil hackers and "un-trusted" code. Yet it will not do a thing to prevent the majority of attacks. This initiative is mostly about hurting open source for Microsoft and about curtailing future P2P file swapping for the entertainment industry.
You bet Microsoft is in bed the entertainment industry.
One more partner that I didn't mention in my previous post was the hardware manufacturers. To pull this off they have to play along as well. All of them need to exclusively sell DRM enabled hardware because if any of them are not on board with this scheme then people will have a choice. Given the choice of hardware that the entertainment industry and Microsoft controls or uncrippled hardware, you can guess what people will choose. So we must not be allowed a choice.
And just in case some of the hardware companies are reluctant to play along Microsoft and the entertainment industry have bought and paid for SENATOR HOLLINGS FROM SC. This is one corrupt SOB that needs to be removed from the equation. If you are from SC I would suggest voting the bastard out.
As far as my opinion being FUD, I think not. It is by far more based on fact then fear, uncertainty and doubt.
"There's also a Reuters report and a NYTimes story on the same subject, which includes the interesting line: "Microsoft also warned today that the era of "open computing," the free exchange of digital information that has defined the personal computer industry, is ending." It isn't clear if Microsoft is talking about something happening beyond their control, or if they're boasting about ending it."
It seems clear enough to me. Microsoft and the entertainment industry are in bed together. Both have something to gain from DRM.
The entertainment industry can stop music and movie pirating, take away our fair use rights and set the stage for a future market. That market being the sale of digital video and music which will be streamed directly to hardware. It is important to the entertainment industry that we are not allowed to record the digital data because once recorded we, as individuals, could illegally swap the files with others. Obviously, that would greatly reduce the incentive to pay again and again for the privilege of having the entertainment industry stream it to us. So say good-by to your fair use rights.
Microsoft has a lot to gain here also, on an entirely different front. They are fighting for their Corporate lives against a foe unlike any they have had to deal with before. Linux can not be made to go bankrupt, it cannot be sued into oblivion and it is steadily gaining popularity. How can Microsoft deal with this specter of doom? They must use any weapon available to them.
1. FUD. Yep, good ol' fear, uncertainty and doubt has always helped Microsoft in the past. It hasn't worked very well against Linux because their FUD has been too transparent. People just weren't buying it. They need a more complex strategy.
2. The Law. Make open source illegal. Hmmm... I'm sure they thought about that one... but how?
How about using FUD, a grain of truth to paint open source users as pirates, thieves and other assorted forms of lower life. Then join together with the entertainment industry to buy a senator like say.... SENATOR HOLLINGS FROM SC. And have him draft legislation that will ram DRM down our throats.
One all hardware is DRM enabled, only the entertainment industries bed partner will be allowed to receive digital data that will be streamed by this industry. Microsoft will do it's part to ensure that as few applications as possible will be allowed to run on Linux and have access to this new market. Definitely not open source. Thus they prevent competition. Typical strategy for Microsoft. Being afraid of competition they don't go head to head unless they can ensure themselves an advantage.
Got it. :-)
by the fifteen year asteroid annihilation project but the asteroid killer satellite was destroyed when it slammed into the asteroid. Apparently calculations were done based on feet instead of meters.
time to go insainly into debt!
I understand what P2P is and a web browser isn't P2P. Why would admins ever be conserned with web browsing?
I admit that I have never run TB so I could be wrong but I am finding myself not buying the anonymous web browser story.
I thought the article said that it was P2P software?
Some of these bills are the most outrageous that I've ever seen:
"Berman has not introduced his bill yet, but his description says that it will immunize copyright holders from civil and criminal liability who use technological methods such as hacking to "prevent the unauthorized distribution of their copyrighted works via P2P networks."
So, the bill would allow copyright holders to hack into my PC if they feel I have taken their intellectual property. If they do and they don't find anything will I have legal recourse? If not can I hack into Hollywood's computers and poke around? I mean I think maybe they have some of my intellectual property and isn't turn about fair play?
This is truly outrageous. We are suppose to be protected from search and seizure from the government but now this stupid bill would allow Corporations a right of trespass! What's next? Maybe allow Microsoft to break into my home, hold me at gun point and rifle thought my software looking for copies of software that I didn't keep proof of purchase?
Maybe next they can introduce a bill that will allow corporations to punish violators without due process? They find intellectual property without proof of purchase and the corporation can take your equipment maybe?
You know, even if they hack into your computer and find MP3s it doesn't prove that you stole them. We DO have fair use rights and if we own a CD it is perfectly legal to create MP3s and keep them on our PCs. I find it much easier to do that than keep all of my CDs at my desk.
If you haven't figured it out by the tone of this message, these guys are really starting to piss me off!
I always look forward to seeing what the good folk at Mandrake have been doing. Version 8.2 has really been exceptional.
:-(
However, breaking all of my commercial apps is going to cost me big bucks so I may not be upgrading any time soon.
Is there a list out there of commercial apps that will break (or won't)?