I have to disagree. I used to advocate linux to everyone, until I discovered that most people simply aren't interested in the concept of GPL'ed software ("well, I didn't pay for my pirate copies of windows/office/photoshop, so what's the difference??") and definitely aren't interested in learning a new gui. Doesn't matter if it's more useful, has more features and can help you get things done faster - most of my friends aren't even interested in trying Mozilla instead of IE on windows... and why? It's because the interface is different and they have to learn something new.
Please stop trying to "advocate linux to everyone". Just...stop. Teach them, Help them, Educate them and Support them...but stop trying to convince them.
The second point that always crops up is that people want to have every single feature that was ever available under windows when running linux - that means the ability to run all their common apps, like office and photoshop. OpenOffice and GIMP don't impress them, because they just see an interface they're not familiar with and there'll always be one feature ("How do I use Endnote with OpenOffice?"... "What, I can't? Well, what good is that?"; or "How do I make colour seperations with GIMP"... "What, GIMP doesn't even handle CMYK colour? What kind of a useless program is that?") that they can't do without.
That's called a learning curve. Ask them how much they knew about Photoshop or any of the Office apps until they took the time to learn? And offer to help them learn.
These days I don't advocate linux. If anyone asks me about it, I tell them that it's very different to Windows, and it has some advantages and some disadvantages. But to claim that linux is the Godsend for all users is not just delusional, it's really counterproductive - it causes new users to be rapidly disillusioned and they'll probably never try linux again.
Good. Don't advocate GNU/Linux. Educate people to the point where they can evaluate GNU/Linux vs. Windows on their own merits. GNU/Linux is not a "Godsend"...it's an affordable option to proprietary, expensive, invasive software.
I've read many posts on slashdot from users who've said "I tried linux in '98 and it didn't have this and it didn't do that, and I've used windows ever since". Where do you think this kind of attitude comes from if not from the linux-zealot who practically forces all their friends, mum and dad, grandma... not to mention the family dog... to use linux, and proudly boasts how their kid sister aged 2 and three-quarters prefers linux to windows? It creates this concept that linux can do everything from make you coffee in the morning to wash the dishes at night.
I couldn't agree more. We, as a community, need to focus more on education and less on Microsoft-bashing. If we're right, and GNU/Linux/*BSD/Mac are Good Things(tm), then showing people their options does us much more good than bashing Microsoft. (Besides...MS-bashing really is like shooting fish in a barrel to anyone with a computer security background.)
It's foolish - like it or not, linux is primarily a "geek" OS. As long as it is GPL software based it always will be; it's only when commercial companies start developing software for it that it will ever become usable for the masses. Even the projects designed to bring linux to "Joe Longneck" seem more concerned with creating endless eye-candy than with providing speed, usability and userfriendliness.
Well, you kinda veered into FUD-ville here. Can you qualify any those statements? Or...wait...Bill, is that you? I didn't know you were still trolling slashdot!:)
And after all the coercing the user into running linux - is it worth it? Have they gained anything in terms of usability/functionality/price? Generally, the answer is no, and I hate to say it but I really think that most users are better off with Windows at the moment, and probably will be for some time yet.
Wow, you really went off the reservation of simply disagreeing with me with this one. Where did you read that I advocated "coercing" people into running GNU/Linux? You're entitled to your opinion that people are better off running Windows and I won't argue otherwise; I'm too busy showing them the alternatives and letting them make the ultimate decision.
... will Joe User overcome the stigma that "Linux" is for geeks?
That depends on the geeks who perpetuate this stigma by telling Joe that he can't handle Linux because he is just a dumb Windoze luser.
I wish I had mod points. That was insightful. I've found that people are much more willing to try GNU/Linux when I encourage them to ask questions and experiment. It also helps if you're willing to help people solve their Windows problems...your opinion means more after a few Windows driver updates so they're much more open to the idea of trying something different if you recommend it.
I also never recommend that a lifelong Windows user switch "cold-turkey". I help them set up a dual-boot system so that they can always fall back to what they know if they need to or if (and I know it's heresy to mention it but...) something just works better in Windows currently. It takes a lot of patience to teach people how to solve problems (in GNU/Linux or in Windows) but it pays off in the long run. You know, that whole "teach a man to fish" analogy and all.
Educating people is what we need to be doing...not convincing them. Teach them how to be geeks themselves and then let them make their own informed decision about what they like best. Seems to work most of the time; people are very interested in saving money and, once they're aware of the options and over the learning curve of a new environment, I've found that most of them prefer GNU/Linux. (And all the games included in the distros helps them win over their families.)
Anyone with half a brain realized twenty years ago that the bootleg/file-sharing network essentially relied on being under the artists's collective radar for existance.
Napster created a medium that encouraged sharing of _any_ MP3 file, and had no checks whatsoever--not even bad ones--on catching songs that would likely get RIAA angry.
I've been accused of having half a brain in the past, so that's a possibility. But I fail to see how your arguments absolve the guilt of the person that leaked the unfinished content of the artists and assign the blame to the medium that said miscreant utilized.
My disagreement is not about the legality of filesharing networks; it is about the intelligence of the artists you mentioned. If their beef was that their unfinished content was posted to Napster (and hence, swapped)...why did they pursue Napster (and ultimately, their own fans) instead of the person that leaked the unfinished content?
Metallica didn't even care about Napster until their unfinished work started showing up. The same thing was what got Dr. Dre, Madonna, and every other artist who cared to come out against Napster.
Ok, so rather than assign blame to whomever leaked their unfinished content to Napster these artists chose to blame the medium that the culprit used. Am I missing something here? (Honest question, no sarcasm intended.)
Unless I'm missing some important details, your logic would have me persecuting the various telcos and makers of fax machines if someone were to steal my industrial trade secrets and fax them to a member of the press.
I remember in the 80s when software companies tried to enforce DRM...and ran head-first into the will of their customers. So they gave it up for a few years but now it's back.
So what's the threshold that must be reached before companies, organizations, and lawmakers realize that they're pissing people off? I was too young to care back in the 80's...I just bought whatever cartridge allowed me to make backups of my C64 games and pressed on. But there must have been some point at which the software companies realized that they were wasting more money on ineffectual copy-protection schemes than they were making on legitimate software sales.
I wonder if any of you folks with more historical background can offer some insight about issues like this. This E-Bay case is barratry. I'm sure there have been eras in the past where lawyers ran amok, else there wouldn't even be a word such as barratry. So at what point does Joe_Everyman and Sue_Everywoman get pissed off enough to spout off?
Sure you could say "Microsoft is wrong for HAVING this activation feature", but that is incorrect. Attacking ANY company's network is wrong, and very illegal. How would you feel if the servers you get open-source applications from were made unusable because someone attacked the network they were hosted on? This is the same thing.
All true and valid points, sir. But this is Slashdot...we DDOS all of our favorite servers all the time!;)
And I do say that Activation is a Bad Thing (tm) but I agree that attacking any company's network is neither a valid nor legal form of protest.
MS gets a bad rap but I've used it for years (desktop and server) and haven't had any problems, security or otherwise (never even had a virus).
True, MS does get a bad rap. Is it not possible that they have earned that reputation? And yes, the kernel in Win2000/XP is much more stable than any previous versions, but should I consider stability a justification for "product activation"? We've been through this whole software-DRM thing before back in the 80's and early 90's. It doesn't work, and no matter how stable, secure, and easy-to-use a software product is...I (and everyone I've talked to) doesn't want it if we have to "activate" it.
"Mindshare" is not the issue. People want easy installation, slick gui, easy upgrades, and security all in one OS. "Security" and "snappy gui" aren't niches to be filled as if a user should choose between them. They're requirements.
I disagree. Easy installation, slick gui, easy upgrades (and I'm guessing that you also mean updates), and security are all requirements to gain mindshare, and every distro can improve in each of these areas. But when you elevate the field to a level where Linux is as ubiquitous as Windows when it comes to operating systems, there are niches. Last time I checked, Microsoft offered different products for niche markets: Exchange, IIS, XP Home, XP Pro...etc.).
I think as more non-technical people use Linux the severity of problems will rise as there will be that many more people not patching holes. And as the number of users rise so will the attractiveness of Linux as a hacker target.
I think you're right. What remains to be seen is how many holes have already been spotted by the hackers that are working on GNU/Linux.
Open source is a double edged sword here...sure, more people look at the code (in theory) so problems will be spotted earlier (in theory), but now the code is exposed for the bad guys to see too.
That's a valid point and I believe that only time will tell what the best philosophy is. Read BugTraq and draw your own conclusions.
actually I like RMS a whole lot, I'm just not at all sure I'd want him on the payroll in corporate-land;)
I wouldn't hire him for an authoritarian position, but he's definitely a guy I'd hire to be part of an innovative team. I like free (as in speech;) thinkers.
I can understand why you feel that way. From michael's summary of the article:
Verizon wasn't making any sort of principled stand to protect its users' privacy, it just wanted to avoid the costs of complying with the (many) subpoenas it will now receive.
While that's probably not entirely false, this is from the main article referenced:
"Verizon is not attempting to shield customers who break copyright laws," said Sarah B. Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel for Verizon. "We are, however, seeking to protect the fundamental privacy and due process rights that should be afforded to our customers and all Internet users."
Sounds principled enough to me. I'll leave the conspiracy theory that it's just a public front to the conspiracy theorists.
Great reply! And your summary of the PC revolution is spot-on. (Maybe you should copyright it so that future authors can't use it without paying you?....just being facetious:) ).
Ironically, the parellels that you draw between the IBM and Microsoft anti-trust suits are the same parallels that I've drawn and which fuel my belief that the software landscape could change the same way that the hardware landscape changed back then. Once dominance is removed from one single controlling entity, the ability to innovate can flourish.
I'm taking you out of context here (apologies if I've twisted your intent) but you basically said it yourself:
The merits of distributed computing began to overcome the vendor exclusive business model.
We're definitely on the same page when it comes to the philosophical matters. The issues of today seem to converge into a 4-dimensional debate where free software and the free exchange of ideas is a Good Thing (tm), Microsoft isn't necessarily "The Great Satan", the entertainment cartels need to re-think their business models, and we should all be wary of government involvement in any of the previous issues until they get a technological clue.
Spoofing IPs is much harder these days than it used to be. Most routers drop packets with outside source addresses if they come in on an inside interface. Source routing hasn't been honored for a long time now, and guessing sequences to blindly complete a three way handshake is quite hard now. Even if you manage it, your pseudo connection will likely be killed by the RST packet from the real owner of the address you try to spoof.
I'm sure you have references to back up your claims. (I'll bet I have references that defeat them.)
As to the cost of hiring a moderator or two vs. the cost of a suit, that's a business decision that they have made. If they feel they have strong and clear evidence, they may consider the cost of suing to be nearly 0 once they rightfully prevail.
We could debate the technical implications ad nauseum...(just one example: you assume that a static IP client is still online when I spoof their IP...maybe they run Windows and thus have to reboot periodically or maybe they turn their computer off) but that would not resolve the issue at hand which is, as I understand it: Is it proper and/or necessary to invoke litigation to resolve online social discrepancies?
I say no...let the community ignore the troll and shame on the company that attempts to force the courts to regulate online behavior. If the company is unwilling or unable to control its presence on the Web, they should get the hell outta Dodge until they have the technical ability to venture into this realm.
It's curious to me that you have enough technical knowledge to weigh in on IP-spoofing, yet lack the ability to distinguish online vs. offline sociological issues.
I will leave this debate at this point because it's unlikely that we'll ever agree. I will read your response, but I won't respond. No need to let our debate devolve into a flamefest.:)
A stoe will feel free to tell a trouble maker never to come back. They will get the police involved if said troublemaker does come back and make trouble again. They will take out a restraining order. If the troublemaker costs them money, they'll likely sue to recover.
What makes you think that being on the web should eliminate these perfectly legal options?
I'm not saying that this asshole should not be held accountable for his repeat offenses and I'm not contesting the "perfectly legal options" that you support. I'm simply pointing out that laws which apply to brick-and-mortar establishments are questionable when applied to online businesses. How do they know that it was this one person trolling them, and not multiple people spoofing IP addresses and faking posts? How much will it cost this one pest-control company to acquire the data required to prove that it was one individual vs how much it would cost them to employ a full-time moderator?
The site owners ALLEGE that the person is an asshole (more or less), it's up to the court to determine the truth of that allegation. That's the way it should be. If he wanted to stay out of court, he should have taken the hint when he was told to leave and then banned from the board (SEVERAL TIMES).
Again, I'm not arguing that some guy is an asshole pestering (no pun intended) a company. I'm thinking of the bigger picture: If I work for Company A that is in competition with Company B and I know how to spoof IP addresses, it's pretty easy for me to troll Company B's website and constantly change IP addresses. The concept of accountability breaks down. What if I harassed a company using your IP and they decided to sue you?
I'm willing to concede that this guy is a dickhead. But I'm still of the opinion that this company could employ technological (or better yet, simple sociological) countermeasures. We've been dealing with trolls online for over a decade; the best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore it. Why, after all this time, is a company (who voluntarily submitted themselves to this risk by offering a website) trying to silence a troll by litigation?
You guys have a great debate going, sorry for the interruption. I just wanted to inject one point which might (or might not) be relevant to your debate.
Every so often, I read an editorial or an article about the "dumbing-down of America". These pieces bemoan curriculum changes or testing standards that allow for sub-standard learning environments.
I for one think it's high time that we stop dumbing-down people by assuming that all they're capable of using is one or two operating systems and one office suite. The purpose of schools is to educate people so that they can make intelligent choices...not teach them how to use one proprietary operating system or one proprietary office suite.
Stop assuming that people are mindless automatons that don't want a choice and start educating them about the choices they do have and let's see what happens.
By your reasoning, a brick and morter store should just expect that part of existance is vandalism and shoplifting.
Of course. They already do. The price you pay for an item in a retail store is marked up because of shoplifting. As for vandalism, totally different concept altogether; if I see someone in a ski mask spray-painting the side of my local Wal-Mart...I'm at least going to report it (and most likely I'll go kick the jerkoff's ass). The net invalidates security guards, police, and joe_citizen_informer. Hence the need to budget for technological counter-measures.
While the exact conventions differ, the net is still human interaction, and human interaction is governed by laws and customs.
What you fail to differentiate is that laws and customs require accountability. In meat-space, it's much easier to assign accountability; that's why the police work. Online, it's much trickier to assign accountability; hence the need for an "online security force" for your company website...moderators and competent sysadmins.
Being an a$$hole on somebody else's property is NOT a right.
I totally agree. But who would you rather have the power to label you an "a$$hole"? A few people from one website, or the governmental and judicial bodies of a country?
I think your belief is misdirected. The *nix community is heavily populated by narcissists who have always hated Gates and Jobs for bringing powerful computing to the unwashed consumer, and especially to the untouchable non-annointed programmers who make a living using things like Flash, VB, Office and Mac DTP/video editing apps.
I hope you didn't intend to include me in that group of narcissists. Idealist maybe, but not narcissist. Far from hating Jobs and Gates, I feel we're indebted to them for how commonplace PCs are today. If not for them, I believe we'd be a decade behind and who knows...we might not even have the Linux that we have today. I tend to avoid people who adopt the "high-priest" attitude towards computing. I'm much more comfortable with someone that's willing to say, "Hmm, ya know I don't really know the answer to that question. Let's see if we can figure it out." vs. the bullshit artist asshole that says, "The answer to your question is over your head and I don't have the time to explain it to you.".
This is an old game with new players, that's all. In general, it's important to recognize that tech is an extremely difficult business proposition. There are really only four people I can think of who know how to execute it well: Gates, Jobs, Chambers, and Ellison.
Once again, I think we're at odds only because of the timeframes we're talking about. You're (realistically) discussing the present and forecasting the future based upon the past (which is entirely logical and understandable). I'm thinking about the kind of future we might realize if we can actually change the game.
And again, your arguments are well articulated and well founded on historical facts and I won't dispute them. But paradigms can shift...the game can change. How else would we have arrived at this point where code is intellectual property when, at one time, everyone shared their code with each other?
I admit that I probably went a bit too far when I said that this was all about philosophy...that's simply not a realistic statement in today's environment. Maybe I'm too idealistic or naive...but I'd sure like to see the software industry move in that direction tomorrow.
It's a waste of time to get into this desktop conflict. You know what is said about those who ignore history...
It's been said that those who ignore history tend to repeat its mistakes, true. However, is it not also possible that we can learn from history in order to avoid those mistakes?
If he came into their physical place of business and did that, they'd be expected to ask him to leave and not come back (like they did on the web). Failing that, they'd be well within their rights to have him arrested for tresspass and thrown in jail. On the web, they just sued him.
I keep seeing this analogy to brick-and-mortar businesses, and I still believe that it is fundamentally flawed. If I choose to create a portal on the Web for my business, I should do so knowing full well what it entails (DDoS attacks, hackers, trolls, etc.) and I should budget accordingly. Litigation is a poor mechanism for dealing with online problems today. While it's possible that juries might actually understand the principles behind the laws (Elcomsoft), it seems glaringly obvious that the justices in the highest courts lack the ability to understand the paradigm shift that the Internet is imposing (Eldred).
As so many others here have pointed out.../. is riddled with trolls and I haven't seen a lawsuit yet.
It's not about the politics or the philosophy, but about affordable Linux products available to consumers today.
Wrong answer, Mike. Politics be damned, this is all about philosophy.
This statement from Roberston is very revealing. It says (to me) that beancounters are beginning to invade the GNU/Linux movement. Props to Bruce Perens and HP for refusing to support the philosophy that equates GNU/Linux users to mindless consumers in the name of winning the desktop war.
Am I alone in my belief that the problem is uneducated, uninformed, apathetic computer users?
I might've missed it, but I didn't notice anyone thanking you for submitting yourself to the scrutiny of the/. community.
I happen to live in your neck of the woods and lunch is on me whenever and wherever you prefer. Just msg me from my profile if you're interested.
That being said, and acknowledging your statement that you're not a TCPA advocate, please forward this statement to your leadership: I did not ask for TCPA. I know that I'm not one of your big customers, but that fact is irrelevant to me. From a purely risk-assessment point-of-view, I'm much more comfortable accepting the possibility of a million crazed virus authors versus the alternative: allowing a conglomeration of companies to control the future of computing innovation. I can fight the authors of computer viruses on the technological common ground that is the PC today. I cannot afford to fight teams of lawyers from large companies tomorrow. Maybe once we get the DMCA (and its worldwide equivalents) repealed, TCPA can be re-addressed. Until then, given today's frenzy of litigation...it's just too risky a prospect for me to consider.
Again, thanks for taking the time to explain your company's involvement with TCPA and for answering our questions. More companies need people like you to address the "masses".
Thank you for a very enjoyable, insightful reply. And I do agree with you (and nelson below) that today's PC user probably doesn't want much choice. I had an easier time convincing my grandmother (who had never touched a computer for the most part) to try Linux than my own father who probably knows as much or more about UNIX than I do. So I concede the point that Linux distros are analogous to fashion shows...today.
I'm thinking about the future though. We're raising much more technically sophisticated generations these days. My first contact with a computer was an old Corona portable (looking back, that draws a chuckle)...circa 1982. I was 8 years old. Today, my niece is 3 years old and she already has her own computer! It took me years to become technically savvy enough to look for an alternative to Windows...and I'm a geek. I believe that future generations will grow up as geeks whether they're interested in computers or not. I could be wrong, but that's my theory. The only obstacles to that future that I perceive are the battles we're fighting today: DRM, infinite copyright, software patents and obtuse litigation.
Your points are valid and well-made and I do think that we agree on the value of choice. I guess the future will decide whether I'm an idealistic visionary or a blind fool.
Your analogy breaks down when put into proper context. It would be more relevant if you had said:
What if I did AOL a favor and opened up Instant Messaging for them by publishing specs of all their services so people can write more interopaable software
and they didn't object for over six years? I'm sure they'd "appreciate" my help, and sue me anyway.
However in this case, PCI-SIG almost did exactly that. They "appreciated" the effort of a single individual for over six years and THEN sent in the lawyers. PCI-SIG didn't sue though...they just basically threatened to.
Just in case you haven't seen the movie Ocean's Eleven or know what a pinch is by other means: basically, a pinch is an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) emitter. It's an interesting concept but reality has proven the pinch to be rather difficult.
How hard would it be, given today's technology, to create a handheld RFID-pinch? Personally, I'd love to walk into a building and hit a button that fries every RFID within say, 500 meters.
10 years ago, people were comparing System V, HP Unix, BSD, Solaris, OS2, etc.
That's a mighty big lump of apples and oranges you're carrying.
Here I am reading the same thing about Linux as if the "distro" variation problems were new.
Two things:
You say "distro" variation problems I say distro variation options.
You say M$ has little to worry about, given that they prevailed over vastly superior OSes many years ago I say refer to that apples and oranges clump you're carrying. And, based on recent articles I've read, I believe that Microsoft is pretty worried about the threat of free and/or open-source software.
If Linux is going to be a serious desktop contender, there can be only one distro that is broadly supported. Whether that will ever happen, I don't know, tech-politics being what they are.
Perhaps your belief that there "can be only one" is rooted in the quasi-reality of today. Or maybe you've just watched The Highlander too many times.:) Just as you go to a store and find the pair of jeans that not only fit you but that are comfortable...the same concept can apply to the operating system on your computer. That's why Levis come in so many flavors: 501, 505, etc.
I don't know if there will ever be "one distro to rule them all" but I for one certainly hope not. That philosophy (combined with closed-source and utter greed) is what created the monolith of mindshare that is Microsoft today.
Here at/. I read a lot of debate between KDE users and GNOME users. Rather than pit the two against each other, I tend to view them as choices. (And that's only GUI-related; MAC OS X and *BSD are also great choices.)
Slashdot Mirror
Please stop trying to "advocate linux to everyone". Just...stop. Teach them, Help them, Educate them and Support them...but stop trying to convince them.
That's called a learning curve. Ask them how much they knew about Photoshop or any of the Office apps until they took the time to learn? And offer to help them learn.
Good. Don't advocate GNU/Linux. Educate people to the point where they can evaluate GNU/Linux vs. Windows on their own merits. GNU/Linux is not a "Godsend"...it's an affordable option to proprietary, expensive, invasive software.
I couldn't agree more. We, as a community, need to focus more on education and less on Microsoft-bashing. If we're right, and GNU/Linux/*BSD/Mac are Good Things(tm), then showing people their options does us much more good than bashing Microsoft. (Besides...MS-bashing really is like shooting fish in a barrel to anyone with a computer security background.)
Well, you kinda veered into FUD-ville here. Can you qualify any those statements? Or...wait...Bill, is that you? I didn't know you were still trolling slashdot!
Wow, you really went off the reservation of simply disagreeing with me with this one. Where did you read that I advocated "coercing" people into running GNU/Linux? You're entitled to your opinion that people are better off running Windows and I won't argue otherwise; I'm too busy showing them the alternatives and letting them make the ultimate decision.
--K.
I wish I had mod points. That was insightful. I've found that people are much more willing to try GNU/Linux when I encourage them to ask questions and experiment. It also helps if you're willing to help people solve their Windows problems...your opinion means more after a few Windows driver updates so they're much more open to the idea of trying something different if you recommend it.
I also never recommend that a lifelong Windows user switch "cold-turkey". I help them set up a dual-boot system so that they can always fall back to what they know if they need to or if (and I know it's heresy to mention it but...) something just works better in Windows currently. It takes a lot of patience to teach people how to solve problems (in GNU/Linux or in Windows) but it pays off in the long run. You know, that whole "teach a man to fish" analogy and all.
Educating people is what we need to be doing...not convincing them. Teach them how to be geeks themselves and then let them make their own informed decision about what they like best. Seems to work most of the time; people are very interested in saving money and, once they're aware of the options and over the learning curve of a new environment, I've found that most of them prefer GNU/Linux. (And all the games included in the distros helps them win over their families.)
--K.
I've been accused of having half a brain in the past, so that's a possibility. But I fail to see how your arguments absolve the guilt of the person that leaked the unfinished content of the artists and assign the blame to the medium that said miscreant utilized.
My disagreement is not about the legality of filesharing networks; it is about the intelligence of the artists you mentioned. If their beef was that their unfinished content was posted to Napster (and hence, swapped)...why did they pursue Napster (and ultimately, their own fans) instead of the person that leaked the unfinished content?
--K.
Ok, so rather than assign blame to whomever leaked their unfinished content to Napster these artists chose to blame the medium that the culprit used. Am I missing something here? (Honest question, no sarcasm intended.)
Unless I'm missing some important details, your logic would have me persecuting the various telcos and makers of fax machines if someone were to steal my industrial trade secrets and fax them to a member of the press.
--K.
Ummmm. Ever hear of Metallica?
;)
Oh, wait. You said semi-intelligent band....my bad.
--K.
I remember in the 80s when software companies tried to enforce DRM...and ran head-first into the will of their customers. So they gave it up for a few years but now it's back.
So what's the threshold that must be reached before companies, organizations, and lawmakers realize that they're pissing people off? I was too young to care back in the 80's...I just bought whatever cartridge allowed me to make backups of my C64 games and pressed on. But there must have been some point at which the software companies realized that they were wasting more money on ineffectual copy-protection schemes than they were making on legitimate software sales.
I wonder if any of you folks with more historical background can offer some insight about issues like this. This E-Bay case is barratry. I'm sure there have been eras in the past where lawyers ran amok, else there wouldn't even be a word such as barratry. So at what point does Joe_Everyman and Sue_Everywoman get pissed off enough to spout off?
--K.
All true and valid points, sir. But this is Slashdot...we DDOS all of our favorite servers all the time!
And I do say that Activation is a Bad Thing (tm) but I agree that attacking any company's network is neither a valid nor legal form of protest.
--K.
True, MS does get a bad rap. Is it not possible that they have earned that reputation? And yes, the kernel in Win2000/XP is much more stable than any previous versions, but should I consider stability a justification for "product activation"? We've been through this whole software-DRM thing before back in the 80's and early 90's. It doesn't work, and no matter how stable, secure, and easy-to-use a software product is...I (and everyone I've talked to) doesn't want it if we have to "activate" it.
I disagree. Easy installation, slick gui, easy upgrades (and I'm guessing that you also mean updates), and security are all requirements to gain mindshare, and every distro can improve in each of these areas. But when you elevate the field to a level where Linux is as ubiquitous as Windows when it comes to operating systems, there are niches. Last time I checked, Microsoft offered different products for niche markets: Exchange, IIS, XP Home, XP Pro...etc.).
I think you're right. What remains to be seen is how many holes have already been spotted by the hackers that are working on GNU/Linux.
That's a valid point and I believe that only time will tell what the best philosophy is. Read BugTraq and draw your own conclusions.
--K.
I wouldn't hire him for an authoritarian position, but he's definitely a guy I'd hire to be part of an innovative team. I like free (as in speech
Thanks for the chuckle!
--K.
In order to help the employees of Linux companies, I have composed this list of
The Top Ten Signs That Your Linux Company Will Fail
And the number one reason to bail from a Linux company is:
--K.
While that's probably not entirely false, this is from the main article referenced:
Sounds principled enough to me. I'll leave the conspiracy theory that it's just a public front to the conspiracy theorists.
--K.
Ironically, the parellels that you draw between the IBM and Microsoft anti-trust suits are the same parallels that I've drawn and which fuel my belief that the software landscape could change the same way that the hardware landscape changed back then. Once dominance is removed from one single controlling entity, the ability to innovate can flourish.
I'm taking you out of context here (apologies if I've twisted your intent) but you basically said it yourself:
We're definitely on the same page when it comes to the philosophical matters. The issues of today seem to converge into a 4-dimensional debate where free software and the free exchange of ideas is a Good Thing (tm), Microsoft isn't necessarily "The Great Satan", the entertainment cartels need to re-think their business models, and we should all be wary of government involvement in any of the previous issues until they get a technological clue.
--K.
--K.
I'm sure you have references to back up your claims. (I'll bet I have references that defeat them.)
We could debate the technical implications ad nauseum...(just one example: you assume that a static IP client is still online when I spoof their IP...maybe they run Windows and thus have to reboot periodically or maybe they turn their computer off) but that would not resolve the issue at hand which is, as I understand it: Is it proper and/or necessary to invoke litigation to resolve online social discrepancies?
I say no...let the community ignore the troll and shame on the company that attempts to force the courts to regulate online behavior. If the company is unwilling or unable to control its presence on the Web, they should get the hell outta Dodge until they have the technical ability to venture into this realm.
It's curious to me that you have enough technical knowledge to weigh in on IP-spoofing, yet lack the ability to distinguish online vs. offline sociological issues.
I will leave this debate at this point because it's unlikely that we'll ever agree. I will read your response, but I won't respond. No need to let our debate devolve into a flamefest.
--K.
I'm not saying that this asshole should not be held accountable for his repeat offenses and I'm not contesting the "perfectly legal options" that you support. I'm simply pointing out that laws which apply to brick-and-mortar establishments are questionable when applied to online businesses. How do they know that it was this one person trolling them, and not multiple people spoofing IP addresses and faking posts? How much will it cost this one pest-control company to acquire the data required to prove that it was one individual vs how much it would cost them to employ a full-time moderator?
Again, I'm not arguing that some guy is an asshole pestering (no pun intended) a company. I'm thinking of the bigger picture: If I work for Company A that is in competition with Company B and I know how to spoof IP addresses, it's pretty easy for me to troll Company B's website and constantly change IP addresses. The concept of accountability breaks down. What if I harassed a company using your IP and they decided to sue you?
I'm willing to concede that this guy is a dickhead. But I'm still of the opinion that this company could employ technological (or better yet, simple sociological) countermeasures. We've been dealing with trolls online for over a decade; the best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore it. Why, after all this time, is a company (who voluntarily submitted themselves to this risk by offering a website) trying to silence a troll by litigation?
--K.
You guys have a great debate going, sorry for the interruption. I just wanted to inject one point which might (or might not) be relevant to your debate.
Every so often, I read an editorial or an article about the "dumbing-down of America". These pieces bemoan curriculum changes or testing standards that allow for sub-standard learning environments.
A few examples:
Regarding programming
Regarding entertainment
Regarding academia
I for one think it's high time that we stop dumbing-down people by assuming that all they're capable of using is one or two operating systems and one office suite. The purpose of schools is to educate people so that they can make intelligent choices...not teach them how to use one proprietary operating system or one proprietary office suite.
Stop assuming that people are mindless automatons that don't want a choice and start educating them about the choices they do have and let's see what happens.
--K.
Of course. They already do. The price you pay for an item in a retail store is marked up because of shoplifting. As for vandalism, totally different concept altogether; if I see someone in a ski mask spray-painting the side of my local Wal-Mart...I'm at least going to report it (and most likely I'll go kick the jerkoff's ass). The net invalidates security guards, police, and joe_citizen_informer. Hence the need to budget for technological counter-measures.
What you fail to differentiate is that laws and customs require accountability. In meat-space, it's much easier to assign accountability; that's why the police work. Online, it's much trickier to assign accountability; hence the need for an "online security force" for your company website...moderators and competent sysadmins.
I totally agree. But who would you rather have the power to label you an "a$$hole"? A few people from one website, or the governmental and judicial bodies of a country?
--K.
Indeed! And I'm very glad that you responded.
I hope you didn't intend to include me in that group of narcissists. Idealist maybe, but not narcissist. Far from hating Jobs and Gates, I feel we're indebted to them for how commonplace PCs are today. If not for them, I believe we'd be a decade behind and who knows...we might not even have the Linux that we have today. I tend to avoid people who adopt the "high-priest" attitude towards computing. I'm much more comfortable with someone that's willing to say, "Hmm, ya know I don't really know the answer to that question. Let's see if we can figure it out." vs. the bullshit artist asshole that says, "The answer to your question is over your head and I don't have the time to explain it to you.".
Once again, I think we're at odds only because of the timeframes we're talking about. You're (realistically) discussing the present and forecasting the future based upon the past (which is entirely logical and understandable). I'm thinking about the kind of future we might realize if we can actually change the game.
And again, your arguments are well articulated and well founded on historical facts and I won't dispute them. But paradigms can shift...the game can change. How else would we have arrived at this point where code is intellectual property when, at one time, everyone shared their code with each other?
I admit that I probably went a bit too far when I said that this was all about philosophy...that's simply not a realistic statement in today's environment. Maybe I'm too idealistic or naive...but I'd sure like to see the software industry move in that direction tomorrow.
It's been said that those who ignore history tend to repeat its mistakes, true. However, is it not also possible that we can learn from history in order to avoid those mistakes?
--K.
I keep seeing this analogy to brick-and-mortar businesses, and I still believe that it is fundamentally flawed. If I choose to create a portal on the Web for my business, I should do so knowing full well what it entails (DDoS attacks, hackers, trolls, etc.) and I should budget accordingly. Litigation is a poor mechanism for dealing with online problems today. While it's possible that juries might actually understand the principles behind the laws (Elcomsoft), it seems glaringly obvious that the justices in the highest courts lack the ability to understand the paradigm shift that the Internet is imposing (Eldred).
As so many others here have pointed out.../. is riddled with trolls and I haven't seen a lawsuit yet.
--K.
Wrong answer, Mike. Politics be damned, this is all about philosophy.
This statement from Roberston is very revealing. It says (to me) that beancounters are beginning to invade the GNU/Linux movement. Props to Bruce Perens and HP for refusing to support the philosophy that equates GNU/Linux users to mindless consumers in the name of winning the desktop war.
Am I alone in my belief that the problem is uneducated, uninformed, apathetic computer users?
--K.
I might've missed it, but I didn't notice anyone thanking you for submitting yourself to the scrutiny of the /. community.
I happen to live in your neck of the woods and lunch is on me whenever and wherever you prefer. Just msg me from my profile if you're interested.
That being said, and acknowledging your statement that you're not a TCPA advocate, please forward this statement to your leadership: I did not ask for TCPA. I know that I'm not one of your big customers, but that fact is irrelevant to me. From a purely risk-assessment point-of-view, I'm much more comfortable accepting the possibility of a million crazed virus authors versus the alternative: allowing a conglomeration of companies to control the future of computing innovation. I can fight the authors of computer viruses on the technological common ground that is the PC today. I cannot afford to fight teams of lawyers from large companies tomorrow. Maybe once we get the DMCA (and its worldwide equivalents) repealed, TCPA can be re-addressed. Until then, given today's frenzy of litigation...it's just too risky a prospect for me to consider.
Again, thanks for taking the time to explain your company's involvement with TCPA and for answering our questions. More companies need people like you to address the "masses".
--K.
Thank you for a very enjoyable, insightful reply. And I do agree with you (and nelson below) that today's PC user probably doesn't want much choice. I had an easier time convincing my grandmother (who had never touched a computer for the most part) to try Linux than my own father who probably knows as much or more about UNIX than I do. So I concede the point that Linux distros are analogous to fashion shows...today.
I'm thinking about the future though. We're raising much more technically sophisticated generations these days. My first contact with a computer was an old Corona portable (looking back, that draws a chuckle)...circa 1982. I was 8 years old. Today, my niece is 3 years old and she already has her own computer! It took me years to become technically savvy enough to look for an alternative to Windows...and I'm a geek. I believe that future generations will grow up as geeks whether they're interested in computers or not. I could be wrong, but that's my theory. The only obstacles to that future that I perceive are the battles we're fighting today: DRM, infinite copyright, software patents and obtuse litigation.
Your points are valid and well-made and I do think that we agree on the value of choice. I guess the future will decide whether I'm an idealistic visionary or a blind fool.
--K.
However in this case, PCI-SIG almost did exactly that. They "appreciated" the effort of a single individual for over six years and THEN sent in the lawyers. PCI-SIG didn't sue though...they just basically threatened to.
--K.
Just in case you haven't seen the movie Ocean's Eleven or know what a pinch is by other means: basically, a pinch is an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) emitter. It's an interesting concept but reality has proven the pinch to be rather difficult.
How hard would it be, given today's technology, to create a handheld RFID-pinch? Personally, I'd love to walk into a building and hit a button that fries every RFID within say, 500 meters.
--K.
Two things:
I say distro variation options.
I say refer to that apples and oranges clump you're carrying. And, based on recent articles I've read, I believe that Microsoft is pretty worried about the threat of free and/or open-source software.
Perhaps your belief that there "can be only one" is rooted in the quasi-reality of today. Or maybe you've just watched The Highlander too many times.
I don't know if there will ever be "one distro to rule them all" but I for one certainly hope not. That philosophy (combined with closed-source and utter greed) is what created the monolith of mindshare that is Microsoft today.
Here at
--K.