I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the problem with patents. The USPTO used to issue patents using the criteria that you mention in your post. However, sometime in the 1990s (someone probably knows just when) the USPTO decided that non-tangible things, such as business practices, genetic codes, software algorithms, and such, could be patented.
This is a perversion of the meaning of patents and is rapidly leading to a situation in which innovation will be stifled because of the threat of patent infringement lawsuits. The big problem is that what happens in real life is that the barriers to entry in a given field are raised. Only people or organizations with enough money and legal resources to fend off infringement lawsuits will be able to enter the marketplace. I look for Microsoft to follow in the path blazed by SCO and start to bring patent infringement claims against the F/OSS community. That's the other shoe that's ready to drop and the SCO fracas is providing cover for MS and others to get their claims together and make ready the lawyers. I'm afraid that our wonderful world of software development is about to be nuked by those whose only motive is to block loss of market-share.
Unless they're a whole lot better marksman than they are lawyers we've got nothing to be worried about. With any luck they'll miss us Linux folk entirely and take out Darl.
Unfortunately, they are not strict constructionists when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. If they were they would be seeking ways to ensure the rights granted under the Bill of Rights, as opposed to finding means of circumventing them. The Bush Administration is set on a course to take this country, once the bastion of liberty and rule of law, to a place where only the rule of men exists and you have only the "rights" which those in power grant to you; "rights" which may be terminated whenever it suits the convenience of those in power.
This trend started with the "War on Drugs" when no-knock searches, etc. were made legal. Now we've reached the point at which some official only needs to assert, not prove, that "national security" is involved in order to get a secret search warrant. I wonder if, legally, these are even warrants as the 4th Amendment states that "warrants shall issue only upon probable cause" and must be signed by a judge.
One of the problems here is that the courts in America have traditionally granted the government greater leeway, in terms of civil liberties violations, in times of war than in times of peace. So long as the administration is allowed to continue to say that we are in a "state of war", despite the fact that Congress never declared such to exist, the courts are reluctant to interfere with the prosecution of that war. What's needed is for the public to force the Congress to make an up or down vote on whether or not the so-called "War Against Terrorism" is really a war. I think they'd have a tough time doing that as there is no nation of "Terrorism" against which to make such a declaration.
People need to realize that we've got enough laws on the books to allow for catching and prosecuting any terrorist we catch. What is needed is the will to require that law enforcement do the grunt work needed to catch terrorists. After all, does anyone think that it was legal to plot the 9/11 attacks? The reason the attackers weren't caught has nothing to do with any lack of legal enforcement methods or intelligence gathering mechanisms. It has to do with a lack of will on the part of those in power to make use of the assets they already have to do the job required. There is simply no need for American citizens to be stripped of their liberties in order to fight terrorism.
Certainly, the government needs to make sure that intelligence is better shared between the various agencies empowered to gather, analyse, and disseminate that information. However, that, again, comes back to a matter of will on the part of those in power to make the system work. Government officials need to be made to recognize that their job is to serve the nation, not expand and protect their own private fiefdoms within the Federal and state governments. Civil servants need to be just that, servants not masters.
I agree. The problem is that this situation is only going to get worse as long as the American people are willing to sacrifice freedom for a very dubious safety. The next round of redesigned currency will see RFID chips embedded within the bills. From there it won't be long before RFID readers, combined with video surveillance cameras in "public" places, will be able to tell who is carrying large amounts of money, for varying values of large, and thus "may be a terrorist" as only terrorists have need of large amounts of cash.
I wish that I could be more confident of the safety of our civil liberties here in America, but, given the band of wannabe-Fascists who currently control Washington, D.C., I don't have much hope for a rapid turnaround. Our government is seizing on every means possible to seek knowledge of, and therefore control over, the actions of every individual in this country, citizen or not. The electronic police state is rapidly assuming shape and avoiding it will be far more difficult than avoiding past organizations which couldn't use technology to track people as closely as is fast becoming possible. It's time to vote the scoundrels out before they further damage our country.
I absolutely agree with you. The populace of this country has gotten so that it takes its freedom far too much for granted.
This sort of thing is rapidly getting out of hand. I'm afraid that the situation will only get worse as RFID technology becomes more common. The potential for serious abuses of this technology not only by our government, but by crackers and other criminals is astounding. We are quickly coming to a situation in which our every move will be monitored by someone. This is bad enough when it's commercial concerns, such as auto and insurance companies, doing the tracking, but becomes more worrisome when law enforcement is given access to the data simply because one is a "suspect" for whatever reason. We've already got the FBI reading our email with Carnivore, the NSA monitoring other communications with "Echelon", video cameras are being increasingly used in "public" areas to allow law enforcement to better "protect" us, how long before use of GPS tracking systems is mandated because "terrorists may use autos to carry out their actions?"
At some point, which is approaching more rapidly than most people realize, the American public is going to be confronted with the stark reality that nothing any of us do is private any longer. I've always been a believer in the concept that technology exists to make our lives easier and better. However, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the use of tracking and information gathering technologies will rapidly lead to the downfall of our free society. Those with the power to do so will not refrain from using these techniques to control anyone that they see as a potential threat to their continued hold on power. How long will it be before law enforcement agencies begin preemptive actions against those involved in planning demonstrations such as those that preceded the war with Iraq; all under the guise of "protecting" us from "terrorists who are using these actions as cover for their own activities"?
Yes, and how convenient it is for MS to unilaterally declare that the Media Player is an integral "part of the OS". If MS is allowed to get away with this, as they were with Internet Explorer, then we'll have yet another precedent for allowing MS to call anything that they don't want to face competition to be part of the OS. How long before Word, Excel, etc. are made "part of the OS" thus forcing PC makers to ship them as part of the MS OS that's put on partically every PC made? If something isn't done soon then we'll end up with an OS that includes traditional stand-alone applications because MS wants to muscle out any competition.
Somebody has to take a stand on this and force MS to stop accreting applications, which have traditionally not been part of the OS, into their OSes and then stating that they can't be taken out. I think that most of us know that one of the reasons that MS products have so many security problems is because of the level of integration of those products into the OS. Has no one at MS ever heard of pathological coupling and the many bad side-effects that such coupling has? I think that regulators need to start taking MS security problems into account when making decisions regarding MS's illegal use of its monopoly power in the marketplace to limit competition. If MS is allowed to turn the world's computer infrastructure into an ecological monoculture of MS apps and OSes then we will all be vulnerable every time someone discovers and exploits yet another MS security hole. A world dependent on computer technology cannot afford to allow that scenario to take place. The place to stop it is in the EU as the US DOJ evidently lacks the independence and intestinal fortitude needed to take on the power of MS.
The major problem with an X is that Diebold and other E-voting software providers can't make any money on it. Besides, everybody knows how easy it is to rig an election that relies on old-fashioned technology such as paper and pencil.
I suspect that you're probably correct to a degree. However, I think that MS will probably dump all security problems, whether they're actually part of the Linux OS or not into the hopper and use that as their basis of comparison. For instance, problems with OpenOffice will be counted, but problems with MS Office won't because "MS Office is a separate product, while OO is distributed as part of the Linux system." This approach of counting Linux app problems against Linux, but not counting similar MS app problems against MS has been used before.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over a new MS offensive as the truth of the situation is obvious to anyone who looks at the situation with an unprejudiced eye. Yes, Linux has problems; yes, sometimes it takes a while to get patches out; yes, the Open SOurce process doesn't necessarily have a single point of contact when it comes to fixing a problem. The fact remains that, by any honest count, Linux has fewer problems, the problems get fixed faster, and the lack of a central contact means that a potential fix can come from anywhere. MS FUD notwithstanding I don't recall that Linux servers and workstations had problems with SOBIG, Blaster, etc. Let's approach this issue carefully and not fire until we see the whites of Microsoft's eyes.
I think I'll join you over in the curmudgeon corner. Why our society chooses to "celebrate" the accomplishments of a bunch of immature vandals is beyond me. I think that it's time to start going after the source of the vast majority of the problems that viruses cause: Microsoft. Until that company is held responsible for the problems that its shoddy products give rise to we will not see a decrease in the virus problem. Let's see, Ford can be sued for exploding Pintos, Firestone can be sued for exploding tires: why can't we sue MS for exploding OSes?
I'm sure that SCO's version control system exists on a roll of toilet paper somewhere.
As for them forging CVS or RCS logs I don't think they've demonstrated the technical ability to do that sort of thing. Personally, if I were defense counsel and such logs were introduced I'd demand that the original hard drives be required as evidence and that people expert in computer forensics be allowed access to them just to check for the sort of thing you're talking about. I mean, ya gotta know that McBride doesn't know a thing about say a.history file or file system time stamps, etc.
Actually, if they introduce tainted evidence that would just be a quicker way to end this nonsense. It would also shorten the length of time required before Mr. McBride would be viewing the world from behind bars. Let's hope they're stupid enough to try it.
Actually, it's the company that they keep. A lot of folks think that SCO is just acting as a stalking horse for Microsoft in this fight against the GPL. That being so I wouldn't expect that SCO would know where any of its Unix code came from. After all, when MS released a version of Internet Exploiter for Unix some years back their web-site declared "Microsoft makes the Internet available to Unix users!" What we have here is a case of two companies neither of which knows a thing about history. I expect to see claims that SCO invented the "bit" any day now.
I've got to agree with you. The whole idea of Whois is to let others know whom to contact in case of issues dealing with a specific domain or subnet. The problem is that, at least when I registered my, now dead, domain a few years ago there was noting on the form that said any of the information would be public.
I would think that such a notice would be a good start on increasing Joe Domain's awareness of the info that will be available after registering a domain. For those worried about privacy issues it is OK to use a P.O. Box as an address. As far as a contact phone number get a cheap cell-phone and a prepaid phone card (the domain registrars could even offer it as an ioncentive to sign up with them). Put the phone number on the regaistration and don't give it to anyone else. AFAIK, the domain registrars don't check the validity of the phone numbers, etc., so you could probably even fake that if you wanted.
Since the idea behind Whois is to make sure that someone responsible for a given domain can be contacted if need be I'd suggest that the registrars begin validating the phone numbers. That task could be automated and if no response is gotten after some arbitrary number of attempts the domain is not registered. This wouldn't keep someone from answering the validation call and then changing phone number, but it would be a start toward getting better data into the system.
The reason this whole can of worms has been opened is because we're dealing with politicians here. I'm afraid that examining their heads wouldn't do any good. Seriously though, I think that if those that make the rules were educated on this issue they would recognize the need for the system. On the other hand, perhaps I'm crediting them with too much intelligence and common sense.
You folks are missing the point. Anyone who hires a former SCO employee to write code is walking into a legal minefield. Hiring any SCO coder would leave the hiring company open to another SCO suit in which SCO would claim that the hiring company "stole" IP material. SCO would maintain that the coder was privy to SCO code, trade secrets, etc. IANAL, but I seem to recall a court case some years ago dealing with just this issue and the hiring company was found guilty of stealing IP.
The problem is that PHBs will not be thinking like this when making purchasing decisions. So, a lot of businesses won't find out right away just how locked-in they're going to be. MS is counting on that. Once a business gets used to using DRM to protect documents and it becomes a "must have" as decreed by the Chief PHB there won't be any easy, or cheap, path back to freedom. MS is banking on the fact that it will be easier for businesses to pay inflated license fees than to switch to a competing product.
Sure, there'll be some wailing and gnashing of teeth, but small businesses will be pushed down the road to perdition, also. No small firm that does business with a GM or Ford that uses MS Office and insists on the use of DRM to protect inter-business communications will be in a position to say no. Again, the small business will find it easier and cheaper, in the short run, which is all American business worries about these days, to knuckle under and "upgrade" to MS Office 2003. I'm not as sanguine as you that people and businesses will see the threat that this technology poses to their futures.
I think the only way to stop this particular bad dream from happening is to stop it before it starts. Make sure the your boss understands the threat posed by MS DRM technology. Write memos to anyone who'll listen to you about what the future holds for any business that swallows this particular poison pill. Put your arguments in dollars and cents as best you are able. Talk to your employer's legal people and make sure that thay understand what is entailed if the business follows MS's dictates. It's a lot easier to stop this sort of thing before it starts than to try to make it go away once it gains a foothold.
There is a difference between being disappointed by the quality of a product and being deprived of any right to do anything about it. For instance, you can complain to McDonalds about the quality of the sandwich you just bought and they will make an attempt to rectify the situation and satisfy their customer. The same thing is true of virtually any consumer product; the purchaser has some means of recourse in the event he is not satisfied with the quality or performance of the product in question.
The software industry has managed to make the legal fiction that they are providing a "service" ionstead of a "good" a reality. This is what needs to be changed in order for the consumer to be able to have any opportunity to seek damages, etc. via the legal system. Something like the "Bill of Rights" proposed by Professor Kaner is badly needed to redress the balance of the legal system so that consumers of software products have the same protections given to consumers of any other products regarding warranties, fitness for use, etc.
This quote, in response to a question about the public's perception of MS products security tells me that Gates is living on a different planet from the one I inhabit.
"A. Microsoft's reputation for doing great software research is very strong, and people are looking to us now and saying, "no other software company has solved this; you, Microsoft, need to solve it." We're rising to that challenge. The expectation they have of us is very high."
I know very few people, especially those who are forced to use MS products on a daily basis, who have high expectations for that software; unless waiting for the daily crash or other fsck-up can be called an expectation.
You are absolutely correct and it's a shame that more people don't realize it. Our society is rapidly trading away freedom for "security" and we will soon find that we have neither. I would much rather take the risk of dying in a random act of terrorism than I lose my freedoms as reserved in the Bill of Rights. Turning America into a police state, which systems such as the one under consideration bring closer to reality, will not make people safer in the long term. Yes, they may not have terrorist problems, but they will have unwarranted search and siezure, no-knock raids in the middle of the night, be liable to be held without charge for an arbitrary period of time, etc. Oh wait, since John Ashcroft got his PATRIOT ACT we have those things. I'm moving to Australia.
What I'm concerned about is that the trial was stopped simply because of the fact that the system didn't work. No one seems to give a hoot about the potential constitutional issues raised by constant surveillance of the entire populace on the chance that one will turn up a criminal among them. Have the American people become so concerned about so-called safety and security that they are willing to allow the government to trample the Bill of Rights underfoot?
When did it become acceptable for people in a public place to be treated as potential criminals simply because they are in a public space? What ever happened to the concept of not allowing unwarranted search? Oh, things have changed after 9/11 and now we must accept these intrusions into our lives in order to provide the safety society wants. How long will it be before the government decides that it needs to quarter troops in private dwellings in order to assure domestic tranquility?
Forget about the technology involved. We're dealing with issues that define what America stands for as a country. The Bill of Rights is not something tacked onto the Constitution so that it can be ignored when the government finds it convenient to do so. I am not willing to accept the argument that because this system didn't work we don't need to worry about the legal issues. You can bet that the government and the surveillance system vendors are even now busy at the drawing boards working to develop an improved version of this system that will function as desired.
It's time that the people of America wake up and realize that the foundations of our form of government are under attack by forces that would have us believe they are trying to "save" the country. The Bush administration, John Ashcroft in particular, is a far greater threat to this country than any number of terrorists armed with WMD. It's time to start telling our legislators that we will not put up with further infringements on our civil liberties simply because John Ashcroft wants to know what I had for breakfast this morning. If we don't stop the erosion soon historians will write of our liberties "Died of fear."
I really don't think that SCO's ownership of copyrights will have much of an effect on Linux. Once we know what, if any, sections of code are in violation of SCO copyrights then we re-write the code to eliminate the infringement. This will have the added benefit of putting SCO in a position in which they will not benefit from their actions. Don't let SCO's bluster scare anyone into making any premature moves with regard whether or not to use Linux, keep using it, etc. With the speed the Open Source/Free SOftware community can react I would expect any needed code changes to happen quickly.
Who said anything about positively identifying individuals? Remember, we're ultimately talking about John Ashcroft and the Department of Injustice here, as they would be the ones prosecuting any criminal charges. Given the way that the government treats anyone suspected of terrorism I don't wonder that they're using an identification method that casts as wide a net as possible. I think Ashcroft's motto is "Throw 'em all in a cell. We might sort them out later."
You have concisely expressed a very good argument against allowing DRM to get a foothold within society. However, along with limiting access to history I think that the real threat of DRM is much closer that that. If schemes like MS's Palladium are adopted then we will have placed control of information firmly in the hands of governments and coroporations.
DRM could easily be used by governments to limit the ability of their citizens to access information or political content that the government deems objectionable. Corporations will be able to tightly control who has access to sensitive information. If DRM had been available 30 - 40 years ago I doubt very much that there would be information regarding the dangers of smoking, as one example, freely available on the internet.
DRM could easily be used to control what people can see, listen to, or read. It's not a long step to the world of 1984 once DRM is in place on a large scale. People can't protest what they don't know about and DRM could be used to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for citizens to find out about what their government or their crporate neighbors are doing. Would residents of the Love Canal area know about the chemical hazards that Hooker Chemical left if Hooker had been able to make sure that no one had access to the records? How about the Iran-Contra imbroglio? Would anyone have found out about what Admiral Poindexter and Col. North were doing if they could have electronically padlocked or shredded all of the evidence? The real danger of DRM lies in the ability of people and organizations to precisely control how, when, and where digital content may be used.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the problem with patents. The USPTO used to issue patents using the criteria that you mention in your post. However, sometime in the 1990s (someone probably knows just when) the USPTO decided that non-tangible things, such as business practices, genetic codes, software algorithms, and such, could be patented.
This is a perversion of the meaning of patents and is rapidly leading to a situation in which innovation will be stifled because of the threat of patent infringement lawsuits. The big problem is that what happens in real life is that the barriers to entry in a given field are raised. Only people or organizations with enough money and legal resources to fend off infringement lawsuits will be able to enter the marketplace. I look for Microsoft to follow in the path blazed by SCO and start to bring patent infringement claims against the F/OSS community. That's the other shoe that's ready to drop and the SCO fracas is providing cover for MS and others to get their claims together and make ready the lawyers. I'm afraid that our wonderful world of software development is about to be nuked by those whose only motive is to block loss of market-share.
just my $.02,
Ron
Yeah, and having a bummer of a trip, too. I gotta get a new acid dealer.
Ron
Unless they're a whole lot better marksman than they are lawyers we've got nothing to be worried about. With any luck they'll miss us Linux folk entirely and take out Darl.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Unfortunately, they are not strict constructionists when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. If they were they would be seeking ways to ensure the rights granted under the Bill of Rights, as opposed to finding means of circumventing them. The Bush Administration is set on a course to take this country, once the bastion of liberty and rule of law, to a place where only the rule of men exists and you have only the "rights" which those in power grant to you; "rights" which may be terminated whenever it suits the convenience of those in power.
This trend started with the "War on Drugs" when no-knock searches, etc. were made legal. Now we've reached the point at which some official only needs to assert, not prove, that "national security" is involved in order to get a secret search warrant. I wonder if, legally, these are even warrants as the 4th Amendment states that "warrants shall issue only upon probable cause" and must be signed by a judge.
One of the problems here is that the courts in America have traditionally granted the government greater leeway, in terms of civil liberties violations, in times of war than in times of peace. So long as the administration is allowed to continue to say that we are in a "state of war", despite the fact that Congress never declared such to exist, the courts are reluctant to interfere with the prosecution of that war. What's needed is for the public to force the Congress to make an up or down vote on whether or not the so-called "War Against Terrorism" is really a war. I think they'd have a tough time doing that as there is no nation of "Terrorism" against which to make such a declaration.
People need to realize that we've got enough laws on the books to allow for catching and prosecuting any terrorist we catch. What is needed is the will to require that law enforcement do the grunt work needed to catch terrorists. After all, does anyone think that it was legal to plot the 9/11 attacks? The reason the attackers weren't caught has nothing to do with any lack of legal enforcement methods or intelligence gathering mechanisms. It has to do with a lack of will on the part of those in power to make use of the assets they already have to do the job required. There is simply no need for American citizens to be stripped of their liberties in order to fight terrorism.
Certainly, the government needs to make sure that intelligence is better shared between the various agencies empowered to gather, analyse, and disseminate that information. However, that, again, comes back to a matter of will on the part of those in power to make the system work. Government officials need to be made to recognize that their job is to serve the nation, not expand and protect their own private fiefdoms within the Federal and state governments. Civil servants need to be just that, servants not masters.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I agree. The problem is that this situation is only going to get worse as long as the American people are willing to sacrifice freedom for a very dubious safety. The next round of redesigned currency will see RFID chips embedded within the bills. From there it won't be long before RFID readers, combined with video surveillance cameras in "public" places, will be able to tell who is carrying large amounts of money, for varying values of large, and thus "may be a terrorist" as only terrorists have need of large amounts of cash.
I wish that I could be more confident of the safety of our civil liberties here in America, but, given the band of wannabe-Fascists who currently control Washington, D.C., I don't have much hope for a rapid turnaround. Our government is seizing on every means possible to seek knowledge of, and therefore control over, the actions of every individual in this country, citizen or not. The electronic police state is rapidly assuming shape and avoiding it will be far more difficult than avoiding past organizations which couldn't use technology to track people as closely as is fast becoming possible. It's time to vote the scoundrels out before they further damage our country.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I absolutely agree with you. The populace of this country has gotten so that it takes its freedom far too much for granted.
This sort of thing is rapidly getting out of hand. I'm afraid that the situation will only get worse as RFID technology becomes more common. The potential for serious abuses of this technology not only by our government, but by crackers and other criminals is astounding. We are quickly coming to a situation in which our every move will be monitored by someone. This is bad enough when it's commercial concerns, such as auto and insurance companies, doing the tracking, but becomes more worrisome when law enforcement is given access to the data simply because one is a "suspect" for whatever reason. We've already got the FBI reading our email with Carnivore, the NSA monitoring other communications with "Echelon", video cameras are being increasingly used in "public" areas to allow law enforcement to better "protect" us, how long before use of GPS tracking systems is mandated because "terrorists may use autos to carry out their actions?"
At some point, which is approaching more rapidly than most people realize, the American public is going to be confronted with the stark reality that nothing any of us do is private any longer. I've always been a believer in the concept that technology exists to make our lives easier and better. However, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the use of tracking and information gathering technologies will rapidly lead to the downfall of our free society. Those with the power to do so will not refrain from using these techniques to control anyone that they see as a potential threat to their continued hold on power. How long will it be before law enforcement agencies begin preemptive actions against those involved in planning demonstrations such as those that preceded the war with Iraq; all under the guise of "protecting" us from "terrorists who are using these actions as cover for their own activities"?
Just my $.02,
Ron
Yes, and how convenient it is for MS to unilaterally declare that the Media Player is an integral "part of the OS". If MS is allowed to get away with this, as they were with Internet Explorer, then we'll have yet another precedent for allowing MS to call anything that they don't want to face competition to be part of the OS. How long before Word, Excel, etc. are made "part of the OS" thus forcing PC makers to ship them as part of the MS OS that's put on partically every PC made? If something isn't done soon then we'll end up with an OS that includes traditional stand-alone applications because MS wants to muscle out any competition.
Somebody has to take a stand on this and force MS to stop accreting applications, which have traditionally not been part of the OS, into their OSes and then stating that they can't be taken out. I think that most of us know that one of the reasons that MS products have so many security problems is because of the level of integration of those products into the OS. Has no one at MS ever heard of pathological coupling and the many bad side-effects that such coupling has? I think that regulators need to start taking MS security problems into account when making decisions regarding MS's illegal use of its monopoly power in the marketplace to limit competition. If MS is allowed to turn the world's computer infrastructure into an ecological monoculture of MS apps and OSes then we will all be vulnerable every time someone discovers and exploits yet another MS security hole. A world dependent on computer technology cannot afford to allow that scenario to take place. The place to stop it is in the EU as the US DOJ evidently lacks the independence and intestinal fortitude needed to take on the power of MS.
Just my $.02,
Ron
The major problem with an X is that Diebold and other E-voting software providers can't make any money on it. Besides, everybody knows how easy it is to rig an election that relies on old-fashioned technology such as paper and pencil.
Ducking for cover,
Ron
I suspect that you're probably correct to a degree. However, I think that MS will probably dump all security problems, whether they're actually part of the Linux OS or not into the hopper and use that as their basis of comparison. For instance, problems with OpenOffice will be counted, but problems with MS Office won't because "MS Office is a separate product, while OO is distributed as part of the Linux system." This approach of counting Linux app problems against Linux, but not counting similar MS app problems against MS has been used before.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over a new MS offensive as the truth of the situation is obvious to anyone who looks at the situation with an unprejudiced eye. Yes, Linux has problems; yes, sometimes it takes a while to get patches out; yes, the Open SOurce process doesn't necessarily have a single point of contact when it comes to fixing a problem. The fact remains that, by any honest count, Linux has fewer problems, the problems get fixed faster, and the lack of a central contact means that a potential fix can come from anywhere. MS FUD notwithstanding I don't recall that Linux servers and workstations had problems with SOBIG, Blaster, etc. Let's approach this issue carefully and not fire until we see the whites of Microsoft's eyes.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I think I'll join you over in the curmudgeon corner. Why our society chooses to "celebrate" the accomplishments of a bunch of immature vandals is beyond me. I think that it's time to start going after the source of the vast majority of the problems that viruses cause: Microsoft. Until that company is held responsible for the problems that its shoddy products give rise to we will not see a decrease in the virus problem. Let's see, Ford can be sued for exploding Pintos, Firestone can be sued for exploding tires: why can't we sue MS for exploding OSes?
Just my $.02,
Ron
I'm sure that SCO's version control system exists on a roll of toilet paper somewhere.
.history file or file system time stamps, etc.
As for them forging CVS or RCS logs I don't think they've demonstrated the technical ability to do that sort of thing. Personally, if I were defense counsel and such logs were introduced I'd demand that the original hard drives be required as evidence and that people expert in computer forensics be allowed access to them just to check for the sort of thing you're talking about. I mean, ya gotta know that McBride doesn't know a thing about say a
Actually, if they introduce tainted evidence that would just be a quicker way to end this nonsense. It would also shorten the length of time required before Mr. McBride would be viewing the world from behind bars. Let's hope they're stupid enough to try it.
Just my $.02,
Ron
It wouldn't hit anyuthing of importance.
Ron
Actually, it's the company that they keep. A lot of folks think that SCO is just acting as a stalking horse for Microsoft in this fight against the GPL. That being so I wouldn't expect that SCO would know where any of its Unix code came from. After all, when MS released a version of Internet Exploiter for Unix some years back their web-site declared "Microsoft makes the Internet available to Unix users!" What we have here is a case of two companies neither of which knows a thing about history. I expect to see claims that SCO invented the "bit" any day now.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I've got to agree with you. The whole idea of Whois is to let others know whom to contact in case of issues dealing with a specific domain or subnet. The problem is that, at least when I registered my, now dead, domain a few years ago there was noting on the form that said any of the information would be public.
I would think that such a notice would be a good start on increasing Joe Domain's awareness of the info that will be available after registering a domain. For those worried about privacy issues it is OK to use a P.O. Box as an address. As far as a contact phone number get a cheap cell-phone and a prepaid phone card (the domain registrars could even offer it as an ioncentive to sign up with them). Put the phone number on the regaistration and don't give it to anyone else. AFAIK, the domain registrars don't check the validity of the phone numbers, etc., so you could probably even fake that if you wanted.
Since the idea behind Whois is to make sure that someone responsible for a given domain can be contacted if need be I'd suggest that the registrars begin validating the phone numbers. That task could be automated and if no response is gotten after some arbitrary number of attempts the domain is not registered. This wouldn't keep someone from answering the validation call and then changing phone number, but it would be a start toward getting better data into the system.
The reason this whole can of worms has been opened is because we're dealing with politicians here. I'm afraid that examining their heads wouldn't do any good. Seriously though, I think that if those that make the rules were educated on this issue they would recognize the need for the system. On the other hand, perhaps I'm crediting them with too much intelligence and common sense.
Just my $.02,
Ron
You folks are missing the point. Anyone who hires a former SCO employee to write code is walking into a legal minefield. Hiring any SCO coder would leave the hiring company open to another SCO suit in which SCO would claim that the hiring company "stole" IP material. SCO would maintain that the coder was privy to SCO code, trade secrets, etc. IANAL, but I seem to recall a court case some years ago dealing with just this issue and the hiring company was found guilty of stealing IP.
Just my $.02,
Ron
The problem is that PHBs will not be thinking like this when making purchasing decisions. So, a lot of businesses won't find out right away just how locked-in they're going to be. MS is counting on that. Once a business gets used to using DRM to protect documents and it becomes a "must have" as decreed by the Chief PHB there won't be any easy, or cheap, path back to freedom. MS is banking on the fact that it will be easier for businesses to pay inflated license fees than to switch to a competing product.
Sure, there'll be some wailing and gnashing of teeth, but small businesses will be pushed down the road to perdition, also. No small firm that does business with a GM or Ford that uses MS Office and insists on the use of DRM to protect inter-business communications will be in a position to say no. Again, the small business will find it easier and cheaper, in the short run, which is all American business worries about these days, to knuckle under and "upgrade" to MS Office 2003. I'm not as sanguine as you that people and businesses will see the threat that this technology poses to their futures.
I think the only way to stop this particular bad dream from happening is to stop it before it starts. Make sure the your boss understands the threat posed by MS DRM technology. Write memos to anyone who'll listen to you about what the future holds for any business that swallows this particular poison pill. Put your arguments in dollars and cents as best you are able. Talk to your employer's legal people and make sure that thay understand what is entailed if the business follows MS's dictates. It's a lot easier to stop this sort of thing before it starts than to try to make it go away once it gains a foothold.
Just my $.02,
Ron
There is a difference between being disappointed by the quality of a product and being deprived of any right to do anything about it. For instance, you can complain to McDonalds about the quality of the sandwich you just bought and they will make an attempt to rectify the situation and satisfy their customer. The same thing is true of virtually any consumer product; the purchaser has some means of recourse in the event he is not satisfied with the quality or performance of the product in question.
The software industry has managed to make the legal fiction that they are providing a "service" ionstead of a "good" a reality. This is what needs to be changed in order for the consumer to be able to have any opportunity to seek damages, etc. via the legal system. Something like the "Bill of Rights" proposed by Professor Kaner is badly needed to redress the balance of the legal system so that consumers of software products have the same protections given to consumers of any other products regarding warranties, fitness for use, etc.
Just my $.02,
Ron
This quote, in response to a question about the public's perception of MS products security tells me that Gates is living on a different planet from the one I inhabit.
"A. Microsoft's reputation for doing great software research is very strong, and people are looking to us now and saying, "no other software company has solved this; you, Microsoft, need to solve it." We're rising to that challenge. The expectation they have of us is very high."
I know very few people, especially those who are forced to use MS products on a daily basis, who have high expectations for that software; unless waiting for the daily crash or other fsck-up can be called an expectation.
Just my $.02,
Ron
His failure to remember that basic fact of geography is simply evidence that Scotland does have a substance dependence problem.
Just my $.02,
Ron
You are absolutely correct and it's a shame that more people don't realize it. Our society is rapidly trading away freedom for "security" and we will soon find that we have neither. I would much rather take the risk of dying in a random act of terrorism than I lose my freedoms as reserved in the Bill of Rights. Turning America into a police state, which systems such as the one under consideration bring closer to reality, will not make people safer in the long term. Yes, they may not have terrorist problems, but they will have unwarranted search and siezure, no-knock raids in the middle of the night, be liable to be held without charge for an arbitrary period of time, etc. Oh wait, since John Ashcroft got his PATRIOT ACT we have those things. I'm moving to Australia.
Just my $.02,
Ron
What I'm concerned about is that the trial was stopped simply because of the fact that the system didn't work. No one seems to give a hoot about the potential constitutional issues raised by constant surveillance of the entire populace on the chance that one will turn up a criminal among them. Have the American people become so concerned about so-called safety and security that they are willing to allow the government to trample the Bill of Rights underfoot?
When did it become acceptable for people in a public place to be treated as potential criminals simply because they are in a public space? What ever happened to the concept of not allowing unwarranted search? Oh, things have changed after 9/11 and now we must accept these intrusions into our lives in order to provide the safety society wants. How long will it be before the government decides that it needs to quarter troops in private dwellings in order to assure domestic tranquility?
Forget about the technology involved. We're dealing with issues that define what America stands for as a country. The Bill of Rights is not something tacked onto the Constitution so that it can be ignored when the government finds it convenient to do so. I am not willing to accept the argument that because this system didn't work we don't need to worry about the legal issues. You can bet that the government and the surveillance system vendors are even now busy at the drawing boards working to develop an improved version of this system that will function as desired.
It's time that the people of America wake up and realize that the foundations of our form of government are under attack by forces that would have us believe they are trying to "save" the country. The Bush administration, John Ashcroft in particular, is a far greater threat to this country than any number of terrorists armed with WMD. It's time to start telling our legislators that we will not put up with further infringements on our civil liberties simply because John Ashcroft wants to know what I had for breakfast this morning. If we don't stop the erosion soon historians will write of our liberties "Died of fear."
Just my $.02,
Ron
"Forget Moose...get SCO!"
I really don't think that SCO's ownership of copyrights will have much of an effect on Linux. Once we know what, if any, sections of code are in violation of SCO copyrights then we re-write the code to eliminate the infringement. This will have the added benefit of putting SCO in a position in which they will not benefit from their actions. Don't let SCO's bluster scare anyone into making any premature moves with regard whether or not to use Linux, keep using it, etc. With the speed the Open Source/Free SOftware community can react I would expect any needed code changes to happen quickly.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Who said anything about positively identifying individuals? Remember, we're ultimately talking about John Ashcroft and the Department of Injustice here, as they would be the ones prosecuting any criminal charges. Given the way that the government treats anyone suspected of terrorism I don't wonder that they're using an identification method that casts as wide a net as possible. I think Ashcroft's motto is "Throw 'em all in a cell. We might sort them out later."
Just my $.02,
Ron
You have concisely expressed a very good argument against allowing DRM to get a foothold within society. However, along with limiting access to history I think that the real threat of DRM is much closer that that. If schemes like MS's Palladium are adopted then we will have placed control of information firmly in the hands of governments and coroporations.
DRM could easily be used by governments to limit the ability of their citizens to access information or political content that the government deems objectionable. Corporations will be able to tightly control who has access to sensitive information. If DRM had been available 30 - 40 years ago I doubt very much that there would be information regarding the dangers of smoking, as one example, freely available on the internet.
DRM could easily be used to control what people can see, listen to, or read. It's not a long step to the world of 1984 once DRM is in place on a large scale. People can't protest what they don't know about and DRM could be used to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for citizens to find out about what their government or their crporate neighbors are doing. Would residents of the Love Canal area know about the chemical hazards that Hooker Chemical left if Hooker had been able to make sure that no one had access to the records? How about the Iran-Contra imbroglio? Would anyone have found out about what Admiral Poindexter and Col. North were doing if they could have electronically padlocked or shredded all of the evidence? The real danger of DRM lies in the ability of people and organizations to precisely control how, when, and where digital content may be used.
Stop DRM before it has a chance to get started.
Just my $.02,
Ron