I don't think that is the real problem, though. So Microsoft is charging a pittance for their software? Linux is free. The issue is one of control. Prior to the DoJ trial, Microsoft had a fair degree of control over many software and hardware vendors. If Microsoft didn't like you, you were in bad shape; they'd charge more for their products, which you needed to have. They can't get away with that any more by a long shot -- now Compaq can put whatever they want on their desktops. And hardware vendors can package some machines with Windows and some with Linux without fear of retaliation and without having to pay for MSWin licenses for the Linux boxes.
If Microsoft wants to keep charging less and less for its stuff, let it. Because I think it's a pretty sure thing that the Linux community can do a better job producing software that costs little or nothing than any corporate entity ever could.
To look at it another way, there are basically two monopoly-related dangers:
(1) Microsoft will charge little or nothing for software until everyone else is dead and then return to overcharging for it. (2) Microsoft, being a monopoly, will throw its weight around by threatening to stop providing what only it can or by charging more for it.
The first, I believe, is impossible with Linux and the *BSDs around, since the developers of these _never_ intend to make any money (directly) off of them. Netscape is different -- they did intend to make money but couldn't with MSIE being given away for free.
The second is no longer feasible since anyone Microsoft threatens will just blow the whistle on them.
I agree completely. At this point, it no longer matters who wins in this trial, as Microsoft has been declawed. If they try to do monopolistic things, they'll land right back in court and get drummed about the ears. If they don't, the will continue to lose market share.
Personally, I don't think much will happen with the trial itself -- it's all a little bit too ambiguous. But when it's done, while Microsoft will still have most (if not all) of its power, it will be afraid to use it.
When I placed my order two days ago, I dude asked for my email address, and I replied that I preferred not to give one. He didn't seem to mind but said that we'd need to use a different SKU and it would take a little more time. I offered to make up a bogus email address. He cheerfully agreed (what does he care, eh?). Well, it took us four tries before we hit one that nobody had used before.
Re:Open Source and resurrection in Cryptonomicon
on
Review:Cryptonomicon
·
· Score: 1
To respond to both points....
Good cryptography (for the masses) can only exist in an open source model. As Germany and Japan learned in WWII, if you rely on the secrecy of your algorithm to protect your cryptosystem, it is eventually doomed because some day someone WILL get their hands on it. Only through a system of open source-esque peer review can an algorithm be subjected to the stress it takes to "proove" it sound.
There is, of course, a way around this, but it involves having insanely good cryptologers in house (NSA, CIA) to do review one another. But we don't want to work there. . . .
To the Enoch Root question:
SPOILER
Immediately after the bit where his death certificate is signed, Bobby Shaftoe sees Rudy and another shadowy figure fleeing the scene. Note, as well, how quick they were to hustle through the declaration of death. Root must have wanted to vanish, and pretending to be dead is a pretty effective way to do that. Sorry, I'd toss out a page number, but I'm at work.
I don't know if he made it to any of the other sites, but when Stephenson did a signing last month in Minneapolis (the one at Barnes & Noble, not the one at Uncle Hugo's), Bruch Schneier was there as well. He didn't end up getting to do much during the presentation (he said he was mainly there to answer any highly technical questions), but I got to chat with him a bit afterwards and he was pretty cool. He was signing his appendix to Cryptonomicon if people wanted; he also indulged my nerdy request to sign my notebook, as there was much more important stuff in there (namely the blowfish algorithm in BestCrypt, the finest completely transparent, container-based encryption (for Windoze, sorry) I've been able to find.) I was wondering if Schneier made it to any of the other signings or if those of us in the Twin Cities were just lucky since this was his home turf.
point of a holocaust prevention manual/data haven
on
Review:Cryptonomicon
·
· Score: 2
The point of storing the information on the data haven was that it was the only way to make sure that it would be accessable to people. If they put it on a server that was any less essential, oppressive governments would simply cut off access to the offending server. If, however, a major data haven and the cornerstone of the world's financial system happened to have that information freely available off of it, there would be little that anyone could do to prevent the information from being available without shooting themselves in the foot in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
Not wearable.
Rack mounted.
I don't think that is the real problem, though. So Microsoft is charging a pittance for their software? Linux is free. The issue is one of control. Prior to the DoJ trial, Microsoft had a fair degree of control over many software and hardware vendors. If Microsoft didn't like you, you were in bad shape; they'd charge more for their products, which you needed to have. They can't get away with that any more by a long shot -- now Compaq can put whatever they want on their desktops. And hardware vendors can package some machines with Windows and some with Linux without fear of retaliation and without having to pay for MSWin licenses for the Linux boxes.
If Microsoft wants to keep charging less and less for its stuff, let it. Because I think it's a pretty sure thing that the Linux community can do a better job producing software that costs little or nothing than any corporate entity ever could.
To look at it another way, there are basically two monopoly-related dangers:
(1) Microsoft will charge little or nothing for software until everyone else is dead and then return to overcharging for it.
(2) Microsoft, being a monopoly, will throw its weight around by threatening to stop providing what only it can or by charging more for it.
The first, I believe, is impossible with Linux and the *BSDs around, since the developers of these _never_ intend to make any money (directly) off of them. Netscape is different -- they did intend to make money but couldn't with MSIE being given away for free.
The second is no longer feasible since anyone Microsoft threatens will just blow the whistle on them.
Personally, I don't think much will happen with the trial itself -- it's all a little bit too ambiguous. But when it's done, while Microsoft will still have most (if not all) of its power, it will be afraid to use it.
We live in interesting times....
When I placed my order two days ago, I dude asked for my email address, and I replied that I preferred not to give one. He didn't seem to mind but said that we'd need to use a different SKU and it would take a little more time. I offered to make up a bogus email address. He cheerfully agreed (what does he care, eh?). Well, it took us four tries before we hit one that nobody had used before.
Good cryptography (for the masses) can only exist in an open source model. As Germany and Japan learned in WWII, if you rely on the secrecy of your algorithm to protect your cryptosystem, it is eventually doomed because some day someone WILL get their hands on it. Only through a system of open source-esque peer review can an algorithm be subjected to the stress it takes to "proove" it sound.
There is, of course, a way around this, but it involves having insanely good cryptologers in house (NSA, CIA) to do review one another. But we don't want to work there. . . .
To the Enoch Root question:
SPOILER
Immediately after the bit where his death certificate is signed, Bobby Shaftoe sees Rudy and another shadowy figure fleeing the scene. Note, as well, how quick they were to hustle through the declaration of death. Root must have wanted to vanish, and pretending to be dead is a pretty effective way to do that. Sorry, I'd toss out a page number, but I'm at work.
I don't know if he made it to any of the other sites, but when Stephenson did a signing last month in Minneapolis (the one at Barnes & Noble, not the one at Uncle Hugo's), Bruch Schneier was there as well. He didn't end up getting to do much during the presentation (he said he was mainly there to answer any highly technical questions), but I got to chat with him a bit afterwards and he was pretty cool. He was signing his appendix to Cryptonomicon if people wanted; he also indulged my nerdy request to sign my notebook, as there was much more important stuff in there (namely the blowfish algorithm in BestCrypt, the finest completely transparent, container-based encryption (for Windoze, sorry) I've been able to find.) I was wondering if Schneier made it to any of the other signings or if those of us in the Twin Cities were just lucky since this was his home turf.
The point of storing the information on the data haven was that it was the only way to make sure that it would be accessable to people. If they put it on a server that was any less essential, oppressive governments would simply cut off access to the offending server. If, however, a major data haven and the cornerstone of the world's financial system happened to have that information freely available off of it, there would be little that anyone could do to prevent the information from being available without shooting themselves in the foot in the process.
I haven't read it in quite a while, but that has a Canticle for Leibowitz sort of feel to it.