DRM is all about producer control using private keys that you, the user, has no access to. Contrast this to Cryptography where strong cryptography can be used to ensure your privacy and that you are in control.
Great statement!
But once again we seem to have too many people in this discussion simply turning it into a "Windows vs Linux" argument again. SO let me interject with a few additional points:
1) Microsoft treats "Open Source" as two very dirty words. However, as a Windows user, you have access to almost as much Open Source software as do Linux & BSD users - if you don't believe me, have a trawl around Sourceforge and look for yourselves.
2) As a Windows user, you do not have anywhere near the control over your operating system that a Linux user does. But that's absolutely fine, some people like ease of installation and use, others like optimisation and control, I'm not going to debate the differences here.
However, up until recently, as a Windows user, you enjoyed a relative free reign over your data and/or documents - e.g. you can copy documents between machines and OSes, burn MP3s from CD onto endless numbers of devices, etc.
Unfortunately, with DRM, that will all change. It won't affect Linux users (unless the take up of DRM'ed data formats is huge and starts restricting what types of data Linux can read and write) but it will mean that as a Windows user, you will lose control of your data because Microsoft see a huge amount of possible revenue by enforcing DRM licenses. To you, this will mean that you might not be able to transport your documents and data across devices or machines.
3) Your data is your responsibility, not Microsoft's. Therefore, if someone hacks your PC and gets hold of your data then, sure, Microsoft have a responsibility to fix the vulnerability that allowed intruder access but the data is your responsibility to protect.
As Homology said above, you can protect that data using open encryption methods with keys you control thus meaning that you maintain your ultimate control over your data.
4) Microsoft have virtually admitted that their OSes and applications are now so complex that they are impossible to fix completely. However, they have a need to show their user base that they are serious about security and it will be far less expensive for them to use hardware-based DRM to control applications and OSes, rather than put the man-power in to fix software bugs. Plus, as an added bonus, they get the ability to control your data and charge you money for the right to access it.
Please remember that Microsoft are a business like any other business and will implement anything that swells their profits as long as it doesn't affect the user base too much. While Windows Media Player may seem like an attractive piece of free software to use (and I'm not going to debate here what the "best" media player might or might not be), the ultimate reason for WMP is to make an attempt at getting DRM "in through the back door" and see what the response of the user base is.
I also agree with the judge's decision - or at least, don't consider his decision as being particularly important.
Michael Robertson seems to have set his first priority as gaining as much publicity from annoying Microsoft as much as possible rather than actually focusing his efforts on producing a better usable Linux distro for the masses.
I've not seen Lindows since about version 1 but I felt at the time that Mandrake was the best "easy-install" Linux there was and Mandrake has continued to get easier and easier to install. (Not that I prefer it to Gentoo but that's another story.)
Linux existed before Robertson and Lindows came along and will continue after they're both long gone.
If a Unix or Linux system has a kernel that provides a hardware abstraction layer, why do you need a DirectX-like layer on top of that?
The kernel speaks to the appropriate hardware drivers, as I programmer you need to do nothing more than address/dev/snd (for example) to access the sound device.
I can see a reason why you'd have a separate graphics library like OpenGL because then, as a programmer, you get to access all the graphics acceleration stuff.
But wouldn't a DirectX layer be pointless on Linus/Unix? Or am I missing something?
Have Microsoft and a Linux sponsor (IBM?) each have a competition to pick a team of 6 knowledgeable Windows admins and 6 Linux knoweledgeable admins.
Put two identical empty servers in a room in a neutral place with an independent analysis company.
Give the two teams all the tools they need and, say, 24 hours to build their respective Windows and Linux environments - even allow the Linux team to build their own custom kernel / distro if need be.
Then do the performance testing on the servers.
Result:
1) Fair test results that will probably show Windows is better at some things and Linux at others.
2) Microsoft gets some glory showing a willingness to compete in an "open" trial.
3) Microsoft and Linux both end up with "things to do" to improve their software.
4) We all benefit as a result.
5) We all stop bickering over a marketing campaign that is no different to Mercedes comparing its cars to BMW or Macdonalds comparing its burgers to Burger King.
The reason why Microsoft are fighting Linux using FUD through advertising is because they simply do not know how to deal with the situation.
Every previous competitor to Micosoft has been a tangible company that has produced a similar or better product that MS have either assimilated into their own branding or wiped out of existence - the analogy of Microsoft to "The Borg" is a well thought out one, believe me!
However, this time, they can't "buy" Linux because no company owns it and it's attacking them on all sides - on servers, in embedded devices, even the signs of Linux making good inroads onto the desktop are now becoming apparent. (Although a huge number of Linux users have been happily using it on the desktop for years anyway!) Add to that that OpenOffice is free, getting closer and closer to MS Office everyday *and* it runs on Windows, you can see why they are really scared.
However, Microsoft's strategy is stupid because it's based on arrogance rather than common sense. What Microsoft *should* do is retreat slightly, drop the areas of their business that's losing them money (i.e. X-Box, embedded stuff and MSN) & pump the money they get back into R&D and testing their profit-making products better.
Whether you or I use or prefer Linux to Windows is neither here nor there - the fact is that a lot of people *do* like MS Office and Windows but hate the attitude of Microsoft the company. Consequently, Microsoft should be doing its utmost to improve its reputation in the eyes of existing customers - give them more stable, cheaper products and do their best to close down the endless stream of bugs and security holes in their products. Their customers become happier, they feel better about Microsoft and they remain customers.
I do question your comments about DirectX though. Why would the Linux community want DirectX? It's bloated and slower than OpenGL for starters. If DirectX was given to the Linux community as closed source binaries, nobody would use it anyway - and there's *NO* chance of Microsoft Open Sourcing DirectX.
Love Microsoft or hate them, they will bring along their own demise through their arrogance - the fact that they have such an open anti-Linux campaign going just serves to bring Linux to the forefront more; e.g. "Well if Microsoft are worried about Linux, there MUST be something in it."
Oh, and they should also ditch Steve Ballmer - the guy looks like a nightclub bouncer, has the charisma of a road accident and does Microsoft no favours when videos leak out to the Internet of him shouting and screaming at the MS sales force like a moron.
I agree but a lot of people who use email are stupid.
I've never understood why, on a default Windows installation, it hides file suffixes from users. (If I look around my office now, virtually everyone has the suffixes turned off in Windows.)
Surely it's simpler to educate users that files *truly* ending in ".gif" or ".txt" can never contain viruses but ".com", ".exe", ".bat" should *never* be run from an email attachment unless the sender is truly trusted.
Microsoft are not responsible for every wrong thing done by users but if it makes stupid marketing decisions like the above to give the perception to Joe Bloke that PCs are easier to use than they actually are, then they have only themselves to blame.
Go off and get hold of the LameEnc Mp3 codec (freeware), read the documentation and make sure you know all the encoding options and if WMP doesn't support it (I have no idea whether it does or doesn't), get hold of ExactAudioCopy and use the codec in that (on Windows).
I think you'll find it is just about THE best MP3 encoder, bar none...
I work with computers, I play with computers, I carry a computer in my pocket and I fix other people's computers......but just *sometimes* it's nice NOT to depend on a computer and cooking is ONE of those pleasures where I can do that.
I definitely do NOT want some jumped up kitchen worktop (albeit an MS or Linux one) telling me how much and when I should add chilli powder to one of my culinary concoctions!
Just occasionally, I want to escape from the gadgets, be allowed a little self-expressionism and be left alone with my wok and the contents of the fridge/larder.
Yes, my PC cost me money, I pay a monthly subscription to my ISP and I have to pay the electricity company to power my PC and my cable modem. I also have to pay for blank CDs but after that...
LINUX IS FREE!!!...and one of the best things in life:-)
If Windows is offered to schools "free of charge" then it makes it compete on an equal footing with Linux. In that instance, I would hope that the best software to do a specific job is given to kids to try and that they get a chance to try both out so they can decide for themselves what they prefer of the two.
The fact that Windows "phones home" and that it has demonstrated it's prone to worms and viruses should fall in Linux's favour anyway.
What I *DO* object to is my taxes being thrown away to line Bill Gates' pockets purely because it's deemed to be the most popular solution when there is a better Open Source solution that has not been suitability tested, alongside Windows, in schools.
At the same time, my 10 year old niece does her homework in Powerpoint and Word and plays a few of her favourite games in Windows. I hope that one day she'll ask me about Linux but there's no way I'm going to force it on her (or anyone else) if she's happy using what she's got.
Linux is about "spreading the word" and letting people make up their own minds...
Yes, because at this moment in time, the media standards are fairly open. But that will not be the case in future...
Answer me this... what *other* reason could MS have in making DRM technology other than to license it to the film and CD companies to make money from it?
I'm not criticising WMP as a piece of software that currently plays MP3s, MPGs, AVIs, etc. But I *am* criticising it as a mechanism to inflict DRM on the world to turn what you currently buy into a rentable commodity.
>>1. WMP implements as many open standards as any other media player.
Yes, but it also implements DRM that will, over a period of time, become more and more prominent to the point where any open standards are no longer supported. Do you *REALLY* believe Microsoft does anything that will not make it money? It's a ruthless business, it wants to roll out it's DRM technology through the back door to make money from it.
>>2. You don't have a "right" to use music and moves you "own" in any way you want to.
Rubbish! If I have legally bought a CD then it is perfectly legal for me to make a backup copy, convert it to MP3 for my own use or bury the CD in peat for 3 months. Sure, there are probably restrictions on my not broadcasting a CD I own, fair enough.
>>3. If you don't like DRM, don't buy it.
I don't and I won't. But that's because I currently have a choice not to. What I don't want is everyone else ruining it for me and allowing big monopolies to take away my rights purely to swell their profits.
>>4. No, and you don't have any "right" to convert a DVD to anything. You own the disc, not the content.
I own the content from the point of view of being able to do with it what I like with regard to my own personal pleasure. I have to respect the "copyright" of the content, sure, but that's the same with a book, newspaper, whatever...
Why don't you go take a look at a site called GameCopyWorld, for example, that has existed for several years now allowing access to software cracks. On their first page is a Disclaimer stating that you can only use the cracks to make backups of games software you legitimately own.
Look at "DVD John" also. The case against him cracking DVD encryption went nowhere because he proved legally that he was not using DeCSS for piracy - he just gave himself the option of playing his DVDs on Linux.
It is a basic right to make personal backups of any media, end of story.
It wouldn't surprise me if copyright infringement was not equally as bad in the USA and Europe, to be perfectly honest... everyone I know has access to MSDN CDs from work.
I'm always amazed at friends of mine who keep telling me how good Windows XP/2000 is or how good MS Office is - yet when I ask them if they would *pay* the going price for those products, they tend to go very quiet or try to justify their entitlement to use MS products free of charge because work has MSDN CDs.
These people don't realise that they have been pulled into the MS "honeytrap" and that very soon, MS will find a way of charging them to use their products...
Don't be an idiot simply because you can cower behind anonymity......you know as well as I do that average Joe Bloke has a real problem building a PC from components.
If you'd bothered reading my comment properly, you can see I specifically used the word "pre-assembled" and just in case that's too big a word for you to digest, it means "already made up".
And, yes, you probably can get a pre-assembled PC without Windows but you'd have to go to a company that makes them up without Windows - Joe Bloke can't see beyond Dell, Compaq, HP, etc for his PC and there's no way he'd get one from those vendors with Windows.
Erm, please cut and paste the section in any of my posts where I have said being a monopoly was "illegal" will you? Because I can't find it anywhere...
I have been talking about "abuse of power as a monopoly" just like owning a knife isn't illegal but stabbing somebody with it is...
Stop dodging the core argument you know you've lost already...
I'm really not wasting my time with you anymore...
Microsoft and Netscape added proprietary extensions to the HTML standard meaning that if those extensions are included, then somebody's browser somewhere doesn't render pages properly.
Sure, if the HTML document incorporates any extensions, that gets sent to the browser the same way and it's the browser that either renders the pages correctly or chokes.
But it's STILL an argument about the dangers of proprietary protocols and extending standards...
>>I'm still confused. A monopoly is defined as the theoretical clueless user being unable to go out and download a new media player?
No. A monopoly is defined as an organisation that unfairly uses its influence in the marketplace to stamp out competition. WMP (media player) is being used by Microsoft (monopoly) to stamp out competition (open standards).
>>Wait, wait. I'm really confused. If _no_ media player came with Windows, they would still have to go out and download/configure a media player.
No, they would have to go out and *choose* a media player to download, based on the standards that media player supports. If you read my other posts, you'd see that the issue is *NOT* the bundling of WMP with Windows but the fact that it gets DRM (a technology that restricts your rights to use music and movies you own in any way you want to) in through the "back door". Microsoft give *NOTHING* away for free...
>>And DRM? What? You don't understand. DRM music would come from a third party. You couldn't play it unless your player supported DRM.
And??? Currently, I can buy a CD player by any manufacturer (because Philips released the CD standard to the world) and play my CDs in it. I can go buy those CDs from Amazon, a Virgin Megastore, wherever... I can then take the CD home, play it on my PC, rip MP3s for my MP3 player, burn compilation CDs, etc. etc.
In the DRM world, I need to buy a player that supports DRM technology and probably pay *more* (because the player manufacturer has had to pay a license fee to Microsoft) to do less with my music because I'll be restricted from burning/copying/etc.
>>The whole DRM bugaboo is getting old. You can do what you want with content you _own_.
Tell me now - could you easily convert DVD movies you own to play from a VCD or flashmem until a hacker broke the DVD encryption protection???
>>Encode it without DRM, Microsoft will never prevent that.
Of course they won't! That's because they'll be charging me for restricting my rights to what I can legitimately do with the music and movies I own! Plus they can keep charging me for upgrades also...
>>The whole thing is a bunch of FUD and I'm amazed that people keep repeating it.
Maybe people keep repeating it because it's a *legitimate* concern? Had that thought crossed your mind?
No, HTTP and TCP define how the data is transferred, HTML defines how the data is rendered in the browser once it gets there. Please listen!!!
If there was an incompatibility in HTTP, then you would find that you could not download certain documents over a specific web server and client combination - this, to my knowledge, does not happen...
What *does* happen is that documents (once *SUCCESSFULLY* sent by HTTP) are not rendered correctly in a specific browser. This is because the browser does not support specific *HTML* extensions - or indeed Javascript implementations or Java VM incompatibilites.
And, to get it into your simplistic skull, I was using this example as an illustration as to what happens when you start to introduce proprietary standards (or extensions) into applications - precisely what MS is beginning to do heavily now into WMP.
Erm, why do you think this is just the "Linux vs Windows" argument all over again??
If anything, this issue *doesn't* affect us Linux users at all because we get plenty of *choice* for media players.
The issue is that as a Windows user, you are forced to used Windows Media Player because that's what's bundled with Windows - unless you have the ability to install / configure something else.
That may be fine for the moment and you may be happy using WMP. But what happens when DRM comes in and you find you can't listen to music or watch movies in the way you were previously able to? Oh, and I'm talking about music and movies you *legitimately* own so don't try to turn this into a piracy argument, please...
This issue affects the Windows community first until such time that MS get their way and *everybody* has to use proprietary media standards rather than more open ones.
If you're going to argue with me, do so intelligently and go read a book on TCP/IP first...
HTTP is a *protocol* that runs over TCP & deals with the requesting & delivery of HTML (and other) files. This is an open protocol that is implemented between web server (i.e. Apache, IIS, etc.) & client browser (e.g. Mozilla, IE, etc.) If there were differences between client & server *HTTP* implementations, then there would be *connectivity* issues between different types of web server and browser.
HTML is a *document standard* that defines how web pages are rendered in a browser. It is the proprietary extensions that both Microsoft and Netscape added to HTML (plus the extras in Javascript & different JAVA VMs) that cause pages to be rendered incorrectly in a browser.
In other words, NO, I am NOT looking at HTTP but HTML (and Javascript / JAVA to a degree). So be careful who you call "clueless"...
Oh and yes, you can spew just about any old crap from any broken or badly configured application on any operating system but I think we all knew that already - oh, with the exception of you of course...
Take one kid in front of a Super Nintendo console, take away the Nintendo and give him/her a Playstation 2 with a pile of games and no instructions? How long until he's/she's happily playing a Playstation game? Not long...
Take a kid in a poor school in a Third World country. Is it better for that kid to be using Linux on an old PC than not using a PC at all because the school cannot afford a new PC and/or Windows?
Give kids credit - they're highly adaptive and when you start them out on computers, they just care about how they can play a few games, write a few school essays and draw a few pictures to print out. At that level, there's not a lot of difference to using Windows or Linux.
There's not a Windows user out there who couldn't get to grips with the basics of KDE or Gnome very quickly - and likewise they could go back to using Windows just as quickly afterwards.
Internet Explorer supports the *OPEN* HTML standard with a few *PROPRIETARY* Microsoft HTML extensions.
Therefore, IE talks to Apache. -- IIS supports the *OPEN* HTML standard with the same *PROPRIETARY* extensions supported by IE.
Mozilla supports the *OPEN HTML* standard only.
Therefore, Mozilla talks to IIS properly only when IIS is not using the *proprietary* MS extensions. -- WMP supports certain (not necessarily Open) standards like mp3, avi, mpg, etc.
Microsoft want you to use *PROPRIETARY* media standards that they can charge application developers licenses for and *YOU* a rental charge for.
Therefore, closed standards cost you and everyone else more money and are therefore *BAD*. -- That's my argument and if you don't realise that you are *ULTIMATELY* being forced to use proprietary standards by Microsoft, then that just shows how good they are at masking their *REAL* objectives here.
It's the old "Give them the drugs free, get them addicted and then up the prices" approach...
Likewise, all the companies and individuals suffering outages due to another worm virus getting through poor Microsoft product security can countersue Microsoft...
Slashdot Mirror
Great statement!
But once again we seem to have too many people in this discussion simply turning it into a "Windows vs Linux" argument again. SO let me interject with a few additional points:
1) Microsoft treats "Open Source" as two very dirty words. However, as a Windows user, you have access to almost as much Open Source software as do Linux & BSD users - if you don't believe me, have a trawl around Sourceforge and look for yourselves.
2) As a Windows user, you do not have anywhere near the control over your operating system that a Linux user does. But that's absolutely fine, some people like ease of installation and use, others like optimisation and control, I'm not going to debate the differences here.
However, up until recently, as a Windows user, you enjoyed a relative free reign over your data and/or documents - e.g. you can copy documents between machines and OSes, burn MP3s from CD onto endless numbers of devices, etc.
Unfortunately, with DRM, that will all change. It won't affect Linux users (unless the take up of DRM'ed data formats is huge and starts restricting what types of data Linux can read and write) but it will mean that as a Windows user, you will lose control of your data because Microsoft see a huge amount of possible revenue by enforcing DRM licenses. To you, this will mean that you might not be able to transport your documents and data across devices or machines.
3) Your data is your responsibility, not Microsoft's. Therefore, if someone hacks your PC and gets hold of your data then, sure, Microsoft have a responsibility to fix the vulnerability that allowed intruder access but the data is your responsibility to protect.
As Homology said above, you can protect that data using open encryption methods with keys you control thus meaning that you maintain your ultimate control over your data.
4) Microsoft have virtually admitted that their OSes and applications are now so complex that they are impossible to fix completely. However, they have a need to show their user base that they are serious about security and it will be far less expensive for them to use hardware-based DRM to control applications and OSes, rather than put the man-power in to fix software bugs. Plus, as an added bonus, they get the ability to control your data and charge you money for the right to access it.
Please remember that Microsoft are a business like any other business and will implement anything that swells their profits as long as it doesn't affect the user base too much. While Windows Media Player may seem like an attractive piece of free software to use (and I'm not going to debate here what the "best" media player might or might not be), the ultimate reason for WMP is to make an attempt at getting DRM "in through the back door" and see what the response of the user base is.
I also agree with the judge's decision - or at least, don't consider his decision as being particularly important.
Michael Robertson seems to have set his first priority as gaining as much publicity from annoying Microsoft as much as possible rather than actually focusing his efforts on producing a better usable Linux distro for the masses.
I've not seen Lindows since about version 1 but I felt at the time that Mandrake was the best "easy-install" Linux there was and Mandrake has continued to get easier and easier to install. (Not that I prefer it to Gentoo but that's another story.)
Linux existed before Robertson and Lindows came along and will continue after they're both long gone.
Thanks for clarifying that.
/dev/snd (for example) to access the sound device.
A question for you though...
If a Unix or Linux system has a kernel that provides a hardware abstraction layer, why do you need a DirectX-like layer on top of that?
The kernel speaks to the appropriate hardware drivers, as I programmer you need to do nothing more than address
I can see a reason why you'd have a separate graphics library like OpenGL because then, as a programmer, you get to access all the graphics acceleration stuff.
But wouldn't a DirectX layer be pointless on Linus/Unix? Or am I missing something?
Here's a fair way of doing the comparison...
Have Microsoft and a Linux sponsor (IBM?) each have a competition to pick a team of 6 knowledgeable Windows admins and 6 Linux knoweledgeable admins.
Put two identical empty servers in a room in a neutral place with an independent analysis company.
Give the two teams all the tools they need and, say, 24 hours to build their respective Windows and Linux environments - even allow the Linux team to build their own custom kernel / distro if need be.
Then do the performance testing on the servers.
Result:
1) Fair test results that will probably show Windows is better at some things and Linux at others.
2) Microsoft gets some glory showing a willingness to compete in an "open" trial.
3) Microsoft and Linux both end up with "things to do" to improve their software.
4) We all benefit as a result.
5) We all stop bickering over a marketing campaign that is no different to Mercedes comparing its cars to BMW or Macdonalds comparing its burgers to Burger King.
The reason why Microsoft are fighting Linux using FUD through advertising is because they simply do not know how to deal with the situation.
Every previous competitor to Micosoft has been a tangible company that has produced a similar or better product that MS have either assimilated into their own branding or wiped out of existence - the analogy of Microsoft to "The Borg" is a well thought out one, believe me!
However, this time, they can't "buy" Linux because no company owns it and it's attacking them on all sides - on servers, in embedded devices, even the signs of Linux making good inroads onto the desktop are now becoming apparent. (Although a huge number of Linux users have been happily using it on the desktop for years anyway!) Add to that that OpenOffice is free, getting closer and closer to MS Office everyday *and* it runs on Windows, you can see why they are really scared.
However, Microsoft's strategy is stupid because it's based on arrogance rather than common sense. What Microsoft *should* do is retreat slightly, drop the areas of their business that's losing them money (i.e. X-Box, embedded stuff and MSN) & pump the money they get back into R&D and testing their profit-making products better.
Whether you or I use or prefer Linux to Windows is neither here nor there - the fact is that a lot of people *do* like MS Office and Windows but hate the attitude of Microsoft the company. Consequently, Microsoft should be doing its utmost to improve its reputation in the eyes of existing customers - give them more stable, cheaper products and do their best to close down the endless stream of bugs and security holes in their products. Their customers become happier, they feel better about Microsoft and they remain customers.
I do question your comments about DirectX though. Why would the Linux community want DirectX? It's bloated and slower than OpenGL for starters. If DirectX was given to the Linux community as closed source binaries, nobody would use it anyway - and there's *NO* chance of Microsoft Open Sourcing DirectX.
Love Microsoft or hate them, they will bring along their own demise through their arrogance - the fact that they have such an open anti-Linux campaign going just serves to bring Linux to the forefront more; e.g. "Well if Microsoft are worried about Linux, there MUST be something in it."
Oh, and they should also ditch Steve Ballmer - the guy looks like a nightclub bouncer, has the charisma of a road accident and does Microsoft no favours when videos leak out to the Internet of him shouting and screaming at the MS sales force like a moron.
I'd take a look at what they're up to now - the "little monkeys" are probably recompiling your kernel as you speak... :-)
I agree but a lot of people who use email are stupid.
I've never understood why, on a default Windows installation, it hides file suffixes from users. (If I look around my office now, virtually everyone has the suffixes turned off in Windows.)
Surely it's simpler to educate users that files *truly* ending in ".gif" or ".txt" can never contain viruses but ".com", ".exe", ".bat" should *never* be run from an email attachment unless the sender is truly trusted.
Microsoft are not responsible for every wrong thing done by users but if it makes stupid marketing decisions like the above to give the perception to Joe Bloke that PCs are easier to use than they actually are, then they have only themselves to blame.
Go off and get hold of the LameEnc Mp3 codec (freeware), read the documentation and make sure you know all the encoding options and if WMP doesn't support it (I have no idea whether it does or doesn't), get hold of ExactAudioCopy and use the codec in that (on Windows). I think you'll find it is just about THE best MP3 encoder, bar none...
I work with computers, I play with computers, I carry a computer in my pocket and I fix other people's computers.... ..but just *sometimes* it's nice NOT to depend on a computer and cooking is ONE of those pleasures where I can do that.
I definitely do NOT want some jumped up kitchen worktop (albeit an MS or Linux one) telling me how much and when I should add chilli powder to one of my culinary concoctions!
Just occasionally, I want to escape from the gadgets, be allowed a little self-expressionism and be left alone with my wok and the contents of the fridge/larder.
Ho hum...
>>Look deeper, and you shall see what I mean.
...and one of the best things in life :-)
Okay, let's be pedantic...
Yes, my PC cost me money, I pay a monthly subscription to my ISP and I have to pay the electricity company to power my PC and my cable modem. I also have to pay for blank CDs but after that...
LINUX IS FREE!!!
Ssssshhhhh!
:-)
You're not supposed to mention that sometimes you need to use complex command line commands to get a job done in Windows...
It's only us Linux geeks with no girlfriends and body odour that are supposed to be able to do long commands like that
I disagree.
If Windows is offered to schools "free of charge" then it makes it compete on an equal footing with Linux. In that instance, I would hope that the best software to do a specific job is given to kids to try and that they get a chance to try both out so they can decide for themselves what they prefer of the two.
The fact that Windows "phones home" and that it has demonstrated it's prone to worms and viruses should fall in Linux's favour anyway.
What I *DO* object to is my taxes being thrown away to line Bill Gates' pockets purely because it's deemed to be the most popular solution when there is a better Open Source solution that has not been suitability tested, alongside Windows, in schools.
At the same time, my 10 year old niece does her homework in Powerpoint and Word and plays a few of her favourite games in Windows. I hope that one day she'll ask me about Linux but there's no way I'm going to force it on her (or anyone else) if she's happy using what she's got.
Linux is about "spreading the word" and letting people make up their own minds...
Yes, because at this moment in time, the media standards are fairly open. But that will not be the case in future...
Answer me this... what *other* reason could MS have in making DRM technology other than to license it to the film and CD companies to make money from it?
I'm not criticising WMP as a piece of software that currently plays MP3s, MPGs, AVIs, etc. But I *am* criticising it as a mechanism to inflict DRM on the world to turn what you currently buy into a rentable commodity.
>>1. WMP implements as many open standards as any other media player.
Yes, but it also implements DRM that will, over a period of time, become more and more prominent to the point where any open standards are no longer supported. Do you *REALLY* believe Microsoft does anything that will not make it money? It's a ruthless business, it wants to roll out it's DRM technology through the back door to make money from it.
>>2. You don't have a "right" to use music and moves you "own" in any way you want to.
Rubbish! If I have legally bought a CD then it is perfectly legal for me to make a backup copy, convert it to MP3 for my own use or bury the CD in peat for 3 months. Sure, there are probably restrictions on my not broadcasting a CD I own, fair enough.
>>3. If you don't like DRM, don't buy it.
I don't and I won't. But that's because I currently have a choice not to. What I don't want is everyone else ruining it for me and allowing big monopolies to take away my rights purely to swell their profits.
>>4. No, and you don't have any "right" to convert a DVD to anything. You own the disc, not the content.
I own the content from the point of view of being able to do with it what I like with regard to my own personal pleasure. I have to respect the "copyright" of the content, sure, but that's the same with a book, newspaper, whatever...
Why don't you go take a look at a site called GameCopyWorld, for example, that has existed for several years now allowing access to software cracks. On their first page is a Disclaimer stating that you can only use the cracks to make backups of games software you legitimately own.
Look at "DVD John" also. The case against him cracking DVD encryption went nowhere because he proved legally that he was not using DeCSS for piracy - he just gave himself the option of playing his DVDs on Linux.
It is a basic right to make personal backups of any media, end of story.
It wouldn't surprise me if copyright infringement was not equally as bad in the USA and Europe, to be perfectly honest... everyone I know has access to MSDN CDs from work.
I'm always amazed at friends of mine who keep telling me how good Windows XP/2000 is or how good MS Office is - yet when I ask them if they would *pay* the going price for those products, they tend to go very quiet or try to justify their entitlement to use MS products free of charge because work has MSDN CDs.
These people don't realise that they have been pulled into the MS "honeytrap" and that very soon, MS will find a way of charging them to use their products...
Don't be an idiot simply because you can cower behind anonymity... ...you know as well as I do that average Joe Bloke has a real problem building a PC from components.
If you'd bothered reading my comment properly, you can see I specifically used the word "pre-assembled" and just in case that's too big a word for you to digest, it means "already made up".
And, yes, you probably can get a pre-assembled PC without Windows but you'd have to go to a company that makes them up without Windows - Joe Bloke can't see beyond Dell, Compaq, HP, etc for his PC and there's no way he'd get one from those vendors with Windows.
Now go taunt someone else, idiot...
Erm, please cut and paste the section in any of my posts where I have said being a monopoly was "illegal" will you? Because I can't find it anywhere...
I have been talking about "abuse of power as a monopoly" just like owning a knife isn't illegal but stabbing somebody with it is...
Stop dodging the core argument you know you've lost already...
I'm really not wasting my time with you anymore...
Microsoft and Netscape added proprietary extensions to the HTML standard meaning that if those extensions are included, then somebody's browser somewhere doesn't render pages properly.
Sure, if the HTML document incorporates any extensions, that gets sent to the browser the same way and it's the browser that either renders the pages correctly or chokes.
But it's STILL an argument about the dangers of proprietary protocols and extending standards...
>>I'm still confused. A monopoly is defined as the theoretical clueless user being unable to go out and download a new media player?
No. A monopoly is defined as an organisation that unfairly uses its influence in the marketplace to stamp out competition. WMP (media player) is being used by Microsoft (monopoly) to stamp out competition (open standards).
>>Wait, wait. I'm really confused. If _no_ media player came with Windows, they would still have to go out and download/configure a media player.
No, they would have to go out and *choose* a media player to download, based on the standards that media player supports. If you read my other posts, you'd see that the issue is *NOT* the bundling of WMP with Windows but the fact that it gets DRM (a technology that restricts your rights to use music and movies you own in any way you want to) in through the "back door". Microsoft give *NOTHING* away for free...
>>And DRM? What? You don't understand. DRM music would come from a third party. You couldn't play it unless your player supported DRM.
And??? Currently, I can buy a CD player by any manufacturer (because Philips released the CD standard to the world) and play my CDs in it. I can go buy those CDs from Amazon, a Virgin Megastore, wherever... I can then take the CD home, play it on my PC, rip MP3s for my MP3 player, burn compilation CDs, etc. etc.
In the DRM world, I need to buy a player that supports DRM technology and probably pay *more* (because the player manufacturer has had to pay a license fee to Microsoft) to do less with my music because I'll be restricted from burning/copying/etc.
>>The whole DRM bugaboo is getting old. You can do what you want with content you _own_.
Tell me now - could you easily convert DVD movies you own to play from a VCD or flashmem until a hacker broke the DVD encryption protection???
>>Encode it without DRM, Microsoft will never prevent that.
Of course they won't! That's because they'll be charging me for restricting my rights to what I can legitimately do with the music and movies I own! Plus they can keep charging me for upgrades also...
>>The whole thing is a bunch of FUD and I'm amazed that people keep repeating it.
Maybe people keep repeating it because it's a *legitimate* concern? Had that thought crossed your mind?
No, HTTP and TCP define how the data is transferred, HTML defines how the data is rendered in the browser once it gets there. Please listen!!!
If there was an incompatibility in HTTP, then you would find that you could not download certain documents over a specific web server and client combination - this, to my knowledge, does not happen...
What *does* happen is that documents (once *SUCCESSFULLY* sent by HTTP) are not rendered correctly in a specific browser. This is because the browser does not support specific *HTML* extensions - or indeed Javascript implementations or Java VM incompatibilites.
And, to get it into your simplistic skull, I was using this example as an illustration as to what happens when you start to introduce proprietary standards (or extensions) into applications - precisely what MS is beginning to do heavily now into WMP.
Erm, why do you think this is just the "Linux vs Windows" argument all over again??
If anything, this issue *doesn't* affect us Linux users at all because we get plenty of *choice* for media players.
The issue is that as a Windows user, you are forced to used Windows Media Player because that's what's bundled with Windows - unless you have the ability to install / configure something else.
That may be fine for the moment and you may be happy using WMP. But what happens when DRM comes in and you find you can't listen to music or watch movies in the way you were previously able to? Oh, and I'm talking about music and movies you *legitimately* own so don't try to turn this into a piracy argument, please...
This issue affects the Windows community first until such time that MS get their way and *everybody* has to use proprietary media standards rather than more open ones.
If you're going to argue with me, do so intelligently and go read a book on TCP/IP first...
HTTP is a *protocol* that runs over TCP & deals with the requesting & delivery of HTML (and other) files. This is an open protocol that is implemented between web server (i.e. Apache, IIS, etc.) & client browser (e.g. Mozilla, IE, etc.) If there were differences between client & server *HTTP* implementations, then there would be *connectivity* issues between different types of web server and browser.
HTML is a *document standard* that defines how web pages are rendered in a browser. It is the proprietary extensions that both Microsoft and Netscape added to HTML (plus the extras in Javascript & different JAVA VMs) that cause pages to be rendered incorrectly in a browser.
In other words, NO, I am NOT looking at HTTP but HTML (and Javascript / JAVA to a degree). So be careful who you call "clueless"...
Oh and yes, you can spew just about any old crap from any broken or badly configured application on any operating system but I think we all knew that already - oh, with the exception of you of course...
Tell me something...
Take one kid in front of a Super Nintendo console, take away the Nintendo and give him/her a Playstation 2 with a pile of games and no instructions? How long until he's/she's happily playing a Playstation game? Not long...
Take a kid in a poor school in a Third World country. Is it better for that kid to be using Linux on an old PC than not using a PC at all because the school cannot afford a new PC and/or Windows?
Give kids credit - they're highly adaptive and when you start them out on computers, they just care about how they can play a few games, write a few school essays and draw a few pictures to print out. At that level, there's not a lot of difference to using Windows or Linux.
There's not a Windows user out there who couldn't get to grips with the basics of KDE or Gnome very quickly - and likewise they could go back to using Windows just as quickly afterwards.
Let's reword your incorrect argument...
Apache supports the *OPEN* HTML standard only.
Internet Explorer supports the *OPEN* HTML standard with a few *PROPRIETARY* Microsoft HTML extensions.
Therefore, IE talks to Apache.
--
IIS supports the *OPEN* HTML standard with the same *PROPRIETARY* extensions supported by IE.
Mozilla supports the *OPEN HTML* standard only.
Therefore, Mozilla talks to IIS properly only when IIS is not using the *proprietary* MS extensions.
--
WMP supports certain (not necessarily Open) standards like mp3, avi, mpg, etc.
Microsoft want you to use *PROPRIETARY* media standards that they can charge application developers licenses for and *YOU* a rental charge for.
Therefore, closed standards cost you and everyone else more money and are therefore *BAD*.
--
That's my argument and if you don't realise that you are *ULTIMATELY* being forced to use proprietary standards by Microsoft, then that just shows how good they are at masking their *REAL* objectives here.
It's the old "Give them the drugs free, get them addicted and then up the prices" approach...
Likewise, all the companies and individuals suffering outages due to another worm virus getting through poor Microsoft product security can countersue Microsoft...