c) Did you really expect Microsoft to not include DRM in Vista?
No, not really. Would have been nice though.....
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here:
They're in a pretty hard place; they have to bow to multiple governments demands as to what they can and cannot include in their OS. Not only that, but they'd get their arses sued off by the media companies, who would then release their own DRM stuff that would only bog Windows down even more.
Multiple government demands are mostly about what they can NOT add, so adding DRM would make their life more difficult, if anything.
I'm not sure on what legal grounds media companies are going to sue Microsoft for NOT including DRM.
Funnily enough, it's only Microsoft that's at the mercy of these organisations... I don't see Apple getting yelled at for including iChat, iMovie, iLife, Quicktime, GarageBand and iTunes with their OS. I also don't see nearly as many users bitching about the actual restrictive DRM in their OS as there are about the unintrusive (WGA notwithstanding) DRM in Vista.
I find it difficult to imagine Microsoft being at the mercy of media companies.
If anything then Microsoft put themselves in voluntary bondage by saying "we'll include all sorts of DRM in order to entice you to use use as a preferred platform for your content".
Now it turns our the customers hate the DRM (who would have thought!) and the media companies are quite happy to use alternate platforms (like Apple). Microsoft played and lost, don't expect me to feel sorry for them.
Monopolies are bad for consumers, so the rules change a bit to make it tougher on monopoly holders. They get tougher and tougher every time said monopoly holder is convicted of criminally exploiting said monopoly to the detriment of their customers.
That's why Apple isn't being yelled at for including iStuff
Much easier to daemonise communists^Wterrorists^Wforeigners^Wperl than to admit a management failure that allowed business critical systems to get into such a poor state.
If microsoft wanted to play hardball they would halt sales and imports of their software to those countries and see how well they do with a free alternative.
Damn, I wish I had mod-points, 'cos that line gets funnier every time I hear it.
I only wish Microsoft would be as idiotic as to force a large chunk of people to invest in Open Source alternatives.
Can you imagine what OOo/VLC/Debian/GCC/Apache could do with a small fraction of the money these people would save on Microsoft Licenses?
Bad idea.
If you rely on technology then you get a technology arms-race, and those are as expensive as they are futile.
You also prevent loads of other stuff from working (like virus updates) 'cos everything these days seems to use HTTP/S. And, you never know, maybe there might actually be a business-related reason to browse one day (like getting a phoine number, or a quote...).
Much better to remove the browser and clearly state "Browsing is not allowed. If you do it anyway, you're fired/fined/reprimanded/made-to-wear-the-dunce-cap-for-a-day".
if they came out with a buggy and mangled implementation of odf. ibm, sun and goodle, not to mention the eu and the governments of so many other countries would rip them to shreds.
Like they did when Microsoft came up with a buggy and mangled implementation of HTML?
The only reason it does not happen in the 'developed world' is that our products are deliberately designed to prevent this; one-way screws, hidden catches, draconian warranties ("opening voids warranty, no user servicable parts inside").
Remember the XO keyboard problem? Most "developed" customers winged and whined about lack of warranty. The kids in the field just opened the things up, cleaned them out and went right on learning.
This is why a for-profit product (hardware (like the NDS) or software (like XP-lite)) are the WRONG CHOICE for OLPC; they are designed to generate a revenue stream rather than maximise user benefit.
A Nintendo DS for development platform? Make it a bit bigger, get a crank in it, and it'd be like the OLPC, except it also would be priced like one.
No it would not.
A DS isn't ruggedized, won't work in bright sunlight, has no keyboard, cannot be serviced in the field,... the list goes on.
The XO is designed to go places where nothing designed for the 'developed world' would survive.
Standards are important.
My car is made by $COMPANY1.
I can buy tires for it made by $COMPANY2.
I can put them on wheels made by $COMPANY3.
I can tighten the weelnuts with a wrench from $COMPANY4.
You get the idea?
I'm sure that $COMPANY1 would just love to sell me everything to do with my car from the tires on up, but they can't because it's all STANDARD.
STANDARDS are good for consumers, Monopolies are not.
Yes, for right or wrong, Disney will demand compensation for everything that they legally can. But their lawyers are very good and know where the lines are.
What upsets me (and I assume I'm not the only one) isn't their desire to defend the line, but to move it.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine.
As long as you don't mind if I GPL it.
(* who should definitely join forces to form the Sexy Pirate party)
They would get totally p0wned by the Nude Ninja Party
It will be like a 'real' drivers license.
First it will be used to determine eligibility to 'drive'.
Then it will be used to determine age.
then Identity
The it will morph into RealID.
As much as I like the idea of finally ending the eternal September this will not work, it will instead morph into another control mechanism.
or China if you want to learn about Internet censorship.
Frankly, Microsoft BENEFITS from having a small & noisy group of people ...
The problem for Microsoft is that the group keeps getting bigger...
c) Did you really expect Microsoft to not include DRM in Vista?
No, not really. Would have been nice though.....
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here:
They're in a pretty hard place; they have to bow to multiple governments demands as to what they can and cannot include in their OS. Not only that, but they'd get their arses sued off by the media companies, who would then release their own DRM stuff that would only bog Windows down even more.
Multiple government demands are mostly about what they can NOT add, so adding DRM would make their life more difficult, if anything.
I'm not sure on what legal grounds media companies are going to sue Microsoft for NOT including DRM.
Funnily enough, it's only Microsoft that's at the mercy of these organisations... I don't see Apple getting yelled at for including iChat, iMovie, iLife, Quicktime, GarageBand and iTunes with their OS. I also don't see nearly as many users bitching about the actual restrictive DRM in their OS as there are about the unintrusive (WGA notwithstanding) DRM in Vista.
I find it difficult to imagine Microsoft being at the mercy of media companies.
If anything then Microsoft put themselves in voluntary bondage by saying "we'll include all sorts of DRM in order to entice you to use use as a preferred platform for your content".
Now it turns our the customers hate the DRM (who would have thought!) and the media companies are quite happy to use alternate platforms (like Apple). Microsoft played and lost, don't expect me to feel sorry for them.
Monopolies are bad for consumers, so the rules change a bit to make it tougher on monopoly holders. They get tougher and tougher every time said monopoly holder is convicted of criminally exploiting said monopoly to the detriment of their customers.
That's why Apple isn't being yelled at for including iStuff
... key management is hard.
No point encrypting using AES256 using a password written on a post-it note stuck to the CD .
No point using "pa55word" either.
4. Configure the Vista product with the ultimate version. That is roughly feature equivalent to Ubuntu.
Only if you also add Office, Visual Studio, IIS, MS-SQL and a bunch of other stuff that Microsoft don't even make (like a decent shell).
Much easier to daemonise communists^Wterrorists^Wforeigners^Wperl than to admit a management failure that allowed business critical systems to get into such a poor state.
... than a comedian who did a whole episode on masturbation.
... who use Outlook's "recall email" feature :-)
If microsoft wanted to play hardball they would halt sales and imports of their software to those countries and see how well they do with a free alternative.
Damn, I wish I had mod-points, 'cos that line gets funnier every time I hear it.
I only wish Microsoft would be as idiotic as to force a large chunk of people to invest in Open Source alternatives.
Can you imagine what OOo/VLC/Debian/GCC/Apache could do with a small fraction of the money these people would save on Microsoft Licenses?
... please come to the PR office, there are a few million calls for you!
After transferring you a few times they put you on hold and then change the music to RICK ASHLEY!
Kill off XP, and remove the only feature worth waiting for in Windows 7!
By ${DEITY}, they'll stop at nothing to sell VISTA!
Bad idea. ...).
If you rely on technology then you get a technology arms-race, and those are as expensive as they are futile.
You also prevent loads of other stuff from working (like virus updates) 'cos everything these days seems to use HTTP/S. And, you never know, maybe there might actually be a business-related reason to browse one day (like getting a phoine number, or a quote
Much better to remove the browser and clearly state "Browsing is not allowed. If you do it anyway, you're fired/fined/reprimanded/made-to-wear-the-dunce-cap-for-a-day".
So... you still think _you_ are Microsoft's customer?
How quaint....
You're just the guy shelling out money for their products. Their _real_ customers are the media companies, and they _love_ DRM.
Most of the visitors will already have an RFID passport on them.
OO.o 3 will include support for VBA macros. That should help.
Help whom? The malware writers?
if they came out with a buggy and mangled implementation of odf. ibm, sun and goodle, not to mention the eu and the governments of so many other countries would rip them to shreds.
Like they did when Microsoft came up with a buggy and mangled implementation of HTML?
Much as I wish you were right...
I am sorry, but I highly doubt it. "serviced in the field"? Ya, that is really going to happen. That doesn't even happen in the "developed world".
I already has happened:
http://blogs.ubuntu.org.au/shenki/29
http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/olpc-laptop-repair-460201
The only reason it does not happen in the 'developed world' is that our products are deliberately designed to prevent this; one-way screws, hidden catches, draconian warranties ("opening voids warranty, no user servicable parts inside").
Remember the XO keyboard problem? Most "developed" customers winged and whined about lack of warranty. The kids in the field just opened the things up, cleaned them out and went right on learning.
This is why a for-profit product (hardware (like the NDS) or software (like XP-lite)) are the WRONG CHOICE for OLPC; they are designed to generate a revenue stream rather than maximise user benefit.
If the maintainer of a project takes it in a direction you don't want, you fork.
That's the strength of OSS, isn't it?
A Nintendo DS for development platform? Make it a bit bigger, get a crank in it, and it'd be like the OLPC, except it also would be priced like one.
... the list goes on.
No it would not.
A DS isn't ruggedized, won't work in bright sunlight, has no keyboard, cannot be serviced in the field,
The XO is designed to go places where nothing designed for the 'developed world' would survive.
Standards are important.
My car is made by $COMPANY1.
I can buy tires for it made by $COMPANY2.
I can put them on wheels made by $COMPANY3.
I can tighten the weelnuts with a wrench from $COMPANY4.
You get the idea?
I'm sure that $COMPANY1 would just love to sell me everything to do with my car from the tires on up, but they can't because it's all STANDARD.
STANDARDS are good for consumers, Monopolies are not.
Yes, for right or wrong, Disney will demand compensation for everything that they legally can. But their lawyers are very good and know where the lines are.
What upsets me (and I assume I'm not the only one) isn't their desire to defend the line, but to move it.