Do you even know what you are talking about? Any OS can only have as direct access as the BIOS will give it. This isnt a Windows/Linux thing; and it doesnt need 'the bios to boot', as you put it.
The BIOS is what tells the computer what hard drive to use, what IDE devices are set, and where, what resources are going to be allocated (which is why BIOS's needed to be modified to allow further Plug and Play features), etc.
Lets try an experiment. Set your computer to only boot to a second, non-hard drive device. Now, see if Linux will boot properly. If not, Linus really DOES need the BIOS, doesnt it?
BTW, Windows doesnt need this "bios to boot" that you keep talking about. I dont know where you are getting your info from, but its all wrong.
The BIOS runs the hardware, then once the bootstrap is finished, it hands control over to the operating system (whether it is on a floppy, bootable CD, or hard-drive is irrelevant, since they are all technically operating systems). This is true whether you are using MS-DOS, PC-DOS, a Linux bootloader, or whatever.
unfortunatly, he doesnt really answer the question. He says that they dont want you to take a recording which was made by somebody else's media (even if you own a copy of the same music), and besides that, if you are getting it electronically you are going to get viruses and spyware.
Sounds like they are trying to discourage what may legally be considered 'fair use' by FUD... at least to me it does. Of course, reselling the same music on new formats (or even due to wear and tear) is one of the cornerstones of the recording industry. Its why CDs are made on low-quality plastic rather than higher quality, scratch resistant plastics. I also believe this is the main reason why they are resisting digital music: it will never wear out.
Ive always been curious about something, but since I was never interested in the whole MP3 thing, I never looked into it.
If you already own the music, is it legal to get MP3's of that music off the internet?
In my case, it would be a collection of around 100 tapes (not CDs, but tapes). The tapes still work, but obviously it isnt the most convient media format. Would it be legal to just get higher quality files of that music? Or is their contention that you dont own a license to the music, but are tied to whatever media you purchased it on? Im sure this runs into what boundaries there are for 'fair use', but IANAL.
DRM is exactly what it says: its digital rights management. It will be a mechanism whereby you give the OS physical control over the hardware, at a deeper level than it was previously able to operate at before. It couldnt do that and a great many other things because the antique design of the bios gets in the way.
You guys may want to look at interviews with BIOS designers. The people who first came up with the idea are amazed it is still being used, since it was assumed they were just doing a temporary solution until somebody made something better... Familiar story- old software, old hardware, old standards, etc. They impliment temporary solutions which somehow become the permanent solutions, but are ill suited for the task.
Anyway, once it comes out Im sure all the goofballs will ignore the fact that they were wrong, and just pick some other thing that MS is working on to complain about.
Linux, OSX, MS, etc will all be able to use DRM, because, as has been oft-repeated, its not being tied directly to one OS.
Its amazing how all the goofballs continue to post about how they are going to ban MS, buy old motherboards to store along with their canned food and shotguns, etc, when there is ever a post regarding Trustworthy Computing.
All the spec is going to do is something computer people have wanted for years- to ditch the old archaic BIOS. Im quite positive mobo companies arent going to design themselves out of customers, but that doesnt stop the paranoid schizos from posting their wild conspiracy theories.
Just like all these issues that Slashdotters get their panties in a bunch over, once it arrives they will realize it isnt the start of armageddon, nobody is tatooing 666 on their forhead, and they can begin searching for the next 'conspiracy'
They announce all point releases of Linux and OSX. They also make sure they make sure to complain about every windows service pack, because they feel MS is being 'excessive', and "should have gotten it programmed correctly the first time".
The latter statement doesnt apply to them reporting on anything but MS products, nowever.
companies have been doing "expansion packs" for years, and at a great deal more than $5, too.
Anybody remember how Quake 3 really didnt come with any good multiplayer modes beyond deathmatch? And how they made a paid expansion which included more gameplay modes? And how they werent as good as the free, community created add-ons?
Hmm, i digressed, but the point is that this is nothing new, and a good deal cheaper than other expansions. The only thing new is this is the first time there has been an expansion pack on a console game (sort of... wasnt there some kind of piggyback carts, like with Sonic?).
You raise some common points, but I will give you my opinion on why they are flawed (for what its worth. I have experience in the area).
Why deal with having your own IT department, where you might not be able to hire the best people
Well, outsourcing doesnt guarantee you will get the best people, either. In most of my dealings with consultants, I find most of them to be technically useless (and I *AM* a consultant). The problem with most of them is that they can go into a place, tell them they need to change everything they do, then once the fit starts to hit the shan, they can just leave and move on to another job. They are what I call "Outsourced Serial Killers".
And this pattern can often happen over and over and over in the same company, and nobody learns their lesson. This is especially true in banks, where they have lots of money to spend, but their success in one area makes them think they are a good judge of people. Strangely enough, the most talented technical people are somewhat antisocial (or worse).
My opinion for why this is would be technical people want to see the world follow some kind of order (having ordered minds themselves), but it really doesnt (for the most part). I often say that "Why" is both the most important and the most useless question: this is especially true when asking what a person's motivation for some action would be. The answer is generally either their decision was made on a whim, or else there was some self-interested motivation to which they would never admit anyway. Thus, the "Why" is worthless. But I digress.
Anyway, the answer is that while you may not be hiring the best people, you need to at least hire adequate people. Its more important to hire technically inclined people than it is to just look at their resume; a resume is a one-sided story which will always make the candidate look good. You will never see somebody say they were riding a desk for four years until somebody found out what an incompetant they were and had them fired, or mention the time they accidentally turned off the email server or tripped over the powercord of the WAN router, or installed "hotbar" on their computer and told users about it as well (all real incidents, btw).
when you could let someone else, with more infrastructure to deal with that kind of thing, do it
What kind of infrastructure are you talking about? If you mean HR or being able to judge technical people, if you dont have that you cant expect to acquire it by an outsourcing injection. If your HR people cant judge good candidates, maybe you need to start outsourcing THEIR work instead. Recruitment firms like RHI are quite good at judging IT talent, and often look to connect prospects with employers. They require a fee to do so, but nothing in life is free, and they are also in a good position to judge good people.
Now if you are talking about an IT infrastructure, thats honestly the kind of thing a company needs to build for themselves. When you rely on another company to do your IT work, any added functionality or improvements you may need then become something you need to pay extra for. If you have IT staff, its just a project.
Another thing you need to take into account is normal wear/tear and growth. When stuff breaks, it should get replaced. When stuff gets old, it should be replaced. When new people are added to the network, the network may need to be expanded to accomodate more users. But when you are outsourcing everything, you have a static relationship, and any wear, growth, or improvements are something which will ultimately cost more money for the company footing the bill.
ALL companies who do IT outsourcing that I have seen are more content to let a network just decay than to proactively fix it. After all, if they get paid more to fix problems, why are they going to take money out of their pockets? Whereas staff, who get paid salaries, dont want to work overtime, and stuff breaking = staying late, which is to be avoided.
The only situations where outsourcing makes sense is in small businesses. In medium sized to enterprise corporations, outsourcing is the height of stupidity.
I know, I feel your pain. Ive worked at places where the IT staff gets no respect, and seen places where the support people are treated no better than janitors.
But now I make sure to work at places where my contributions are respected, and I am treated like a professional. There are ways to actually change the culture regarding IT staff, and I have often started the ball rolling.
The most important thing to make the change is to have a manager who will back his people. Second, and almost as important, is to have quality staff. I say almost, because if you have #2 w/o #1, nothing will change. If #2 is only a few quality people, the manager could possibly shuffle the slackers into minor positions, where they can at least do no further harm.
Now, to start the process, you need to clean up the infrastructure. This is important, because a good help desk can do nothing if the email server keeps going down, or the LAN is unstable.
Once that is done, you can just let the quality start speaking for itself. Then, when you have problem users who like to disrespect the IT staff, just make sure their problems always get lower priority. People who treat you like a professional, they get priority.
Another important thing is to have tracking software. You will generally find that maybe 10% of users account for at least 50% of the issues. Identify what their major malfunction is, and if it is them doing things they shouldnt (installing non-approved software, for example), lock their computers down so they cant mess up the machine, and make sure they dont spread their problems. Another issue is user's having software. You need to make sure that the IT staff is the only source of acquiring software for installation. If their are custom apps, one of the staff needs to take "ownership" of support.
One of the last, is YOU MUST HAVE GOOD TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION. This should be written by and for technical people: it shouldnt need to go into detail on how to do things like using a command prompt, editting the registry, etc, but it needs to have at-a-glance schematics of how the application works, installation, etc. Flowcharts are great for this.
Anyway, things can change, but its not easy. Once you master the 'psychology' of turning things around, you see it follows a common pattern.
BTW, you may want to read "The 48 Laws of Power": its an interesting book (if you like stories about history), and it lays out great ways for turning events to your favor, and how to avoid common and predictable mistakes. IMO, its better than most management and success books, and isnt even trying to be either.
My point is that non-MS software doesnt get 1% of the publicity that MS software does, especially on Slashdot where it would be of more interest.
If I were a linux user, I would be more interested in reading about potential security flaws in linux than reading about every single flaw in Windows. WTF does somebody who doesnt use Windows care? What I am saying is it is a total bias on the part of non-MS users to pretend that their software is so much more secure, when its not. Its just as bad, and has just as many flaws; all one needs to do is look at security websites to find this out. Instead, they would rather mod my posts down as a troll because Im saying something that, while true, isnt what they want to hear.
From your response, I gather this knee-jerk reaction is effecting over there as well. Security doesnt improve by sticking your head in the sand, guys.
Maybe the problem is that Management is more focused on something as petty and irrelevant as running their company/department. Lack of concern about IT issues used to bother me, but then I finally realized that IT is only a piece of the pie- it isnt the whole pie.
My only peeve is when companies do stupid things like outsource. It's basically selling your company's soul, and it actually costs MORE than having your own department.
Anyway, my point is that managers arent supposed to be 'clued in' to technology and IP rights. Thats why they hire IT staff and legal departments.
It is unclear why an exploit was made public before Apple resolved the problem
Maybe so it wouldnt be swept under the carpet, like all the other Apple security problems. They do this intentionally to bolser the image that Mac is somehow more 'secure' than Windows; even Slashdot is guilty of this, since every minor Windows, IE, Office, etc. issue is reported here, but when there is an issue with any other OS, browser, or office suite, it only gets reported about 5% of the time.
Its good to finally see a non-MS exploit finally making front page news. Hopefully it will set a trend, and Mac, Linux, Opera, Mozilla, etc people cant just keep their heads in the sand about security anymore. If you ignore security, it will go away.
If they are bad because they are just getting you to waste time, I think we need to know either what the hell you are in such a hurry for, or what you are doing that is so important otherwise;-)
I recently finished FF8 (ya, im way behind the times), and I had at least 60 hours into it. I really wasnt rushing, I just played the game, enjoyed myself, played the card game and did all the side quests, powered up my characters, etc.
On a game like FF8, in case you are familiar with it, you can actually finish the game rather quickly, and there isnt even a need to level up your characters much (there are even FAQs written on how to finish with hardly any level gain).
I guess my point is that by doing so you miss much of the charm of the game, most of the interesting things, and shorten your leisure time experience. I just played it in my free time, and was happy to do so. In fact, I was kind of sad when it was over, because it was a fun game.
If you feel that you are 'wasting your time' on a game, perhaps the game is doing something wrong. IMO, the current MMOGs are worse and less interesting time sinks than CRPG random encounters. Having it take 15 minutes just to fight a monster? Unbelievable. Thats why single player games are still way better than MMOGs.
I thought about going on a shooting spree, but I realized that all those guns and ammo are hard to aim without a keyboard/mouse.
Also, being able to switch from a handgun to a rifle was much slower than pressing the "4" key. Hell, who ever thought a rocket launcer could be so heavy... And dont even get me started on reloading ammo!!
Slashdot Mirror
And what reasons do you have for not wanting the police to have the ability to locate you, hmmmm?
I often get tired of doing so, myself.
The BIOS is what tells the computer what hard drive to use, what IDE devices are set, and where, what resources are going to be allocated (which is why BIOS's needed to be modified to allow further Plug and Play features), etc.
Lets try an experiment. Set your computer to only boot to a second, non-hard drive device. Now, see if Linux will boot properly. If not, Linus really DOES need the BIOS, doesnt it?
BTW, Windows doesnt need this "bios to boot" that you keep talking about. I dont know where you are getting your info from, but its all wrong.
The BIOS runs the hardware, then once the bootstrap is finished, it hands control over to the operating system (whether it is on a floppy, bootable CD, or hard-drive is irrelevant, since they are all technically operating systems). This is true whether you are using MS-DOS, PC-DOS, a Linux bootloader, or whatever.
Sounds like they are trying to discourage what may legally be considered 'fair use' by FUD... at least to me it does. Of course, reselling the same music on new formats (or even due to wear and tear) is one of the cornerstones of the recording industry. Its why CDs are made on low-quality plastic rather than higher quality, scratch resistant plastics. I also believe this is the main reason why they are resisting digital music: it will never wear out.
If you already own the music, is it legal to get MP3's of that music off the internet?
In my case, it would be a collection of around 100 tapes (not CDs, but tapes). The tapes still work, but obviously it isnt the most convient media format. Would it be legal to just get higher quality files of that music? Or is their contention that you dont own a license to the music, but are tied to whatever media you purchased it on? Im sure this runs into what boundaries there are for 'fair use', but IANAL.
You guys may want to look at interviews with BIOS designers. The people who first came up with the idea are amazed it is still being used, since it was assumed they were just doing a temporary solution until somebody made something better... Familiar story- old software, old hardware, old standards, etc. They impliment temporary solutions which somehow become the permanent solutions, but are ill suited for the task.
Anyway, once it comes out Im sure all the goofballs will ignore the fact that they were wrong, and just pick some other thing that MS is working on to complain about.
Linux, OSX, MS, etc will all be able to use DRM, because, as has been oft-repeated, its not being tied directly to one OS.
best... card game... ever...
All the spec is going to do is something computer people have wanted for years- to ditch the old archaic BIOS. Im quite positive mobo companies arent going to design themselves out of customers, but that doesnt stop the paranoid schizos from posting their wild conspiracy theories.
Just like all these issues that Slashdotters get their panties in a bunch over, once it arrives they will realize it isnt the start of armageddon, nobody is tatooing 666 on their forhead, and they can begin searching for the next 'conspiracy'
The latter statement doesnt apply to them reporting on anything but MS products, nowever.
Anybody remember how Quake 3 really didnt come with any good multiplayer modes beyond deathmatch? And how they made a paid expansion which included more gameplay modes? And how they werent as good as the free, community created add-ons?
Hmm, i digressed, but the point is that this is nothing new, and a good deal cheaper than other expansions. The only thing new is this is the first time there has been an expansion pack on a console game (sort of... wasnt there some kind of piggyback carts, like with Sonic?).
Makes me glad my network is running Windows!
Im sure glad my network runs on Windows!
So that means Monica Lewinski wrote the Suckit rootkit?
Wow, this guy has a job which allows him to play Final Fantasy XI all day, and he's complaining?
Vote early, vote often.
Just be sure not to use one of these during your teleconference with Tony Soprano...
You would think that big piece of cheese in the desk would stink by now!
IMO, it looks worse than before he started. BTW, "God" needs to learn to use a spellchecker before he posts a page on the internet.
Why deal with having your own IT department, where you might not be able to hire the best people
Well, outsourcing doesnt guarantee you will get the best people, either. In most of my dealings with consultants, I find most of them to be technically useless (and I *AM* a consultant). The problem with most of them is that they can go into a place, tell them they need to change everything they do, then once the fit starts to hit the shan, they can just leave and move on to another job. They are what I call "Outsourced Serial Killers".
And this pattern can often happen over and over and over in the same company, and nobody learns their lesson. This is especially true in banks, where they have lots of money to spend, but their success in one area makes them think they are a good judge of people. Strangely enough, the most talented technical people are somewhat antisocial (or worse).
My opinion for why this is would be technical people want to see the world follow some kind of order (having ordered minds themselves), but it really doesnt (for the most part). I often say that "Why" is both the most important and the most useless question: this is especially true when asking what a person's motivation for some action would be. The answer is generally either their decision was made on a whim, or else there was some self-interested motivation to which they would never admit anyway. Thus, the "Why" is worthless. But I digress.
Anyway, the answer is that while you may not be hiring the best people, you need to at least hire adequate people. Its more important to hire technically inclined people than it is to just look at their resume; a resume is a one-sided story which will always make the candidate look good. You will never see somebody say they were riding a desk for four years until somebody found out what an incompetant they were and had them fired, or mention the time they accidentally turned off the email server or tripped over the powercord of the WAN router, or installed "hotbar" on their computer and told users about it as well (all real incidents, btw).
when you could let someone else, with more infrastructure to deal with that kind of thing, do it
What kind of infrastructure are you talking about? If you mean HR or being able to judge technical people, if you dont have that you cant expect to acquire it by an outsourcing injection. If your HR people cant judge good candidates, maybe you need to start outsourcing THEIR work instead. Recruitment firms like RHI are quite good at judging IT talent, and often look to connect prospects with employers. They require a fee to do so, but nothing in life is free, and they are also in a good position to judge good people.
Now if you are talking about an IT infrastructure, thats honestly the kind of thing a company needs to build for themselves. When you rely on another company to do your IT work, any added functionality or improvements you may need then become something you need to pay extra for. If you have IT staff, its just a project.
Another thing you need to take into account is normal wear/tear and growth. When stuff breaks, it should get replaced. When stuff gets old, it should be replaced. When new people are added to the network, the network may need to be expanded to accomodate more users. But when you are outsourcing everything, you have a static relationship, and any wear, growth, or improvements are something which will ultimately cost more money for the company footing the bill.
ALL companies who do IT outsourcing that I have seen are more content to let a network just decay than to proactively fix it. After all, if they get paid more to fix problems, why are they going to take money out of their pockets? Whereas staff, who get paid salaries, dont want to work overtime, and stuff breaking = staying late, which is to be avoided.
The only situations where outsourcing makes sense is in small businesses. In medium sized to enterprise corporations, outsourcing is the height of stupidity.
But now I make sure to work at places where my contributions are respected, and I am treated like a professional. There are ways to actually change the culture regarding IT staff, and I have often started the ball rolling.
The most important thing to make the change is to have a manager who will back his people. Second, and almost as important, is to have quality staff. I say almost, because if you have #2 w/o #1, nothing will change. If #2 is only a few quality people, the manager could possibly shuffle the slackers into minor positions, where they can at least do no further harm.
Now, to start the process, you need to clean up the infrastructure. This is important, because a good help desk can do nothing if the email server keeps going down, or the LAN is unstable.
Once that is done, you can just let the quality start speaking for itself. Then, when you have problem users who like to disrespect the IT staff, just make sure their problems always get lower priority. People who treat you like a professional, they get priority.
Another important thing is to have tracking software. You will generally find that maybe 10% of users account for at least 50% of the issues. Identify what their major malfunction is, and if it is them doing things they shouldnt (installing non-approved software, for example), lock their computers down so they cant mess up the machine, and make sure they dont spread their problems. Another issue is user's having software. You need to make sure that the IT staff is the only source of acquiring software for installation. If their are custom apps, one of the staff needs to take "ownership" of support.
One of the last, is YOU MUST HAVE GOOD TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION. This should be written by and for technical people: it shouldnt need to go into detail on how to do things like using a command prompt, editting the registry, etc, but it needs to have at-a-glance schematics of how the application works, installation, etc. Flowcharts are great for this.
Anyway, things can change, but its not easy. Once you master the 'psychology' of turning things around, you see it follows a common pattern.
BTW, you may want to read "The 48 Laws of Power": its an interesting book (if you like stories about history), and it lays out great ways for turning events to your favor, and how to avoid common and predictable mistakes. IMO, its better than most management and success books, and isnt even trying to be either.
If I were a linux user, I would be more interested in reading about potential security flaws in linux than reading about every single flaw in Windows. WTF does somebody who doesnt use Windows care? What I am saying is it is a total bias on the part of non-MS users to pretend that their software is so much more secure, when its not. Its just as bad, and has just as many flaws; all one needs to do is look at security websites to find this out. Instead, they would rather mod my posts down as a troll because Im saying something that, while true, isnt what they want to hear.
From your response, I gather this knee-jerk reaction is effecting over there as well. Security doesnt improve by sticking your head in the sand, guys.
My only peeve is when companies do stupid things like outsource. It's basically selling your company's soul, and it actually costs MORE than having your own department.
Anyway, my point is that managers arent supposed to be 'clued in' to technology and IP rights. Thats why they hire IT staff and legal departments.
Maybe so it wouldnt be swept under the carpet, like all the other Apple security problems. They do this intentionally to bolser the image that Mac is somehow more 'secure' than Windows; even Slashdot is guilty of this, since every minor Windows, IE, Office, etc. issue is reported here, but when there is an issue with any other OS, browser, or office suite, it only gets reported about 5% of the time.
Its good to finally see a non-MS exploit finally making front page news. Hopefully it will set a trend, and Mac, Linux, Opera, Mozilla, etc people cant just keep their heads in the sand about security anymore. If you ignore security, it will go away.
I recently finished FF8 (ya, im way behind the times), and I had at least 60 hours into it. I really wasnt rushing, I just played the game, enjoyed myself, played the card game and did all the side quests, powered up my characters, etc.
On a game like FF8, in case you are familiar with it, you can actually finish the game rather quickly, and there isnt even a need to level up your characters much (there are even FAQs written on how to finish with hardly any level gain).
I guess my point is that by doing so you miss much of the charm of the game, most of the interesting things, and shorten your leisure time experience. I just played it in my free time, and was happy to do so. In fact, I was kind of sad when it was over, because it was a fun game.
If you feel that you are 'wasting your time' on a game, perhaps the game is doing something wrong. IMO, the current MMOGs are worse and less interesting time sinks than CRPG random encounters. Having it take 15 minutes just to fight a monster? Unbelievable. Thats why single player games are still way better than MMOGs.
Also, being able to switch from a handgun to a rifle was much slower than pressing the "4" key. Hell, who ever thought a rocket launcer could be so heavy... And dont even get me started on reloading ammo!!