"Because printers are sold cheaply (presumably at a loss), it's not surprising that printer reliability has gone down the shitter. Manufacturers are cutting corners when producing printers. Inkjet printers today are made out of cheap plastic where metal should be used, resulting in a fragile product likely to jam paper"
That is why I hung on to my old HP 672C for 7 years. Until it died.
Cheap ink (refurb carts), and it was built like a tank.
I now have a salvaged Okidata Okipage 4 LED-laser printer (given to me, as it was going to be junked), and haven't had my first toner go out yet (over a year).
The crisp B/W of that printer is completely sufficent for my printing needs, and I've not even considered buying a new color ink jet.
"f the Kazaa guys have done it right they may even be able to wave the good old DMCA under the Recording Industry Ass. of America's nose if they try to crack the system as well (oh the irony!"
They can't use the DMCA against the RIAA. What, did you think that law was meant for use by anyone NOT a multinational, multi megacorp cartel, with a history of practicing collusion?
What do you take this country for, a place that practices equal protection under the law?;)
This "protection" in K-Lite 2.4.0 isn't much, but at least it's a start. What needs to happen is a change in the engine itself, one that uses something other than an IP address to identify and route traffic to nodes on the network.
I'm not a programmer, so bear with me. How about the software assigning a random "address" to each file request, one that goes away after completion?
Or, what if the whole p2p network operates as some sort of distributed proxy server?
"This would only be fair if the publisher themselves had the overhead of generating the standards to begin with.
I'm ambivalent about this decision - yes, laws are public domain, but to deprive organisations that exist for the public good of income is surely bad."
Please re-read what you wrote.
To allow LAWS to be kept private is tyrrany. How do you protest a law you feel is unjust if you can't re-publish it without the permission of the copyright holder?
And yes, this is possible in building codes... What if some corporate interest influences a local standards org that writes building codes to rubber stamp a RETROACTIVE change in home design that requires, for instance, handicap ramps, rails, etc to be installed in all _EXISTING_ homes before they could be sold?
Say that the interest is a company that sells the service of installing such retrofitting of such accomodations. And that they influenced people in that org with money.
Given that this is private business we are talking about, this would be completely LEGAL, as it's outside the laws governing POLITICAL campaigns and lobbying!
The people in the standards org duitfully pocket their dosh, put the requirements into their code, and the city council rubber stamp it.
Now, not only can opponents NOT have the right to KNOW what these new standards are, they can't republish them for the purposes of showing other citizens that they were ARBITRARILY done so as to require EVERY homeowner who wants to sell their home buy the services of the company that bought the change in the law to begin with, as they are so specific that only they are equipped to do it at that time.
And competitors have to pay to license the IP.
So does every homeowner, or else have their property rendered worthless.
"It's be interesting to put together an Active X control that just annoys the crap out of anyone that downloads it, and includes a Gator-like EULA.
Maybe Judges, legislators, etc, would consider the consequences a little more if every half hour they get a pop-up on their screen with words similar to "You're an ass!", "Screw you, loser", and "Rebooting now, and there's nothing you can do about it either, because YOU agreed to the EULA, moron!"
So, a virus would be legal so long as it had a click this EULA?
UNREAL!
On the upside, this ruling also would seem to make it completely legal to use AD BLOCKING software, as well as browsers that block popups.
I use Opera, and frankly get AMAZED how shitty the web is when IE is used.
I know that Linux could be easily modified to run on something like IBM's PPC 970 chip, but will we be able to buy motherboards, hard drives, keyboards, sound cards, etc that will work with it?
I have my doubts as to whether MS will be able to succeed in this effort... IF they do, it will have to be an incrimental thing. Suddenly having your OS refuse to let you install other software, and your hardware like the mouse refusing to talk to your PC unless it has it's DRM key from Redmond would cause Redmond to be BURNED TO THE GROUND by an outraged public....
Most likely, it will be able to be disabled at first. But then content won't be available... So you turn it on... And at first it's not really annoying... Then it gets more annoying... SLOWLY.
Microsoft knows how to make incrimental changes, and to use the "escalator". THAT is the danger.
"Like most new Windows features, I don't see anything in this that the consumer actually wants, I think it is just a way to force yet another upgrade on us."
And the public will eventually figure this out. Indeed, I think they have already. Windows XP wasn't exactly the huge boost in sales, or cause for "upgrades" that earlier `Doze releases were.
Although I have to say I like XP, and think it is a better `Doze in that it gives you the compatability of 9X with the stability of 2K (well, most of it anyway).
I don't think Windows is a bad desktop OS. I think it's a great one. But Microsoft has yet to display ANY serious understanding of security, which is why I don't much like Windows as a server OS, at least, without a LOT of work to lock it down.
Indeed, they DO show some clue in how they did 2K3 Server, which differs from 2K Server in only two ways:
1. XP GUI. Yay. The thing I HATE about XP.... 2. By default, services are TURNED OFF, access is DENIED, and the admin has to GRANT it.
Which is a step in the right direction.
Microsoft has simply gotten bitten by the bug of control... They keep SAYING that they own your software. Now they want to ACTUALLY accomplish this.
Will it work? Only if the average person is TRULY as stupid and ignorant as the most cynical and pessimistic would believe.
"I don't know about computer hardware going up in value, but I'm hoping some company will start selling non DRM processors as soon as Intel and Microsoft pull out of the market. They might be as fast as Intel or AMD processors but I'm sure there would be a market for them."
What's wrong with current processors? I mean, do we REALLY need 3GHz machines? No, I've a couple that are below 1GHz and unless I wanted to play some insane game at high resolution, it's perfectly fine.
Besides, even if Digital Restrictions Management is in the processors, it likely can be ignored or disabled by the BIOS. For AMD or Intel to come out with a processor that REQUIRED DRM to operate would be to commit corporate suicide.
Look for crafty motherboard makers like Abit, etc (who cater to the geeks) to add DRM disabling as a feature just as they do with overclocking. Abit doesn't exactly care what Intel or AMD thinks of them, they care about what their CUSTOMERS want.
Which is why they make easily overclockable boards, the infamous (I had one) BP6 dual celeron board, etc.
There WILL be a market for a board that locks out DRM. If only among the tinfoil hat crowd, but given the OUTRAGE over the P3 serial number, I can't imagine there not being a lot of noise over DRM in the processor... At least enough to get the option to turn it off.
When this crap comes out I already KNOW what I'll do...
I'll go with the PS2 or the Xbox for gaming and go purely Linux on my server and desktops. The only reason why I have Doze is for games... But with PC games getting increasingly dumbed down, etc, I may as well get a console (haven't had one since the Genesis, and before that the Atari 2600).
Or, alternately, I may look to purchasing an Apple. I'd prefer to HAVE an Apple, as I love the idea of a truly consumer friendly Unix OS (though Linux is improving in leaps and bounds), but their hardware, being that they are themselves a monopoly in their market, is twice as expensive as common x86 systems...
The question is, how LONG before OS's without Digital Restrictions Management become DMCA violations?
And, how does one reconcile OSS or the GPL in particular with DRM? It wouldn't seem POSSIBLE to put a "secret" DRM layer into any GNU licensed OS without providing source on what the DRM is.
THAT is the real reason why Microsoft is prepared to push Palladium. Palladium makes the xAA's orgasm, and furthers MS's desktop monopoly.
"The US pattent office is well on it's way to push every profitable tech offshore... hey, maybe I should pattent that !"
You are dead on there... The United States is PATENTING itself out of it's tech lead.
Patents when they work as originally intended are supposed to ENCOURAGE, not stifle innovation. Our current "rubber stamp" patent process encourages innovation only in the Microsoft meaning of the word: command and coercion.
Software and business method patents should NOT be granted. Patents should only be granted for MATERIAL things, actual PRODUCTS.
But, this is the 21st Century world. Intellectual Property is the new oil, the new gold, and the rules are set up so that only the largest multi corporate cartels can own, develop, or exploit any of it.
Anyone outside of that strata who comes up with a new idea will either find it stolen from them (because they can't afford to patent it or even FIGHT patent infringement by a corp), or will find themselves sued out of existance by any IP cartel that finds itself threatened.
Look at Napster... One of the last truly "killer apps" invented. Instead of BUYING it and running it as a paid service, while they could have done so, the RIAA chose to sue the world.
The p2p battle is just the beginning of what is going to happen all over the place in the coming years: UNDERGROUND IP.
"You're a corporation. You're supposed to keep quite and smirk at protesters. You do not allow your employees to come out and hold their own "anti protest", especially when a large percentage of the computing world think you're unbalanced anyway!"
Good point.
Sort of gives them legitimacy, doesn't it?
Not to mention the idiocy... SCO WAS a Linux company!
"It also opens up the music industry to more competition, seeing as an artist no longer needs a WHOLE ALBUM in order to distribute music. "
MOD PARENT UP!
Bingo! You hit the point!
The RIAA justifies the 90-95% "take" it gets from album sales by the "high cost of production", distrobution, etc.
If mediocre artists, capable of maybe 2-3 good songs every couple years just put their efforts INTO producing and releasing those tracks, suddenly their production costs are a fraction of what they were when they were expected to produce another 8-9 filler tracks to complete an album.
And if they are just released as singles, and sold by download (you could sell them as a 3-4 track "EP" as well on CD) the distrobution costs would be negligible.
The RIAA _NEEDS_ to keep production and distrobution costs HIGH. If they don't, then they will lose their monopoly.
"Would you rather spend $ 40.00 go to watch talented artists like Rush or Dream Theatre, or the talentless Karaoke artists like Eminem or Will Smith ?"
Rush has been around forever (and can't even get NOMINATED to the increasingly inaccurately named "rock and roll" hall of fame, and they are STILL one of, if not THE best live act to see.
And their albums are ALL worth buying. True, their newer albums aren't quite as good as the ones from the 70's and 80's, but they are still FAR better than the likes of Creed, Linkin Park, etc.
"Someone comes with a solution to both problems and you still bitch? C'mon! You want to sell an album, fine, make an album's worth of material and sell for less than $16"
I'd have no problem paying $20 per album if every album that sold for that by a prominent artist were as good as:
Led Zeppelin IV Van Halen "1984" Fleetwood Mac "Rumors" Eagles "One of these Nights" Alanis Morisette "Jagged Little Pill" Police "Synchronicity" Rush "Power Windows" Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon" David Lee Roth "Eat Em and Smile"
Yep, I'd pay $20 for any of those to hear it the first time. Indeed, you STILL do... The RIAA still charges close to $20 for those albums BECAUSE they still sell!
You know, it'd be interesting if the album sales charts included catalog albums... I'd bet that a LOT of new albums are getting beat every week by continuing sales of classics...
"I think the last concept album I heard was back in the late eighties/early nineties with Queensryches "Operation Mindcrime"."
A GREAT album! But I can't think of ANY truly "killer" albums either rock or pop since the early 90's. Rush's "2112" is my all time favorite concept album.
"i've listened to Linkin Parks CD's - but they don't have any sort of "Flow" I can figure out."
The biggest problem with modern rock, to me, is the lack of melody. There IS no flow or melody, today's rock songs are a bunch of stock chords and riffs played with heavy distortion+ whiney vocals by guy from Seattle.
We dont' have killer riff based melodic rock with BIG drums, scorching guitar solos, etc being done anymore. And the songs themselves are so depressing lyrically that they might as well be COUNTRY songs.
Rock's biggest problem is that it's stuck in this dead end post-Cobain sound that is incredibly played out, and has stuck around past it's usefulness a LOT longer than the glam hair band sound of the late 80's that it replaced.
Rock needs another Hendrix, Van Halen, or Cobain to reinvent itself, and so far, no one has been that artist.
BTW, rock, historically outsells ANY other genres 2-1 or better. Rock sales have been in decline since 1989, when it had over 50% of TOTAL sales, to today, where it's barely 30%. (go to riaa.com and check it out). Until rock rights itself and starts gaining in sales and marketshare, it follows that album sales overall will decline.
Rock, has ALWAYS been an album format, not singles. You buy rock bands and albums, not "hits". Which is another problem I have with modern rock radio, that it's done in a Top 40 type presentation rather than ALBUM ORIENTED presentation as it used to be.
Pop/rap/country, etc album sales just aren't increasing in sales fast enough to make up for the decline of rock.
"I think in the end they are going to find that while a band might sell 500 thousand albums at $15.00-plus, they might sell 2 million of that one good song for.99 cents...and 1 million of that other song on the album that was pretty good. And then the die hard fans are still going to buy the whole thing, so they will make money off of the rest of the "filler," too."
It would mean the return of the SINGLE. Which died in the 1980's, mainly BECAUSE the labels didn't want people to be able to buy the radio hit songs. Is it of any coincedence that the ALBUM has suffered as a consequence?
Artists used to use singles as a hook to get you to buy the full album. And if you loved it (as I'd imagine everyone DID love albums like Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" since it's sold like 15 MILLION plus in the US alone) they'd buy the album, not the single next time out.
Another release forgotten and no longer done is the EP. An EP has 3-4 songs on it, and is between an album and a single.
Maybe that is what the typical artist should be shooting for today, since it seems that it's ALL they can do to strive for 3-4 decent songs.
"This system rewards good music and consumer choice. I mean we all know this scenario quite well: You buy a cd and find that maybe three songs are good and the rest suck. Now why should we pay for stuff we don't want. Artists are lazy because they feel as long as they make one or two good songs the rest can be garbage and we still, those that purchase the cds, have to buy everything. As for the artists, they need to realize that they will make more money this way cause they could produce and sell song by song instead of trying to put up a bunch of songs together to make a cd. They also get to know exactly what songs are working and what are not by the amount each is downloaded."
This also would REDUCE production costs, not to mention distrobution costs to a FRACTION of what they are to produce 11-14 songs for an album.
If they have only 2-3 good songs, better to only PRODUCE those songs and sell them.
Even the MEDIOCRE artists would benefit from that kind of system. And the great artists, who can actually produce 10 good songs on one album (are there any of those anymore?!) would make even more money.
Look, most of these artists are inmature, spoiled brats who suddenly become very rich, and think that their thoughts are RELEVANT because of that (examples: Jewel's rants in 2000, Natalie Maines, etc). Does it surprise you at ALL that they are easily manipulated by record execs?
Who _REALLY_ loses if the filler is ignored, and albums of 2 good+10 filler songs quit selling? The LABELS. Not the artists. The artists would quickly adjust and not produce the filler songs. But the record labels make their money from MASSIVE markup on a piece of plastic, a jewel case, and some printed paper. That piece of plastic has to have 10+ tracks on it, even if 9 of them are filler.
"The more they argue the more free p2p downloads become entrenched in society, thus leaving them with less money."
And that, honestly, IS the problem.
Free P2P will never go away. Not unless the US becomes a true police state (I just heard Hillary Rosen orgasm at that thought). A new generation of IP spoofing, encrypted P2P apps will come out at any time.
The solution to P2P is offer a BETTER one at a reasonable price. Which I think, even the RIAA knows will eventually happen, but they are fighting it tooth and nail BECAUSE they know that once music is openly and LEGALLY distributed in this way, their need to exist (and command of the lion's share of the profits) is DONE.
A buck a song is reasonable for new releases. For catalog albums (ie, more than 5 years old), I think there should be a $20-30 flat rate subscription fee (or even with a reasonable maximum # of downloads, say 100), with that fee being distributed in micropayments at the end of the month to the artists you download.
Artists might think that that isn't a lot, but there ARE over 40 million MP3 downloaders out there, and IF this were paid direct to artists, they'd make far more than they do now.
Actually, I think the RIAA has gone as far as it can... It's latest attempts to get LEGAL rights to hack and sabotage computers (Orrin Hatch) is being RIDICULED in the media.
And the latest proposal to get the FBI involved will only further widen the opposition. Civil liberties are at stake here. Historically, civil liberties, once taken, are NEVER given back!
So I am somewhat optimistic that the RIAA has been stopped at what they have now, and wont' be allowed to go further. Yes, they can subpoena IP's. But a new generation of p2p apps will make that irrelevant by masking IP's To go further than that (ie getting someone's IP), the RIAA WILL HAVE to have the ability to hack PC's and networks. They know this. Indeed, what they are ACTUALLY asking for is an exception to their OWN DMCA law to allow THEM to break encryption without "probable cause". It amounts to "private" law enforcement. I can't see the government EVER allowing that.
That is why they are putting their credibility on the line and desperately pushing for it like a Hail Mary pass...
The success of iTunes FURTHER makes their arguments look bad.
The typical album of today, even by a "good" artist like Alanis Morisette (who had one masterpiece "Jagged little pill", and listening to anything she's done since is like TAKING that pill) has AT MOST 3-4 songs (usually less) worth listening to.
If we can just buy the 1, 2, 3, 4, etc songs we actually *WANT* we are blowing off the rest of the album.
Frankly, my response is such:
IF you want to sell your music as an ALBUM, then MAKE A GOOD ALBUM! I'm sick of the 2-3 catchy, radio friendly songs+8-9 songs of CRAP that is on most albums.
Simply put, the artists of today aren't as good as the artists of the last 20-30 years. "Dark Side of the Moon" (Pink Floyd), "Fair Warning" (Van Halen), "Back in Black" (AC/DC), "Power Windows (Rush)", "Led Zeppelin IV", "Rumors" (Fleetwood Mac) just aren't produced anymore...
Even Metallica has sucked since the Black Album, with MAYBE 1-2 good songs per release. I've not heard their new one yet, and with their actions back in `99-2000 against their fans, I'm disinclined to buy it no matter HOW good it may be.
But, back in those days (70's, 80's that I remember), bands had to PRODUCE great albums or ELSE. There wasn't the huge marketing machine that exists today, and bands had to survive on REPUTATION. Especially in rock. The rock of today absolutely SUCKS, maybe because these bands get marketed and sell BEFORE they've played the clubs for years and refined a sound...
I can't RECALL the last non-classic album I ever bought and LOVED EVERY TRACK.
"Jagged Little Pill" was probably the last one. A TRULY killer album.
The problem with this, and I see this being a BIG problem for SCO, is that they keep moving the goalposts...
First, "United Linux" was ok...
Then it was users are ok, then they were not ok.
Then, United Linux was NOT ok... Then they pulled their distro, WEEKS after saber rattling.
Here's what SCO is wanting to accomplish, and I don't see ANY WAY they can get away with this, even assuming there IS code in the kernel or some other critical part of the OS that they own:
SCO isn't disclosing the code, not because it's worried about it "revealing a trade secret", but becuase it's worried about it being REMOVED and no longer being an issue.
SCO doesn't WANT the offending code removed. They want it it stay, and use it as a lever to turn Linux into a CLOSED system that they, and they alone, "own". That's more or less what Ranson Love and Caldera were lamenting about not being possible back when they started implimenting PER SEAT licenses in Caldera.
That's why they won't reveal it. Assuming it's there, and that, given the consistency of their rants, is a stretch.
I don't see how they could get away with that in court... The court is either going to find against SCO, or against Linux. If it finds against Linux, the code will be ordered to be REMOVED, and the guilty parties fined. SCO cannot keep the code secret AND use it as evidence in a trial, as the defendants have a right to ALL plantiff evidence..
"I suggest counter-suing for defamation of character. Just how much is an international reputation worth? Linus could end up owning SCO. Now *that* BE would justice. -rick
Geez, like "I hope I can countersue the drug dealers so I can own their crackhouse." Ick!"
McBride must be receiving some EXCEPTIONAL crack to think he has a spit into an incoming F5 TORNADO's chance of winning any of this shit...
SLAPP suit?
Is Linus the resident of a state with anti-SLAPP laws?
"In addition, I think Novell must have a strong case otherwise they wouldn't have spoken out. They were not part of the original debate, so why would they enter it if they didn't have solid grounds to prove their point? If you own shares of SCO, you may want to ask the board why the CEO/president is running around wasting company money on frivolous lawsuits when they could be spending it on product development."
No way Novell stated what they did today without checking the facts and consulting the lawyers. They have TOO MUCH riding on this, with Netware 7 basically being a Linux distro+NDS... (a product I'd love to migrate my Netware 5 WAN to)
We've been wondering WHY IBM hasn't countersued...
Slashdot Mirror
"Because printers are sold cheaply (presumably at a loss), it's not surprising that printer reliability has gone down the shitter. Manufacturers are cutting corners when producing printers. Inkjet printers today are made out of cheap plastic where metal should be used, resulting in a fragile product likely to jam paper"
That is why I hung on to my old HP 672C for 7 years. Until it died.
Cheap ink (refurb carts), and it was built like a tank.
I now have a salvaged Okidata Okipage 4 LED-laser printer (given to me, as it was going to be junked), and haven't had my first toner go out yet (over a year).
The crisp B/W of that printer is completely sufficent for my printing needs, and I've not even considered buying a new color ink jet.
"I doubt there is a way... netstat kills your privacy :P"
I'm pleading ignorance here, but couldn't you have the p2p network firewall such requests? Route them to 127.0.0.1 or something?
"f the Kazaa guys have done it right they may even be able to wave the good old DMCA under the Recording Industry Ass. of America's nose if they try to crack the system as well (oh the irony!"
;)
They can't use the DMCA against the RIAA. What, did you think that law was meant for use by anyone NOT a multinational, multi megacorp cartel, with a history of practicing collusion?
What do you take this country for, a place that practices equal protection under the law?
This "protection" in K-Lite 2.4.0 isn't much, but at least it's a start. What needs to happen is a change in the engine itself, one that uses something other than an IP address to identify and route traffic to nodes on the network.
I'm not a programmer, so bear with me. How about the software assigning a random "address" to each file request, one that goes away after completion?
Or, what if the whole p2p network operates as some sort of distributed proxy server?
"This would only be fair if the publisher themselves had the overhead of generating the standards to begin with.
I'm ambivalent about this decision - yes, laws are public domain, but to deprive organisations that exist for the public good of income is surely bad."
Please re-read what you wrote.
To allow LAWS to be kept private is tyrrany. How do you protest a law you feel is unjust if you can't re-publish it without the permission of the copyright holder?
And yes, this is possible in building codes... What if some corporate interest influences a local standards org that writes building codes to rubber stamp a RETROACTIVE change in home design that requires, for instance, handicap ramps, rails, etc to be installed in all _EXISTING_ homes before they could be sold?
Say that the interest is a company that sells the service of installing such retrofitting of such accomodations. And that they influenced people in that org with money.
Given that this is private business we are talking about, this would be completely LEGAL, as it's outside the laws governing POLITICAL campaigns and lobbying!
The people in the standards org duitfully pocket their dosh, put the requirements into their code, and the city council rubber stamp it.
Now, not only can opponents NOT have the right to KNOW what these new standards are, they can't republish them for the purposes of showing other citizens that they were ARBITRARILY done so as to require EVERY homeowner who wants to sell their home buy the services of the company that bought the change in the law to begin with, as they are so specific that only they are equipped to do it at that time.
And competitors have to pay to license the IP.
So does every homeowner, or else have their property rendered worthless.
"It's be interesting to put together an Active X control that just annoys the crap out of anyone that downloads it, and includes a Gator-like EULA.
Maybe Judges, legislators, etc, would consider the consequences a little more if every half hour they get a pop-up on their screen with words similar to "You're an ass!", "Screw you, loser", and "Rebooting now, and there's nothing you can do about it either, because YOU agreed to the EULA, moron!"
So, a virus would be legal so long as it had a click this EULA?
UNREAL!
On the upside, this ruling also would seem to make it completely legal to use AD BLOCKING software, as well as browsers that block popups.
I use Opera, and frankly get AMAZED how shitty the web is when IE is used.
VERY brilliant points...
Ok, if we dump the x86 hardware, what do we use?
I know that Linux could be easily modified to run on something like IBM's PPC 970 chip, but will we be able to buy motherboards, hard drives, keyboards, sound cards, etc that will work with it?
I have my doubts as to whether MS will be able to succeed in this effort... IF they do, it will have to be an incrimental thing. Suddenly having your OS refuse to let you install other software, and your hardware like the mouse refusing to talk to your PC unless it has it's DRM key from Redmond would cause Redmond to be BURNED TO THE GROUND by an outraged public....
Most likely, it will be able to be disabled at first. But then content won't be available... So you turn it on... And at first it's not really annoying... Then it gets more annoying... SLOWLY.
Microsoft knows how to make incrimental changes, and to use the "escalator". THAT is the danger.
"Like most new Windows features, I don't see anything in this that the consumer actually wants, I think it is just a way to force yet another upgrade on us."
And the public will eventually figure this out. Indeed, I think they have already. Windows XP wasn't exactly the huge boost in sales, or cause for "upgrades" that earlier `Doze releases were.
Although I have to say I like XP, and think it is a better `Doze in that it gives you the compatability of 9X with the stability of 2K (well, most of it anyway).
I don't think Windows is a bad desktop OS. I think it's a great one. But Microsoft has yet to display ANY serious understanding of security, which is why I don't much like Windows as a server OS, at least, without a LOT of work to lock it down.
Indeed, they DO show some clue in how they did 2K3 Server, which differs from 2K Server in only two ways:
1. XP GUI. Yay. The thing I HATE about XP....
2. By default, services are TURNED OFF, access is DENIED, and the admin has to GRANT it.
Which is a step in the right direction.
Microsoft has simply gotten bitten by the bug of control... They keep SAYING that they own your software. Now they want to ACTUALLY accomplish this.
Will it work? Only if the average person is TRULY as stupid and ignorant as the most cynical and pessimistic would believe.
"I don't know about computer hardware going up in value, but I'm hoping some company will start selling non DRM processors as soon as Intel and Microsoft pull out of the market. They might be as fast as Intel or AMD processors but I'm sure there would be a market for them."
What's wrong with current processors? I mean, do we REALLY need 3GHz machines? No, I've a couple that are below 1GHz and unless I wanted to play some insane game at high resolution, it's perfectly fine.
Besides, even if Digital Restrictions Management is in the processors, it likely can be ignored or disabled by the BIOS. For AMD or Intel to come out with a processor that REQUIRED DRM to operate would be to commit corporate suicide.
Look for crafty motherboard makers like Abit, etc (who cater to the geeks) to add DRM disabling as a feature just as they do with overclocking. Abit doesn't exactly care what Intel or AMD thinks of them, they care about what their CUSTOMERS want.
Which is why they make easily overclockable boards, the infamous (I had one) BP6 dual celeron board, etc.
There WILL be a market for a board that locks out DRM. If only among the tinfoil hat crowd, but given the OUTRAGE over the P3 serial number, I can't imagine there not being a lot of noise over DRM in the processor... At least enough to get the option to turn it off.
When this crap comes out I already KNOW what I'll do...
I'll go with the PS2 or the Xbox for gaming and go purely Linux on my server and desktops. The only reason why I have Doze is for games... But with PC games getting increasingly dumbed down, etc, I may as well get a console (haven't had one since the Genesis, and before that the Atari 2600).
Or, alternately, I may look to purchasing an Apple. I'd prefer to HAVE an Apple, as I love the idea of a truly consumer friendly Unix OS (though Linux is improving in leaps and bounds), but their hardware, being that they are themselves a monopoly in their market, is twice as expensive as common x86 systems...
The question is, how LONG before OS's without Digital Restrictions Management become DMCA violations?
And, how does one reconcile OSS or the GPL in particular with DRM? It wouldn't seem POSSIBLE to put a "secret" DRM layer into any GNU licensed OS without providing source on what the DRM is.
THAT is the real reason why Microsoft is prepared to push Palladium. Palladium makes the xAA's orgasm, and furthers MS's desktop monopoly.
"The US pattent office is well on it's way to push every profitable tech offshore... hey, maybe I should pattent that !"
You are dead on there... The United States is PATENTING itself out of it's tech lead.
Patents when they work as originally intended are supposed to ENCOURAGE, not stifle innovation. Our current "rubber stamp" patent process encourages innovation only in the Microsoft meaning of the word: command and coercion.
Software and business method patents should NOT be granted. Patents should only be granted for MATERIAL things, actual PRODUCTS.
But, this is the 21st Century world. Intellectual Property is the new oil, the new gold, and the rules are set up so that only the largest multi corporate cartels can own, develop, or exploit any of it.
Anyone outside of that strata who comes up with a new idea will either find it stolen from them (because they can't afford to patent it or even FIGHT patent infringement by a corp), or will find themselves sued out of existance by any IP cartel that finds itself threatened.
Look at Napster... One of the last truly "killer apps" invented. Instead of BUYING it and running it as a paid service, while they could have done so, the RIAA chose to sue the world.
The p2p battle is just the beginning of what is going to happen all over the place in the coming years: UNDERGROUND IP.
"I wonder how many SCO employees are actually pro-linux, but are afraid to say anything, against their own company....."
Does SCaldera have any employees left who aren't lawyers?
"You're a corporation. You're supposed to keep quite and smirk at protesters. You do not allow your employees to come out and hold their own "anti protest", especially when a large percentage of the computing world think you're unbalanced anyway!"
Good point.
Sort of gives them legitimacy, doesn't it?
Not to mention the idiocy... SCO WAS a Linux company!
"It also opens up the music industry to more competition, seeing as an artist no longer needs a WHOLE ALBUM in order to distribute music. "
MOD PARENT UP!
Bingo! You hit the point!
The RIAA justifies the 90-95% "take" it gets from album sales by the "high cost of production", distrobution, etc.
If mediocre artists, capable of maybe 2-3 good songs every couple years just put their efforts INTO producing and releasing those tracks, suddenly their production costs are a fraction of what they were when they were expected to produce another 8-9 filler tracks to complete an album.
And if they are just released as singles, and sold by download (you could sell them as a 3-4 track "EP" as well on CD) the distrobution costs would be negligible.
The RIAA _NEEDS_ to keep production and distrobution costs HIGH. If they don't, then they will lose their monopoly.
"Would you rather spend $ 40.00 go to watch talented artists like Rush or Dream Theatre, or the talentless Karaoke artists like Eminem or Will Smith ?"
Rush has been around forever (and can't even get NOMINATED to the increasingly inaccurately named "rock and roll" hall of fame, and they are STILL one of, if not THE best live act to see.
And their albums are ALL worth buying. True, their newer albums aren't quite as good as the ones from the 70's and 80's, but they are still FAR better than the likes of Creed, Linkin Park, etc.
"Someone comes with a solution to both problems and you still bitch? C'mon! You want to sell an album, fine, make an album's worth of material and sell for less than $16"
I'd have no problem paying $20 per album if every album that sold for that by a prominent artist were as good as:
Led Zeppelin IV
Van Halen "1984"
Fleetwood Mac "Rumors"
Eagles "One of these Nights"
Alanis Morisette "Jagged Little Pill"
Police "Synchronicity"
Rush "Power Windows"
Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"
David Lee Roth "Eat Em and Smile"
Yep, I'd pay $20 for any of those to hear it the first time. Indeed, you STILL do... The RIAA still charges close to $20 for those albums BECAUSE they still sell!
You know, it'd be interesting if the album sales charts included catalog albums... I'd bet that a LOT of new albums are getting beat every week by continuing sales of classics...
"I think the last concept album I heard was back in the late eighties/early nineties with Queensryches "Operation Mindcrime"."
A GREAT album! But I can't think of ANY truly "killer" albums either rock or pop since the early 90's. Rush's "2112" is my all time favorite concept album.
"i've listened to Linkin Parks CD's - but they don't have any sort of "Flow" I can figure out."
The biggest problem with modern rock, to me, is the lack of melody. There IS no flow or melody, today's rock songs are a bunch of stock chords and riffs played with heavy distortion+ whiney vocals by guy from Seattle.
We dont' have killer riff based melodic rock with BIG drums, scorching guitar solos, etc being done anymore. And the songs themselves are so depressing lyrically that they might as well be COUNTRY songs.
Rock's biggest problem is that it's stuck in this dead end post-Cobain sound that is incredibly played out, and has stuck around past it's usefulness a LOT longer than the glam hair band sound of the late 80's that it replaced.
Rock needs another Hendrix, Van Halen, or Cobain to reinvent itself, and so far, no one has been that artist.
BTW, rock, historically outsells ANY other genres 2-1 or better. Rock sales have been in decline since 1989, when it had over 50% of TOTAL sales, to today, where it's barely 30%. (go to riaa.com and check it out). Until rock rights itself and starts gaining in sales and marketshare, it follows that album sales overall will decline.
Rock, has ALWAYS been an album format, not singles. You buy rock bands and albums, not "hits". Which is another problem I have with modern rock radio, that it's done in a Top 40 type presentation rather than ALBUM ORIENTED presentation as it used to be.
Pop/rap/country, etc album sales just aren't increasing in sales fast enough to make up for the decline of rock.
"I think in the end they are going to find that while a band might sell 500 thousand albums at $15.00-plus, they might sell 2 million of that one good song for .99 cents...and 1 million of that other song on the album that was pretty good. And then the die hard fans are still going to buy the whole thing, so they will make money off of the rest of the "filler," too."
It would mean the return of the SINGLE. Which died in the 1980's, mainly BECAUSE the labels didn't want people to be able to buy the radio hit songs. Is it of any coincedence that the ALBUM has suffered as a consequence?
Artists used to use singles as a hook to get you to buy the full album. And if you loved it (as I'd imagine everyone DID love albums like Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" since it's sold like 15 MILLION plus in the US alone) they'd buy the album, not the single next time out.
Another release forgotten and no longer done is the EP. An EP has 3-4 songs on it, and is between an album and a single.
Maybe that is what the typical artist should be shooting for today, since it seems that it's ALL they can do to strive for 3-4 decent songs.
"This system rewards good music and consumer choice. I mean we all know this scenario quite well: You buy a cd and find that maybe three songs are good and the rest suck. Now why should we pay for stuff we don't want. Artists are lazy because they feel as long as they make one or two good songs the rest can be garbage and we still, those that purchase the cds, have to buy everything. As for the artists, they need to realize that they will make more money this way cause they could produce and sell song by song instead of trying to put up a bunch of songs together to make a cd. They also get to know exactly what songs are working and what are not by the amount each is downloaded."
This also would REDUCE production costs, not to mention distrobution costs to a FRACTION of what they are to produce 11-14 songs for an album.
If they have only 2-3 good songs, better to only PRODUCE those songs and sell them.
Even the MEDIOCRE artists would benefit from that kind of system. And the great artists, who can actually produce 10 good songs on one album (are there any of those anymore?!) would make even more money.
Look, most of these artists are inmature, spoiled brats who suddenly become very rich, and think that their thoughts are RELEVANT because of that (examples: Jewel's rants in 2000, Natalie Maines, etc). Does it surprise you at ALL that they are easily manipulated by record execs?
Who _REALLY_ loses if the filler is ignored, and albums of 2 good+10 filler songs quit selling? The LABELS. Not the artists. The artists would quickly adjust and not produce the filler songs. But the record labels make their money from MASSIVE markup on a piece of plastic, a jewel case, and some printed paper. That piece of plastic has to have 10+ tracks on it, even if 9 of them are filler.
"The more they argue the more free p2p downloads become entrenched in society, thus leaving them with less money."
And that, honestly, IS the problem.
Free P2P will never go away. Not unless the US becomes a true police state (I just heard Hillary Rosen orgasm at that thought). A new generation of IP spoofing, encrypted P2P apps will come out at any time.
The solution to P2P is offer a BETTER one at a reasonable price. Which I think, even the RIAA knows will eventually happen, but they are fighting it tooth and nail BECAUSE they know that once music is openly and LEGALLY distributed in this way, their need to exist (and command of the lion's share of the profits) is DONE.
A buck a song is reasonable for new releases. For catalog albums (ie, more than 5 years old), I think there should be a $20-30 flat rate subscription fee (or even with a reasonable maximum # of downloads, say 100), with that fee being distributed in micropayments at the end of the month to the artists you download.
Artists might think that that isn't a lot, but there ARE over 40 million MP3 downloaders out there, and IF this were paid direct to artists, they'd make far more than they do now.
Actually, I think the RIAA has gone as far as it can... It's latest attempts to get LEGAL rights to hack and sabotage computers (Orrin Hatch) is being RIDICULED in the media.
And the latest proposal to get the FBI involved will only further widen the opposition. Civil liberties are at stake here. Historically, civil liberties, once taken, are NEVER given back!
So I am somewhat optimistic that the RIAA has been stopped at what they have now, and wont' be allowed to go further. Yes, they can subpoena IP's. But a new generation of p2p apps will make that irrelevant by masking IP's To go further than that (ie getting someone's IP), the RIAA WILL HAVE to have the ability to hack PC's and networks. They know this. Indeed, what they are ACTUALLY asking for is an exception to their OWN DMCA law to allow THEM to break encryption without "probable cause". It amounts to "private" law enforcement. I can't see the government EVER allowing that.
That is why they are putting their credibility on the line and desperately pushing for it like a Hail Mary pass...
The success of iTunes FURTHER makes their arguments look bad.
The typical album of today, even by a "good" artist like Alanis Morisette (who had one masterpiece "Jagged little pill", and listening to anything she's done since is like TAKING that pill) has AT MOST 3-4 songs (usually less) worth listening to.
If we can just buy the 1, 2, 3, 4, etc songs we actually *WANT* we are blowing off the rest of the album.
Frankly, my response is such:
IF you want to sell your music as an ALBUM, then MAKE A GOOD ALBUM! I'm sick of the 2-3 catchy, radio friendly songs+8-9 songs of CRAP that is on most albums.
Simply put, the artists of today aren't as good as the artists of the last 20-30 years. "Dark Side of the Moon" (Pink Floyd), "Fair Warning" (Van Halen), "Back in Black" (AC/DC), "Power Windows (Rush)", "Led Zeppelin IV", "Rumors" (Fleetwood Mac) just aren't produced anymore...
Even Metallica has sucked since the Black Album, with MAYBE 1-2 good songs per release. I've not heard their new one yet, and with their actions back in `99-2000 against their fans, I'm disinclined to buy it no matter HOW good it may be.
But, back in those days (70's, 80's that I remember), bands had to PRODUCE great albums or ELSE. There wasn't the huge marketing machine that exists today, and bands had to survive on REPUTATION. Especially in rock. The rock of today absolutely SUCKS, maybe because these bands get marketed and sell BEFORE they've played the clubs for years and refined a sound...
I can't RECALL the last non-classic album I ever bought and LOVED EVERY TRACK.
"Jagged Little Pill" was probably the last one. A TRULY killer album.
The problem with this, and I see this being a BIG problem for SCO, is that they keep moving the goalposts...
First, "United Linux" was ok...
Then it was users are ok, then they were not ok.
Then, United Linux was NOT ok... Then they pulled their distro, WEEKS after saber rattling.
Here's what SCO is wanting to accomplish, and I don't see ANY WAY they can get away with this, even assuming there IS code in the kernel or some other critical part of the OS that they own:
SCO isn't disclosing the code, not because it's worried about it "revealing a trade secret", but becuase it's worried about it being REMOVED and no longer being an issue.
SCO doesn't WANT the offending code removed. They want it it stay, and use it as a lever to turn Linux into a CLOSED system that they, and they alone, "own". That's more or less what Ranson Love and Caldera were lamenting about not being possible back when they started implimenting PER SEAT licenses in Caldera.
That's why they won't reveal it. Assuming it's there, and that, given the consistency of their rants, is a stretch.
I don't see how they could get away with that in court... The court is either going to find against SCO, or against Linux. If it finds against Linux, the code will be ordered to be REMOVED, and the guilty parties fined. SCO cannot keep the code secret AND use it as evidence in a trial, as the defendants have a right to ALL plantiff evidence..
"This is clearly based on the assumption that stockbrokers have the first fucking clue about technical issues."
SOMEONE does... A stock doesn't drop by more than 25% on an otherwise UP day by accident...
"I suggest counter-suing for defamation of character. Just how much is an international reputation worth? Linus could end up owning SCO. Now *that* BE would justice. -rick
Geez, like "I hope I can countersue the drug dealers so I can own their crackhouse." Ick!"
McBride must be receiving some EXCEPTIONAL crack to think he has a spit into an incoming F5 TORNADO's chance of winning any of this shit...
SLAPP suit?
Is Linus the resident of a state with anti-SLAPP laws?
"Only 1 distro countersues. Why ????
;)
If all the linux companies sued SCO at once , it would be pretty cool."
It'd be cool if Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, Lindows, Gentoo, Debian, Lycoris, et all became "United Linux" to take them down
"In addition, I think Novell must have a strong case otherwise they wouldn't have spoken out. They were not part of the original debate, so why would they enter it if they didn't have solid grounds to prove their point? If you own shares of SCO, you may want to ask the board why the CEO/president is running around wasting company money on frivolous lawsuits when they could be spending it on product development."
;)
No way Novell stated what they did today without checking the facts and consulting the lawyers. They have TOO MUCH riding on this, with Netware 7 basically being a Linux distro+NDS... (a product I'd love to migrate my Netware 5 WAN to)
We've been wondering WHY IBM hasn't countersued...
I think we got the answer today
The Novell allegation makes that a LOT easier.