Isn't it great when 20 people have the same thought at the same time (within the time it takes to type a post after reading the existing posts)? I've been having fun for the last hour watching this post's parent alternatively modded up as funny and down as redundant. Is there a catchy name for that effect? If not, I think we should invent one.
I haven't seen any replies yet on the trusted computing update, so I thought I'd give my take on the situation.
All you open source programmers, now is our chance. Palladium is still a few years down the road. If you truly believe that the open source model is better, then you believe that open source can do trusted computing better. Let's give them a better solution instead of complaining about Microsoft's solution. We have an unprecedented chance here to make a pre-emptive strike.
Anything that cannot be done securely in open source, cannot be done securely at all. After all, the machine code is always available. Let's put our energy to good use and come up with a better answer.
I think some great open source solutions have already been implemented for creating an environment which we trust to protect our personal data. These are always improving.
Now everyone brainstorm an answer to the other side of the question: How can open source provide an environment that companies like the MPAA and RIAA will trust to protect their proprietary data?
In my opinion one of the biggest victories against Microsoft in this judgment was the establishment of a uniform price schedule. No more special bait-and-switch deals. However, it occurs to me that this could actually hurt some businesses more than it helps. How do you think Microsoft will respond to this requirement and how can open source use this to its advantage?
They don't even need to release it under a free license for it to be benificial to open source. In my opinion, a reasonably priced smb server on a free operating system is far better than a high priced smb server on a high priced proprietary system. I think open source advocates hinder progress too often by the "all free or nothing" syndrome.
Proving an API does not affect security without having access to it is a bit difficult.
From the final decree:
To determine and enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, duly authorized
representatives of the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and
subject to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following:
a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code,
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of Microsoft,
which may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this
Final Judgment.
This article made me want to send money to Nambia right now. How much would each slashdotter have to send to equal Microsoft's $2000 (if you ignore the $9000 debit for OS licenses)?
Joe User needs to find a knowledgeable friend or his friendly local LUG
I couldn't agree with you more. Most people won't try out Linux without knowing someone who knows what they are doing. My parents are still learning the finer points of email, but they use Mandrake 9.0 just fine because I take care of all the difficult stuff for them. People who don't know someone are usually the adventurous type who pick up a boxed set and are therefore willing to do a little bit of learning to submit a good bug report. The only other group I can think of are admins who are forced by policy to use linux at work. They should know what they are doing anyway. All three types of people can benefit from a LUG.
I don't think there are many people using Linux because it came pre-installed on their computer, although that might change with these $200 Linux PCs starting to appear on the market. Although I think salesmen are discouraging the sales of these (they must work on commission).
I recently went to a large retail store to buy a computer for my grandmother and saw what looked like 2 identical computers. One was $200 and one was $300. I use Mandrake and LFS at home and W2K and Sun at work so it didn't click that the $200 computer was running KDE. I made a remark to the salesman and he said, "you don't want that one, it's linux."
With just a little training he could have said, "That's a linux system. All you're going to do is word processing and email? This will be perfect for you. It's reliable, low cost, and software upgrades are free. This row of printers will work great with that system." It almost makes me want to hang out there for a couple of hours each Saturday as a volunteer "Linux Marketing Specialist." Come on now, if they have it in inventory they should at least know something about it.
I think Microsoft had a legal basis for their objection, whether we like it or not. I haven't personally looked at the licenses but I'm willing to bet it contains unambiguous language regarding the matter. In other words, the license agreement probably stated that Microsoft had at least some rights to say HOW the licenses were resold. The article states that Kmart responded to the objection by clarifying exactly which licenses are to be sold (only those used at the business, not the resell licenses). They didn't dispute Microsoft's claim about the other licenses.
In my opinion, there needs to be some sort of legislation regarding what can and can't be put into a license agreement. Otherwise, people really have no argument because they agreed to the contract when they started using the software. And the average user doesn't have the ability to negotiate a different licensing agreement. I don't think there is language in personal licensing agreements leading to the scenarios you described, but if there were I don't think there is much we can do about it without changing some laws.
A large corporation like Kmart does have the ability to negotiate the terms of their license agreement. They were probably given some sort of discount in exchange for a clause preventing reassignment. However, it is easily arguable that Microsoft's monopoly gives it an unfair negotiating position. Don't like our terms? Well, try and get this somewhere else.
I am almost hoping that Microsoft succeeds in this. It will draw attention to the need for regulation of the MS monopoly and license agreements and hopefully motivate businesses and legislative bodies to support competition.
Crypto export laws were always kind of a joke anyway. It seems like the only difference was in the number of bits, like 1024-bit was prohibited but 128-bit was not. What's keeping people from just extending the code a little bit? Can someone who knows more about this please comment?
There's plenty of logic in it, from Microsoft's point of view. If people aren't forced to relicense the software, then Microsoft can't make money on the same copies of software twice.
Besides you haven't exchanged money for a tangible asset, you've exchanged money for the right to use a tangible asset. When you rent a house you can't sell it to another person or even rent it out to another person without the owner's permission.
You make some good points, but they don't seem to match with your conclusions. In my opinion the facts you stated support the conclusion that this is a perfect next generation project for a research agency.
Also, I think most people understand that the models are simplified. Eliminating all but the major variables is a useful engineering tool in understanding the problem. In your freshman physics class when you solve the ball dropping off of the building problem you don't include every possible effect acting on the ball, but you still get a very useful answer. And part of the reason we want to put a station there is to study the intricacies of the problem further. Having an object physically there will help us to expand our understanding of all the variables involved.
All that soundproofing stuff is too complicated. On my computer I just reversed the polarity on the clock generator so it runs at negative 1.7 GHz. Now my cpu runs cold instead of hot and I don't need any pesky cooling fans.
If you want to actually send your position over a satellite, get a ham radio license.
Ham radio operators have been doing this for years. They can even use a handheld radio to send their GPS position over the International Space Station using APRS. Of course, no one makes a nice all-in-one GPS/handheld unit for us.
I don't know if these rino units will really catch on. The range of these things is only about a half a mile with buildings and stuff around. At that range, you can almost always see a common landmark, if you can't see each other. Still, if you're going to use both a GPS and a radio, it's better than lugging both around. And they look pretty cool, besides. A better application might be on cell phones. Then the first sentence of every conversation wouldn't be "where you at?" Aren't they doing something like this for 911 reasons anyway?
You make a good point. While I do not wish to be held liable for minor usability issues, I do wish to be held liable for producing a site that cannot be easily used by the disabled. For most people, using a particular website is a mere convenience. For the disabled, it could be a major benefit.
I'm not saying that I want an immediate monetary liability, but I should be required to bring my site into compliance with some reasonable standard within a reasonable amount of time when notified in a reasonable manner.
Complying with these standards is not rocket science. In fact, in my opinion is it more difficult to design a non-compliant site than to design a compliant one. Especially when you have a willing and intelligent customer giving you free feedback.
You make a good point. While the post was factually inconsistent with respect to this specific article, it does bring up a valid argument for switching to Linux in general. It probably shouldn't have been modded up in the first place, but that's what M2 is for. Bottom line to posters and moderators: Read the article first!
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it great when 20 people have the same thought at the same time (within the time it takes to type a post after reading the existing posts)? I've been having fun for the last hour watching this post's parent alternatively modded up as funny and down as redundant. Is there a catchy name for that effect? If not, I think we should invent one.
Oh, you mean the other Washington.
All you open source programmers, now is our chance. Palladium is still a few years down the road. If you truly believe that the open source model is better, then you believe that open source can do trusted computing better. Let's give them a better solution instead of complaining about Microsoft's solution. We have an unprecedented chance here to make a pre-emptive strike.
Anything that cannot be done securely in open source, cannot be done securely at all. After all, the machine code is always available. Let's put our energy to good use and come up with a better answer.
I think some great open source solutions have already been implemented for creating an environment which we trust to protect our personal data. These are always improving.
Now everyone brainstorm an answer to the other side of the question:
How can open source provide an environment that companies like the MPAA and RIAA will trust to protect their proprietary data?
In my opinion one of the biggest victories against Microsoft in this judgment was the establishment of a uniform price schedule. No more special bait-and-switch deals. However, it occurs to me that this could actually hurt some businesses more than it helps. How do you think Microsoft will respond to this requirement and how can open source use this to its advantage?
That's what I keep Netscape around for. Flash works just fine on Netscape for Linux.
Sure, if you consider notepad and Internet Explorer to be a "full" desktop.
They don't even need to release it under a free license for it to be benificial to open source. In my opinion, a reasonably priced smb server on a free operating system is far better than a high priced smb server on a high priced proprietary system. I think open source advocates hinder progress too often by the "all free or nothing" syndrome.
Now that you mention it I think my trs-80 laptop is 64-bit because it can add two 64-bit numbers.
This article made me want to send money to Nambia right now. How much would each slashdotter have to send to equal Microsoft's $2000 (if you ignore the $9000 debit for OS licenses)?
I don't think there are many people using Linux because it came pre-installed on their computer, although that might change with these $200 Linux PCs starting to appear on the market. Although I think salesmen are discouraging the sales of these (they must work on commission).
I recently went to a large retail store to buy a computer for my grandmother and saw what looked like 2 identical computers. One was $200 and one was $300. I use Mandrake and LFS at home and W2K and Sun at work so it didn't click that the $200 computer was running KDE. I made a remark to the salesman and he said, "you don't want that one, it's linux."
With just a little training he could have said, "That's a linux system. All you're going to do is word processing and email? This will be perfect for you. It's reliable, low cost, and software upgrades are free. This row of printers will work great with that system." It almost makes me want to hang out there for a couple of hours each Saturday as a volunteer "Linux Marketing Specialist." Come on now, if they have it in inventory they should at least know something about it.
In my opinion, there needs to be some sort of legislation regarding what can and can't be put into a license agreement. Otherwise, people really have no argument because they agreed to the contract when they started using the software. And the average user doesn't have the ability to negotiate a different licensing agreement. I don't think there is language in personal licensing agreements leading to the scenarios you described, but if there were I don't think there is much we can do about it without changing some laws.
A large corporation like Kmart does have the ability to negotiate the terms of their license agreement. They were probably given some sort of discount in exchange for a clause preventing reassignment. However, it is easily arguable that Microsoft's monopoly gives it an unfair negotiating position. Don't like our terms? Well, try and get this somewhere else.
I am almost hoping that Microsoft succeeds in this. It will draw attention to the need for regulation of the MS monopoly and license agreements and hopefully motivate businesses and legislative bodies to support competition.
Crypto export laws were always kind of a joke anyway. It seems like the only difference was in the number of bits, like 1024-bit was prohibited but 128-bit was not. What's keeping people from just extending the code a little bit? Can someone who knows more about this please comment?
Besides you haven't exchanged money for a tangible asset, you've exchanged money for the right to use a tangible asset. When you rent a house you can't sell it to another person or even rent it out to another person without the owner's permission.
Also, I think most people understand that the models are simplified. Eliminating all but the major variables is a useful engineering tool in understanding the problem. In your freshman physics class when you solve the ball dropping off of the building problem you don't include every possible effect acting on the ball, but you still get a very useful answer. And part of the reason we want to put a station there is to study the intricacies of the problem further. Having an object physically there will help us to expand our understanding of all the variables involved.
NAND gates are used in TTL and CMOS circuits that are more common that ECL logic, which uses mainly NOR gates.
I read on Microsoft's web site that you can only use roman numerals in OS X.
All that soundproofing stuff is too complicated. On my computer I just reversed the polarity on the clock generator so it runs at negative 1.7 GHz. Now my cpu runs cold instead of hot and I don't need any pesky cooling fans.
I can create a virus and then sue anti-virus companies for distributing my virus "signature" in their software, which is obviously a derivative work.
Another idea is to apply for a patent and then sue for patent infringement. Does anyone know if the buffer overflow technique has been patented yet?
Is this the same spam filtering they use on hotmail that filters almost everything except spam?
I don't know if these rino units will really catch on. The range of these things is only about a half a mile with buildings and stuff around. At that range, you can almost always see a common landmark, if you can't see each other. Still, if you're going to use both a GPS and a radio, it's better than lugging both around. And they look pretty cool, besides. A better application might be on cell phones. Then the first sentence of every conversation wouldn't be "where you at?" Aren't they doing something like this for 911 reasons anyway?
Not if you are a Canadian sailor.
I'm not saying that I want an immediate monetary liability, but I should be required to bring my site into compliance with some reasonable standard within a reasonable amount of time when notified in a reasonable manner.
Complying with these standards is not rocket science. In fact, in my opinion is it more difficult to design a non-compliant site than to design a compliant one. Especially when you have a willing and intelligent customer giving you free feedback.
What's wrong with this standard?
You make a good point. While the post was factually inconsistent with respect to this specific article, it does bring up a valid argument for switching to Linux in general. It probably shouldn't have been modded up in the first place, but that's what M2 is for. Bottom line to posters and moderators: Read the article first!