It's not about the content industry selling to geeks. That's not the issue. The issue is that the content industry is preventing geeks from building their own players.
More like preventing geeks from building their own legal players.
They think (like so many these days) that they can stop people doing things by merely passing a law. They don't seem to realise that if that law seems unfair or even borderline-illegal that many people will simply not abide by it.
Plus as I've said many times before, by not selling to the geeks, they're removing required functionality from the peple who can eventually work their way around it - legal or not.
Trying to convince a Geek that he isn't in control of what his or her own system can do - and that they should turn such control over to some faceless entity - simply isn't going to work.
Similarly trying to convince someone who's just paid $15+ (or regional equivalent) on music or movies that they're not allowed to choose where and how they can play them back isn't going to work. Not anymore. And then if Joe Average buys a CD that will only work (whether play or rip-to-whatever) using Joe Geek's Dodgy-Decoder then they're not going to care whether it's illegal. They're just going to care that they can get their money worth out of what they've bought.
I can kind of understand where the Content Industry is coming from. But unfortunately (for them) they're fighting a losing battle. And by trying to make their way the only legal way, they're actually pushing people to avoid copyright laws entirely.
until a year ago Linux would ship with a bunch of services running by default, which woudn't usually matter (just remember sendmail's default - open relay). but any reasonable sysadmin (or organization) would either stop those services or block them on the firewall level.
Even a year ago and before, distros (certainly Mandrake) would often end the installation process by telling you what services would be active at boot-time, and were you sure you wanted them to be?
That was often where I'd turn off anything (insecure or otherwise) that I didn't want running.
Plus, think of the location of many of the so-called "critical issues" that get patched.
I'm totally sick of patches for Media Player, Internet Explorer or Outlook Express.
They say that the vulnerability could affect your comptuer even if you don't use the software or have it set as default. This is having to download patches (often small, occasionally not) for software I don't even use and don't fucking want.
This is why Linux (and I assume other *BSD and other *nix) has an advantage. Not only can you actually do a minimum install without all the useless shite, but most Linux distros will tell you at the end of the installation which services will be on as defaults and are you sure you want them active.
Yes, you still need to be on your toes to keep patched. But the simple fact is that it doesn't go out of it's way to introduce potential vulnerabilities.
Does anyone really trust MS Updates anymore? There've been to many horror stories of Updates breaking other stuff for 100% of Windows Admins to trust Windows Update immediately.
Plus there are the basic "rules" about never installing something on a production machine until you're sure it doesn't break anything, combined with never installing anything until someone else has dicovered all of the bugs.
Put these together, and it becomes hard to risk putting patches on anymore.
Also there is another factor. What if you test something only to find out that the "fixed" version fundamentally breaks a mission-critical system?
Unless you can can re-code your mission-critical system, or get MS or the Software Vendor to fix the but that breaks - well, it leaves you either vulnerable or unable to work.
It doesn't change the fact that updates should be deployed ASAP, but there are times when it's simply ot a viable option.
Microsoft (and other companies too, but MS seems the worst) seems to insist on solely pushing their updates via the Internet. And to the extent where each machine does it - as far as I know there's no way of setting up a "Windows update cache" machine.
This does break the fundamental "Isolation" rule of computer security.
It's almost like they're running scared of anyone updating stuff that isn't under their control - but at the expense of stopping machines/networks being able to be totally self-contained.
With GPL software, you don't have to pay for the CD. You can download it, get it off a mate, or whatever. Buying it is just one method. And if you buy it, you can still give a copy to a mate, as long as you respect the licensing and copyright. (And publish any code-changes you make if you distribute an altered version)
With a CD, you have to buy the CD. (Technically...)
They don't want you to tape from radio, or copy a second version for your car, or do a copy off of a mate. If you make any changes and distribute it, you get called nasty names like "Bootlegger" and get a C&D before you can say "Grey Album".
It's not about owning the content. It's about what the people who sell the content let us do. GPL is nice. It gives some restrictions, but still lets you do things like sharing and letting friends try out something before commiting their funds.
It's all about power, control, and which side of the line their restrictions fall. DRM wants you to have none, GPL wants you to have some.
Well, from what I understand of GPL and stuff, wouldn't it mean that there'd be a greater amount of resources available out there?
Plus as GPL code (correct me if I'm wrong) then Solaris source could be studied to see if anything would work in Linux.
Also, a third(?) open-source *nix is bound to help increase the software available across all three.
If your listening to a huge random playlist of songs in Winamp, but want to hear a particular song after the one your listening to, just select the song in the playlist and hit 'Q'. Winamp will finish the currently playing song, then play the song you selected, then return to randomly shuffling the tracks automatically.
Huh? Which version/plugin is required for this funcitonality? It certianly doesn't seem to show up in the 5.0 which I use at work.
(Sorry, but I've been messed around by release dates slipping in the UK Entertainment Industry for enough years to "Beleive it when I see it" - and even then wait for cock-ups)
You must've read a different article/page then me, then.
All I saw was links to software that allows you to access an iTunes share. Something that, as far as I can tell, is allowable. I saw nothing about stripping out DRM.
This has NOTHING to do with the DRM methodology in purchased iTMS songs!
Except that it allows people to use Linux (or whatever) to access your legitimately-bought DRM-protected songs without having to break the encryption.
And this can only be a good thing.
My first instinct was to either ignore this statement, or challenge it. Then my brain kicked in.
Problem is many people read (and sometimes even say) this statement meaning "free as in beer", when if you apply it to "free as in speech" then you can't do anything but agree.
Information doesn't want to be contained or restricted. (And end-users don't want it to be)
Put something anywhere and someone will want to read it. Also (and companies please listen up here...) there are still people who are actually willing to pay for the chance to do so. (We're not all freeloaders all the time, y'know?)
But if you don't make a legitimate method of accessing files available, someone will code around it - especially on Linux/Unix/whatever. In this case, it looks like they're trying to allow you to contact an iTunes share, and beginning on allowing you to access the store. This ain't decryption/"piracy", this is someone trying to play by the rules except on a different platform.
Yes, some platforms are going to be less cost-effective. Yes, there will always be someone who refuses to pay, or who just wants to rip out the DRM and fling it on P2P-R-Us.
Yes, chances are they wouldn't get quite the lockin or profit-margin that they're really after. But if they made iTunes more easily accessable from multiple platforms (including hardware-players), then it would reduce[*] the number of attempts to reverse-engineer everything.
Make it more accessible, and less people will try to force it to be so.
[*] It won't stop it entirely. Never gonna happen. But by reducing the attempts, you also reduce the resource-pool for everyone else trying.
Currently I'd say there were two main groups of homebrew software. Those trying to emulate legitimate use (information wants to be Free - speech), and those trying to crack it wide-open (information wants to be "free" - beer). but once the former's out in the wild, what's to stop the latter from building on it.
Funny you should mention improved Outlook Support as one of your main reasons for not switching to Palm from PPC.
For me it's the other way around.
Palm can support Outlook. Even if it's limited, it's usually one of it's advertising points. However, how easily can a PocketPC support anything other than Outlook? Especially on Windows.
I'd love a PocketPC. Yes, it's Windows/MS, but despite that I wouldn't mind one. They do look somewhat more powerful than Palms. But I like using Palm Desktop and don't (and won't - or at least would rather not) use Outlook.
If there was an official method of using something different, then it would only be the price keeping me from making my next PDA a PocketPC. Instead it's the Outlook-lock-in keeping me from Pocket PC. (Price is merely a barrier from me upgrading at all from my faithful but outdated m105.
As to the other point...
Yeah, maybe Palm's playing catchup. But they don't really have as much to compete with internally.
With PocketPC, there will be the vendors keeping up with each other, as someone wanting a PocketPC doesn't guarantee them buying one particular brand. But with Palm, someone wanting one is mostly restricted to Sony or Palm - and as a result a lack of functions isn't so much of an internal liability.
As long as the functions show up eventually, then Palm-addicts will still buy Palm or Sony. Whereas if HP doesn't get the bleeding-edge tech then there are a host of other manufacturers who may benefit.
Yes, I'm not suggesting they should have moved the stuff in non-free to free at this point. I just wish that the current changes didn't have to hold up Sarge
Although to me that would have been the option making most sense, I guess there's also another side to it.
On the "Ship, then Change" side I've already said in another comment that it would have made more sense, and been more fair on the users.
Plus it'd fir with the sub-project names. Testing implies "This is how we want it, not to fine-tune". Unstable implies "Now we're going to change styuff around - caution, stuff may break."
Suddenly changing what can and can't go into the distribution seems very much "unstable" and not really "testing" to me. It would make more sense to make these changesin unstable.
However, there's also the "Change, then Ship" side. And there are one or two highly-valid points on this.
Surely changing the Social Contract is to do with how they wish to be perceived. Woody being contrary to this isn't a real problem. Old version, old agreements. But we've seen how slow Testing->Stable seems to take. So if they did ship first and then worry about the new ammendments, it could still be well over a year where the major branch doesn't conform to their contract. It would make them look hypocritical - which is probably worse than looking overly-cautious.
It just seems like by ammending the contract at this time, they've got themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whichever way they go, something's going to look wrong.
Why don't people just use open media formats to avoid these problems in the first place, though?
That's an easy one.
Firstly, there's people who make short clips. They'll use whatever they have. More and more often, this is the free junk that comes with Windows.
Secondly, there's people who encode full episodes of things. (Including amateur film companies releasing their own work)
Obviously they want to use as available a format as possible. So these are often the MPEG-related ones for really large files, and RealVideo for smaller ones. They could use the Ogg movie format, but not everyone would easily recognise it as a video format - or would look at the extension and go "That's not a Video File". (And you know that there'd be at least one...)
So they'd end up having to release multiple formats. And, sadly, that's rarely an option. (And even if it was, you'd always miss someone's pet-fave format)
Me neither. Personally I wouldn't buy it. But if Linux really is about choice (like what people often say here) then surely paying for extra functionality is a valid choice. It might not be the best or the most preferable choice, but it's one all the same.
I also use the nVidia binary drivers on my dual-boot system. Suddenly 3D things that crawled along nip along at a rather nice speed.
Yes, I'd rather they released the source so that a source or binary package could be downloaded from the usual places. But in the absence of that, closed drivers will do. (For me, anyway. But what I lvoe about Linux is that you can tailor it to your own requirements).
A pricey distribution that includes licensing and proprietary software?
Well, it's not the ideal. And it's not cheap. But suddenly there's another available (legitimate) option for Linux. I'm not sure I'd buy it personally. But anyone who wishes to use Linux (or switch from Windows), "needs" to be able to play Windows Media and RealMedia natively, "needs" the same DVD software they're used to, well this would be an option.
Hopefully down the line a lot of this will be available for free (whether "open" or "no cost") for general Linux use. but until that time, there's at least a way of paying for the additional funcitonality - which is more than there was this time last week.
This is starting to look a lot like a typical windows discussion.. Why go through all this, why not just use windows?
We use Linux because we want the freedom of the GPL and the freedom to download and compile OS apps and not get locked into restrictive licenses for proprietary codecs and applications.
Not to mention were basically a bunch of cheap bastards that like free shit... At least I am....
"Why not use Windows?" Well, perhaps 'cos Linux has a tendency to let you actually do more behind the scenes, and makes it easier (for geeks anyway) to remedy the majority of crashes without having to reach for the power-switch?
Yes, it's more open. That's great. Yes, it's (beer)free. Even better.
But if paying for certain items of software is the only way to get them, then I'd gladly pay to get extra features. (I'd just get everything else free (speec AND beer) instead.
I don't like licenses or proprietary codecs/file-formats. Unfortunately the Big Companies do. This causes a problem. As yes, in Linux I have the "freedom" to tweak any setttings I want. Sadly, if I want to play certain games or read certain formats I have to boot into Windows (or go without).
Not exactly "freedom".
This is not possible. What was recently voted on is a new social contract which forbids releasing any software, documentation or other product that isn't free. It's not just a decision that was made, or simply that a large number of people wanted it so that it's done. It's an actual contract upheld to its users by the entire Debian team. Doing a quick release of Sarge would not only be a violation of that contract, but it would be a violation of the entire spirit of Debian.
Perhaps what might have been a better idea would have been to state that the Social Contract Ammendment goes into play after Sarge becomes Stable.
"True to the Spirit Of Free" or not, making a change which forces a release to be put back on political issues rather than technical issues just doesn't seem fair on their Users who may have been waiting patiently for the next Stable release.
Personally, I don't use Debian, but I was considering looking at it. I was just waiting for Stable to catch up to the more recent innovations.
That ain't gonna happen any time soon, but it's a real shame.
From what I can tell from other replies, I think the problem is that although they're only blocking ISPs, one of this is kind of the ISP for the other Spanish ISPs.
Or, at least, the IP-address provider for the ISPs.
Quoth Microsoft:
"The commission is seeking to make new law that will have an adverse impact on intellectual property rights and the ability of dominant firms to innovate,"
Bloody hell, they say that like it's a bad thing.
Intellectual property rights are out of control. Without going into whether they're good or bad in themselves, they're definitely out of control and enforced for all of the wrong reasons at the moment.
And as for dominant firms unnovating, well this if often not a good thing. It either comes at the expense of the non-dominant competition or of the customer. (And occasionally be buying up the competition, but ruining the innovation by MS-corporate-decision-making)
If the law didn't allow them to get away with running roughshod, they'd actually have to try hard to be truly innovative. And I can't see how that'd be a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
They forget though that by not opening the door to that 2%, some of that 2% have the knowledge to blow it off it's hinges.
TiggsMore like preventing geeks from building their own legal players.
They think (like so many these days) that they can stop people doing things by merely passing a law. They don't seem to realise that if that law seems unfair or even borderline-illegal that many people will simply not abide by it.
Plus as I've said many times before, by not selling to the geeks, they're removing required functionality from the peple who can eventually work their way around it - legal or not.
Trying to convince a Geek that he isn't in control of what his or her own system can do - and that they should turn such control over to some faceless entity - simply isn't going to work.
Similarly trying to convince someone who's just paid $15+ (or regional equivalent) on music or movies that they're not allowed to choose where and how they can play them back isn't going to work. Not anymore. And then if Joe Average buys a CD that will only work (whether play or rip-to-whatever) using Joe Geek's Dodgy-Decoder then they're not going to care whether it's illegal. They're just going to care that they can get their money worth out of what they've bought.
I can kind of understand where the Content Industry is coming from. But unfortunately (for them) they're fighting a losing battle. And by trying to make their way the only legal way, they're actually pushing people to avoid copyright laws entirely.
TiggsMilitary or not, you can still get held up due to "Support Contracts".
TiggsEven a year ago and before, distros (certainly Mandrake) would often end the installation process by telling you what services would be active at boot-time, and were you sure you wanted them to be?
That was often where I'd turn off anything (insecure or otherwise) that I didn't want running.
Why can't Windows do something similar?
TiggsPlus, think of the location of many of the so-called "critical issues" that get patched.
I'm totally sick of patches for Media Player, Internet Explorer or Outlook Express.
They say that the vulnerability could affect your comptuer even if you don't use the software or have it set as default. This is having to download patches (often small, occasionally not) for software I don't even use and don't fucking want.
This is why Linux (and I assume other *BSD and other *nix) has an advantage. Not only can you actually do a minimum install without all the useless shite, but most Linux distros will tell you at the end of the installation which services will be on as defaults and are you sure you want them active.
TiggsYes, you still need to be on your toes to keep patched. But the simple fact is that it doesn't go out of it's way to introduce potential vulnerabilities.
It's easier said than done, though.
Does anyone really trust MS Updates anymore? There've been to many horror stories of Updates breaking other stuff for 100% of Windows Admins to trust Windows Update immediately.
Plus there are the basic "rules" about never installing something on a production machine until you're sure it doesn't break anything, combined with never installing anything until someone else has dicovered all of the bugs.
Put these together, and it becomes hard to risk putting patches on anymore.
Also there is another factor. What if you test something only to find out that the "fixed" version fundamentally breaks a mission-critical system?
Unless you can can re-code your mission-critical system, or get MS or the Software Vendor to fix the but that breaks - well, it leaves you either vulnerable or unable to work.
It doesn't change the fact that updates should be deployed ASAP, but there are times when it's simply ot a viable option.
(Oh, and "fired" is still a valid term here)
Actually, this is a valid problem.
Microsoft (and other companies too, but MS seems the worst) seems to insist on solely pushing their updates via the Internet. And to the extent where each machine does it - as far as I know there's no way of setting up a "Windows update cache" machine.
This does break the fundamental "Isolation" rule of computer security.
TiggsIt's almost like they're running scared of anyone updating stuff that isn't under their control - but at the expense of stopping machines/networks being able to be totally self-contained.
What my (limited) understanding...
With GPL software, you don't have to pay for the CD. You can download it, get it off a mate, or whatever. Buying it is just one method. And if you buy it, you can still give a copy to a mate, as long as you respect the licensing and copyright. (And publish any code-changes you make if you distribute an altered version)
With a CD, you have to buy the CD. (Technically...)
They don't want you to tape from radio, or copy a second version for your car, or do a copy off of a mate. If you make any changes and distribute it, you get called nasty names like "Bootlegger" and get a C&D before you can say "Grey Album".
It's not about owning the content. It's about what the people who sell the content let us do. GPL is nice. It gives some restrictions, but still lets you do things like sharing and letting friends try out something before commiting their funds.
It's all about power, control, and which side of the line their restrictions fall. DRM wants you to have none, GPL wants you to have some.
TiggsWell, from what I understand of GPL and stuff, wouldn't it mean that there'd be a greater amount of resources available out there?
Plus as GPL code (correct me if I'm wrong) then Solaris source could be studied to see if anything would work in Linux.
Also, a third(?) open-source *nix is bound to help increase the software available across all three.
TiggsHear hear.
No more unremoveable spyware...
...and as an added bonus, the ability to easily ditch IE and WMP.
Huh? Which version/plugin is required for this funcitonality? It certianly doesn't seem to show up in the 5.0 which I use at work.
TiggsSo, iTMS-Europe for November 2005, then?
(Sorry, but I've been messed around by release dates slipping in the UK Entertainment Industry for enough years to "Beleive it when I see it" - and even then wait for cock-ups)
(Tiggs:-1, Cynical)You must've read a different article/page then me, then.
All I saw was links to software that allows you to access an iTunes share. Something that, as far as I can tell, is allowable. I saw nothing about stripping out DRM.
Except that it allows people to use Linux (or whatever) to access your legitimately-bought DRM-protected songs without having to break the encryption.
TiggsAnd this can only be a good thing.
My first instinct was to either ignore this statement, or challenge it. Then my brain kicked in.
Problem is many people read (and sometimes even say) this statement meaning "free as in beer", when if you apply it to "free as in speech" then you can't do anything but agree.
Information doesn't want to be contained or restricted. (And end-users don't want it to be)
Put something anywhere and someone will want to read it. Also (and companies please listen up here...) there are still people who are actually willing to pay for the chance to do so. (We're not all freeloaders all the time, y'know?)
But if you don't make a legitimate method of accessing files available, someone will code around it - especially on Linux/Unix/whatever. In this case, it looks like they're trying to allow you to contact an iTunes share, and beginning on allowing you to access the store. This ain't decryption/"piracy", this is someone trying to play by the rules except on a different platform.
Yes, some platforms are going to be less cost-effective. Yes, there will always be someone who refuses to pay, or who just wants to rip out the DRM and fling it on P2P-R-Us.
Yes, chances are they wouldn't get quite the lockin or profit-margin that they're really after. But if they made iTunes more easily accessable from multiple platforms (including hardware-players), then it would reduce[*] the number of attempts to reverse-engineer everything.
Make it more accessible, and less people will try to force it to be so.
[*] It won't stop it entirely. Never gonna happen. But by reducing the attempts, you also reduce the resource-pool for everyone else trying.
Currently I'd say there were two main groups of homebrew software. Those trying to emulate legitimate use (information wants to be Free - speech), and those trying to crack it wide-open (information wants to be "free" - beer). but once the former's out in the wild, what's to stop the latter from building on it.
TiggsFunny you should mention improved Outlook Support as one of your main reasons for not switching to Palm from PPC.
For me it's the other way around.
Palm can support Outlook. Even if it's limited, it's usually one of it's advertising points. However, how easily can a PocketPC support anything other than Outlook? Especially on Windows.
I'd love a PocketPC. Yes, it's Windows/MS, but despite that I wouldn't mind one. They do look somewhat more powerful than Palms. But I like using Palm Desktop and don't (and won't - or at least would rather not) use Outlook.
If there was an official method of using something different, then it would only be the price keeping me from making my next PDA a PocketPC. Instead it's the Outlook-lock-in keeping me from Pocket PC. (Price is merely a barrier from me upgrading at all from my faithful but outdated m105.
As to the other point...
Yeah, maybe Palm's playing catchup. But they don't really have as much to compete with internally.
With PocketPC, there will be the vendors keeping up with each other, as someone wanting a PocketPC doesn't guarantee them buying one particular brand. But with Palm, someone wanting one is mostly restricted to Sony or Palm - and as a result a lack of functions isn't so much of an internal liability.
As long as the functions show up eventually, then Palm-addicts will still buy Palm or Sony. Whereas if HP doesn't get the bleeding-edge tech then there are a host of other manufacturers who may benefit.
Although to me that would have been the option making most sense, I guess there's also another side to it.
On the "Ship, then Change" side I've already said in another comment that it would have made more sense, and been more fair on the users.
Plus it'd fir with the sub-project names. Testing implies "This is how we want it, not to fine-tune". Unstable implies "Now we're going to change styuff around - caution, stuff may break."
Suddenly changing what can and can't go into the distribution seems very much "unstable" and not really "testing" to me. It would make more sense to make these changesin unstable.
However, there's also the "Change, then Ship" side. And there are one or two highly-valid points on this.
Surely changing the Social Contract is to do with how they wish to be perceived. Woody being contrary to this isn't a real problem. Old version, old agreements. But we've seen how slow Testing->Stable seems to take. So if they did ship first and then worry about the new ammendments, it could still be well over a year where the major branch doesn't conform to their contract. It would make them look hypocritical - which is probably worse than looking overly-cautious.
It just seems like by ammending the contract at this time, they've got themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whichever way they go, something's going to look wrong.
TiggsThat's an easy one.
Firstly, there's people who make short clips. They'll use whatever they have. More and more often, this is the free junk that comes with Windows.
Secondly, there's people who encode full episodes of things. (Including amateur film companies releasing their own work)
TiggsObviously they want to use as available a format as possible. So these are often the MPEG-related ones for really large files, and RealVideo for smaller ones. They could use the Ogg movie format, but not everyone would easily recognise it as a video format - or would look at the extension and go "That's not a Video File". (And you know that there'd be at least one...)
So they'd end up having to release multiple formats. And, sadly, that's rarely an option. (And even if it was, you'd always miss someone's pet-fave format)
Me neither. Personally I wouldn't buy it. But if Linux really is about choice (like what people often say here) then surely paying for extra functionality is a valid choice. It might not be the best or the most preferable choice, but it's one all the same.
I also use the nVidia binary drivers on my dual-boot system. Suddenly 3D things that crawled along nip along at a rather nice speed.
Yes, I'd rather they released the source so that a source or binary package could be downloaded from the usual places. But in the absence of that, closed drivers will do. (For me, anyway. But what I lvoe about Linux is that you can tailor it to your own requirements).
A pricey distribution that includes licensing and proprietary software?
Well, it's not the ideal. And it's not cheap. But suddenly there's another available (legitimate) option for Linux. I'm not sure I'd buy it personally. But anyone who wishes to use Linux (or switch from Windows), "needs" to be able to play Windows Media and RealMedia natively, "needs" the same DVD software they're used to, well this would be an option.
Hopefully down the line a lot of this will be available for free (whether "open" or "no cost") for general Linux use. but until that time, there's at least a way of paying for the additional funcitonality - which is more than there was this time last week.
Tiggs"Why not use Windows?" Well, perhaps 'cos Linux has a tendency to let you actually do more behind the scenes, and makes it easier (for geeks anyway) to remedy the majority of crashes without having to reach for the power-switch?
Yes, it's more open. That's great. Yes, it's (beer)free. Even better.
But if paying for certain items of software is the only way to get them, then I'd gladly pay to get extra features. (I'd just get everything else free (speec AND beer) instead.
I don't like licenses or proprietary codecs/file-formats. Unfortunately the Big Companies do. This causes a problem. As yes, in Linux I have the "freedom" to tweak any setttings I want. Sadly, if I want to play certain games or read certain formats I have to boot into Windows (or go without).
Not exactly "freedom".
Perhaps what might have been a better idea would have been to state that the Social Contract Ammendment goes into play after Sarge becomes Stable.
"True to the Spirit Of Free" or not, making a change which forces a release to be put back on political issues rather than technical issues just doesn't seem fair on their Users who may have been waiting patiently for the next Stable release.
Personally, I don't use Debian, but I was considering looking at it. I was just waiting for Stable to catch up to the more recent innovations.
TiggsThat ain't gonna happen any time soon, but it's a real shame.
True, kids move faster than any text-speed locator could keep up. However it would still give you a better clue than pure guesswork.
Plus, if worst comes to worst, I'm guessing that park security can then locate the kid a lot quicker than they can without this tracking.
TiggsOn a personal level, that's a viable option.
TiggsIt's when an ISP or major blacklist does it that it becomes overkill.
From what I can tell from other replies, I think the problem is that although they're only blocking ISPs, one of this is kind of the ISP for the other Spanish ISPs.
Or, at least, the IP-address provider for the ISPs.
Bloody hell, they say that like it's a bad thing.
Intellectual property rights are out of control. Without going into whether they're good or bad in themselves, they're definitely out of control and enforced for all of the wrong reasons at the moment.
And as for dominant firms unnovating, well this if often not a good thing. It either comes at the expense of the non-dominant competition or of the customer. (And occasionally be buying up the competition, but ruining the innovation by MS-corporate-decision-making)
TiggsIf the law didn't allow them to get away with running roughshod, they'd actually have to try hard to be truly innovative. And I can't see how that'd be a bad thing.