Call it a gut feeling, but he does not come across as being arrogant here.
I suspect that he would object to DRM-ed hardware being shoved down people's throats
by the powers that be, but he probably wouldn't do that in public: he rarely does.
Here he is just indicating that implementing DRM
functionality in software does not really hurt anyone directly (as passing laws would). Compare it
to a proof-of-concept exploit: implementing it does no harm, but it can
readily be used to harm others. The second step is not merely technological,
it is also social and political, and in the past Linus have shown a lot
of restraint in expressing his political opinions on these issues.
TFA led me to think that Linus just doesn't give much
priority to the political debate around the DRM. He is convinced that it's
a poor technology (useless for almost everyone and difficult to implement),
which makes it just plain boring to discuss.
I, and many others, believe that copyright have failed as a social
contract, and we have no other contract with these artists
(unlike with those who play live). If they choose to keep abusing
copyright, it's their own damn business, they'll have none of mine.
Like it or not, recording studios cost money, microphones cost money, movie studios and special effects cost *big* money. Set designers, sound engineers, actors, writers, directors and producers all have bills to pay.
Did you even read my post, or are you responding to voices in your head? A P2P user does not in any way
compete with any of the crafts you've brought up. He merely distributes and promotes. He does not take a single penny from these people: as you yourself note, their craft is not in any way replaceable by what a P2P user does.
He competes directly with publishers. It is their craft that is being replaced by a much more robust and effective system. And who do you see up in arms against P2P these days? Who is most vocal, if not the publishers? They just can't swallow the fact that in the digital world, publishing (stay with me: not producing, but publishing) a book of the size of War And Community costs exactly nothing, as long as there is interest. And generating the said interest also costs next to nothing (given some influence), since the news are viral.
For the purposes of this argument, I'll give you that our copyright system is actually encouraging arts. I am being extremely generous, since I do not believe that for a second. But anyway, what does it change? **IA are bent on making a living from publishing, while it has been shown that the true cost of what they do is zero. Here, I don't even muse about whether or not they should be able to do that, I am just saying that they won't. They are done for, and they know it, and they are very smart about suing us (people keep saying that they are foolish to sue customers, but that's actually the wisest thing they do), for that alone will keep them alive for a few more years.
Even if we get over the current mess (Trusted Computing, RIAA etc), it looks like as if the big media dinosaurs will never really learn to adapt.
True, since that's their last stand. We finally have the tools at our possession which
enable us to promote and distribute digital content cheaper and more effectively than
any corporation possibly could. Once they loose this battle, they are gone for good;
they are aware of that, and so they are squeezing every penny out of the established
customer base.
It's no news that a bunch of 15yo with P2P clients and MySpace profiles
are able to do a better job at promoting and distributing music than
the publishing companies. The answer? Make the distribution of the digital
content difficult again! That reminds me of that time when my countrymen
tried to make rivers run uphill.
Did you even read the summary? When the parent said "STFU and take it" he meant
the attitude, not bugs. No one is talking about bugs here. Bugs are everywhere
and we always have the expectation that they will be fixed; and when we pay for
software, we tend to have a very strong such expectation. But that is totally
besides the point. What is happening here is that Apple is suppressing and ignoring
bug reports, all because (I can only assume) it helps their bottom line to treat you
guys as their personal cash pile, rather then a community which is capable of
providing meaningful feedback and, on occasion, a bug fix! So, again, if you
don't like being treated in that manner, don't use the bloody proprietary software.
And if proprietary software is so great, then stop bitching about defect cover-ups:
if it protects the shareholders, it must be good, eh?
My head starts spinning when I'm trying to understand how
this applies to copyleft. The only fitting scheme I can think
of is ROT13 applied twice:
"You have unlimited rights to record,
copy and/or shift the format of the streaming media. Our DRM
system will ensure that no single user will be able to perform these
functions more than infinity times. If, for example, you make an
infinite number of copies, the playback feature for the media may
become disabled."
It's been tagged as flamebait because Apple users do not like being reminded
that they paid Apple AND gave up their freedom to use, modify, study,
and distribute software. And when their complaints about bugs are being
ignored or suppressed, they suddenly realize that they want to have their
cake and eat it too.
Er, no. With free software, you still have to swallow this cookie without
milk, but at least you don't have to bend over. You are free to fix the bug
and receive the due gratitude, as opposed to getting dragged through courts
for infringing someone's IP rights. I am not saying that free software is
bug-free; I am just surprised that people are surprised when a software
vendor is mistreating them. They mistreat us already at the point of sale,
when they take away our freedom to use and modify software, so what the hell
should we expect from their support: peace, love, and understanding?
Apple fan-boys were quick to mod us down here, but no one has yet presented
a decent rebuttal to our point: this guy paid for his license to shut up
and take it where Apple wants it. What Apple doing is not right, but hey,
you have agreed to their terms, so stop whining.
I wish I had mod points for you, chum. The only troll here is whoever
modded the parent as a troll. The author of the FA forgot to turn and bend over
before accepting the license agreement, and now he is crying about Apple
and Nvidia suppressing bug reports. Here is a clue: if you don't like being
treated as Apple's personal ATM, use free software.
Am I the only one who is hearing the same 4 chords and the same basic beat?
What exactly was stolen? Everyone was playing the same god-damn chords and the beat
for the last 20 years.
It is not even akin to trespassing. It's more like "ignoring the stupid law
which prevents a person from sharing beneficial and/or entertaining information
with one's friend -- an activity as old as the language itself". That's what it
is like, and that is why the copyright laws are wrong.
He did get over it a long time ago, like when he decided that he is not going
to sue anyone for (legally) re-using his code and omitting what would be their trade
mark. You cannot blame the man just for being vocal. His peewees provide for comic relief,
whereas Microsoft's cost a lot of money and cause headaches.
Re:So let the flame wars begin!
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
I don't know how to get there, but users/people want computers to behave like toasters.
[...]
One of the most popular applications I've written was one where the interaction with the user was basically a singly input field, a la Google. Users would instinctively type anything in the input field, and the application would do a pretty decent job of offering meaningful results.
What you have written was an anti-toaster. Think about it: it was the most faithful emulation
of interacting with a human being. One writes to it in plain English, and it does something. (I assume,
that was what the program did.) People indeed do need appliances for communication and word processing,
but it is becoming apparent that computers have more uses than that. And when it comes to having a computer
doing a complex task in our human world, nothing beats good old English. It looks to me like we will end up
with human-like (rather than toaster-like) computers.
While I am ranting; I think that the most attractive
use is the non-use. It is not attractive for users, but it is for computers. I can totally see Darwinian
tendencies in how the software evolves. It's all about P2P. You will laugh, but P2P is so immensely successful
precisely because it allows computers to adapt to their environment. For example, I cannot believe that anyone
will manage to "lock down" the net. Attempts to filter it are being made and there's a lot of talk
going on, but really, how hard would it be for the people to make their own net? It might be slower and
smaller, but it will certainly evolve past the locked down version because it allows more freedom
to its participants, both human and non-human. The locked down version would just mature and die like
a lonely dinosaur, its only purpose in "life" being to allow a few board members to build 100' platinum
statues of themselves. But it is not gonna happen: we have P2P already, the cat is out of the bag. Any forceful attempt to make the
net into what it is not will fail almost instantly, because the net itself will take its nodes and go to people
who want to play on its own terms.
It is true what you say about the natural sciences, but not so much about math.
A lot of mathematicians are realists, and they will object to what you are saying
outright, since they at least believe that natural numbers exist with their properties
in a metaphysical sense. They just are, and we are striving to discover their
properties. Was Godel a "bad mathematician"? Come on. My advisor once said that
being a platonist is a requirement for getting a doctorate from Berkeley. Having
met some of the people there, I am no longer sure that he was joking.
As long as two mathematicians are on the same page (e.g. talking about natural
numbers), there is no controversy in 1+1=2. Indeed, if there is, then at least one of
them is not just bad but a god-damn awful mathematician.
Now your average DVD can be recompressed without too much quality loss to, say, 1.5GB [...]
The truth is that Blu-ray isn't all that big compared to the hard disks of today [...]
Good post. I just want to point out that since Blu-ray packs the same damn movie,
it can be just as well compressed to the same 1.5GB without much loss. And who is willing
to pay for higher resolution in movies these days? May be I am just getting old, but
I cannot see any pixels on a regular 36 inch CRT TV when I watch a movie. Everything is
sharp and smooth. (Console games are a different matter.)
Hey, your are bringing up a good point. I've seen it time and time again:
a clueless user encounters the Gnome desktop, and... nothing happens.
"What is this? Some kinda Mac?" Click, click, Firefox starts, he's on his way.
GNU/Linux not ready for the lowest common denominator? I just want to laugh.
These people do not even know the difference.
The ideal solution for a newbie comes pre-installed. The distribution does not matter
that much. I anticipate that many readers will object, but I am convinced that it makes
sense to introduce a working system. I started working with GNU/Linux when I was finishing
the high school, back in 95. I did not start by making a clean install, but rather by playing
around with whatever was installed at my dad's work. It just happened to be Slackware,
but you know, since it was up and running, I could not care less. I was free to poke
around a learn new things.
If you really are a newbie, the last thing you want to learn is how to test
hardware configurations and patch the kernel just make your drivers work.
This knowledge is very useful, but is rather irrelevant
for someone who seeks a good introduction to how the new OS works. My advice:
commandeer a geek friend of yours to set up a distribution of his choice
and then run with it.
Because of technology and drugs, life expectancy has never been higher.
No. It's because we are rich, stinking rich, stupid, filthy rich. One would think
that people in Asia, South America and Africa can just take our research and make
generic drugs for themselves, but no, their life expectancy is like that of mosquitoes
during the winter. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Call it a gut feeling, but he does not come across as being arrogant here. I suspect that he would object to DRM-ed hardware being shoved down people's throats by the powers that be, but he probably wouldn't do that in public: he rarely does. Here he is just indicating that implementing DRM functionality in software does not really hurt anyone directly (as passing laws would). Compare it to a proof-of-concept exploit: implementing it does no harm, but it can readily be used to harm others. The second step is not merely technological, it is also social and political, and in the past Linus have shown a lot of restraint in expressing his political opinions on these issues.
TFA led me to think that Linus just doesn't give much priority to the political debate around the DRM. He is convinced that it's a poor technology (useless for almost everyone and difficult to implement), which makes it just plain boring to discuss.
I cannot believe that, you forgot to mention penguins.
I, and many others, believe that copyright have failed as a social contract, and we have no other contract with these artists (unlike with those who play live). If they choose to keep abusing copyright, it's their own damn business, they'll have none of mine.
Like it or not, recording studios cost money, microphones cost money, movie studios and special effects cost *big* money. Set designers, sound engineers, actors, writers, directors and producers all have bills to pay.
Did you even read my post, or are you responding to voices in your head? A P2P user does not in any way compete with any of the crafts you've brought up. He merely distributes and promotes. He does not take a single penny from these people: as you yourself note, their craft is not in any way replaceable by what a P2P user does. He competes directly with publishers. It is their craft that is being replaced by a much more robust and effective system. And who do you see up in arms against P2P these days? Who is most vocal, if not the publishers? They just can't swallow the fact that in the digital world, publishing (stay with me: not producing, but publishing) a book of the size of War And Community costs exactly nothing, as long as there is interest. And generating the said interest also costs next to nothing (given some influence), since the news are viral.
For the purposes of this argument, I'll give you that our copyright system is actually encouraging arts. I am being extremely generous, since I do not believe that for a second. But anyway, what does it change? **IA are bent on making a living from publishing, while it has been shown that the true cost of what they do is zero. Here, I don't even muse about whether or not they should be able to do that, I am just saying that they won't. They are done for, and they know it, and they are very smart about suing us (people keep saying that they are foolish to sue customers, but that's actually the wisest thing they do), for that alone will keep them alive for a few more years.
Even if we get over the current mess (Trusted Computing, RIAA etc), it looks like as if the big media dinosaurs will never really learn to adapt.
True, since that's their last stand. We finally have the tools at our possession which enable us to promote and distribute digital content cheaper and more effectively than any corporation possibly could. Once they loose this battle, they are gone for good; they are aware of that, and so they are squeezing every penny out of the established customer base.
It's no news that a bunch of 15yo with P2P clients and MySpace profiles are able to do a better job at promoting and distributing music than the publishing companies. The answer? Make the distribution of the digital content difficult again! That reminds me of that time when my countrymen tried to make rivers run uphill.
That would be Konduits.
Did you even read the summary? When the parent said "STFU and take it" he meant the attitude, not bugs. No one is talking about bugs here. Bugs are everywhere and we always have the expectation that they will be fixed; and when we pay for software, we tend to have a very strong such expectation. But that is totally besides the point. What is happening here is that Apple is suppressing and ignoring bug reports, all because (I can only assume) it helps their bottom line to treat you guys as their personal cash pile, rather then a community which is capable of providing meaningful feedback and, on occasion, a bug fix! So, again, if you don't like being treated in that manner, don't use the bloody proprietary software. And if proprietary software is so great, then stop bitching about defect cover-ups: if it protects the shareholders, it must be good, eh?
I wonder how he got caught. Anyone has any info on that?
My head starts spinning when I'm trying to understand how this applies to copyleft. The only fitting scheme I can think of is ROT13 applied twice:
"You have unlimited rights to record, copy and/or shift the format of the streaming media. Our DRM system will ensure that no single user will be able to perform these functions more than infinity times. If, for example, you make an infinite number of copies, the playback feature for the media may become disabled."
Uh... DRM never looked so good.
It's been tagged as flamebait because Apple users do not like being reminded that they paid Apple AND gave up their freedom to use, modify, study, and distribute software. And when their complaints about bugs are being ignored or suppressed, they suddenly realize that they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Er, no. With free software, you still have to swallow this cookie without milk, but at least you don't have to bend over. You are free to fix the bug and receive the due gratitude, as opposed to getting dragged through courts for infringing someone's IP rights. I am not saying that free software is bug-free; I am just surprised that people are surprised when a software vendor is mistreating them. They mistreat us already at the point of sale, when they take away our freedom to use and modify software, so what the hell should we expect from their support: peace, love, and understanding?
Apple fan-boys were quick to mod us down here, but no one has yet presented a decent rebuttal to our point: this guy paid for his license to shut up and take it where Apple wants it. What Apple doing is not right, but hey, you have agreed to their terms, so stop whining.
I wish I had mod points for you, chum. The only troll here is whoever modded the parent as a troll. The author of the FA forgot to turn and bend over before accepting the license agreement, and now he is crying about Apple and Nvidia suppressing bug reports. Here is a clue: if you don't like being treated as Apple's personal ATM, use free software.
Am I the only one who is hearing the same 4 chords and the same basic beat? What exactly was stolen? Everyone was playing the same god-damn chords and the beat for the last 20 years.
It is not even akin to trespassing. It's more like "ignoring the stupid law which prevents a person from sharing beneficial and/or entertaining information with one's friend -- an activity as old as the language itself". That's what it is like, and that is why the copyright laws are wrong.
He did get over it a long time ago, like when he decided that he is not going to sue anyone for (legally) re-using his code and omitting what would be their trade mark. You cannot blame the man just for being vocal. His peewees provide for comic relief, whereas Microsoft's cost a lot of money and cause headaches.
ed, man. man ed.
I don't know how to get there, but users/people want computers to behave like toasters.
[...]
One of the most popular applications I've written was one where the interaction with the user was basically a singly input field, a la Google. Users would instinctively type anything in the input field, and the application would do a pretty decent job of offering meaningful results.
What you have written was an anti-toaster. Think about it: it was the most faithful emulation of interacting with a human being. One writes to it in plain English, and it does something. (I assume, that was what the program did.) People indeed do need appliances for communication and word processing, but it is becoming apparent that computers have more uses than that. And when it comes to having a computer doing a complex task in our human world, nothing beats good old English. It looks to me like we will end up with human-like (rather than toaster-like) computers.
While I am ranting; I think that the most attractive use is the non-use. It is not attractive for users, but it is for computers. I can totally see Darwinian tendencies in how the software evolves. It's all about P2P. You will laugh, but P2P is so immensely successful precisely because it allows computers to adapt to their environment. For example, I cannot believe that anyone will manage to "lock down" the net. Attempts to filter it are being made and there's a lot of talk going on, but really, how hard would it be for the people to make their own net? It might be slower and smaller, but it will certainly evolve past the locked down version because it allows more freedom to its participants, both human and non-human. The locked down version would just mature and die like a lonely dinosaur, its only purpose in "life" being to allow a few board members to build 100' platinum statues of themselves. But it is not gonna happen: we have P2P already, the cat is out of the bag. Any forceful attempt to make the net into what it is not will fail almost instantly, because the net itself will take its nodes and go to people who want to play on its own terms.
At Denny's
It is true what you say about the natural sciences, but not so much about math. A lot of mathematicians are realists, and they will object to what you are saying outright, since they at least believe that natural numbers exist with their properties in a metaphysical sense. They just are, and we are striving to discover their properties. Was Godel a "bad mathematician"? Come on. My advisor once said that being a platonist is a requirement for getting a doctorate from Berkeley. Having met some of the people there, I am no longer sure that he was joking.
As long as two mathematicians are on the same page (e.g. talking about natural numbers), there is no controversy in 1+1=2. Indeed, if there is, then at least one of them is not just bad but a god-damn awful mathematician.
Yeah it sounds more like Oscar Wilde.
Now your average DVD can be recompressed without too much quality loss to, say, 1.5GB [...]
The truth is that Blu-ray isn't all that big compared to the hard disks of today [...]
Good post. I just want to point out that since Blu-ray packs the same damn movie, it can be just as well compressed to the same 1.5GB without much loss. And who is willing to pay for higher resolution in movies these days? May be I am just getting old, but I cannot see any pixels on a regular 36 inch CRT TV when I watch a movie. Everything is sharp and smooth. (Console games are a different matter.)
Hey, your are bringing up a good point. I've seen it time and time again: a clueless user encounters the Gnome desktop, and... nothing happens. "What is this? Some kinda Mac?" Click, click, Firefox starts, he's on his way. GNU/Linux not ready for the lowest common denominator? I just want to laugh. These people do not even know the difference.
The ideal solution for a newbie comes pre-installed. The distribution does not matter that much. I anticipate that many readers will object, but I am convinced that it makes sense to introduce a working system. I started working with GNU/Linux when I was finishing the high school, back in 95. I did not start by making a clean install, but rather by playing around with whatever was installed at my dad's work. It just happened to be Slackware, but you know, since it was up and running, I could not care less. I was free to poke around a learn new things.
If you really are a newbie, the last thing you want to learn is how to test hardware configurations and patch the kernel just make your drivers work. This knowledge is very useful, but is rather irrelevant for someone who seeks a good introduction to how the new OS works. My advice: commandeer a geek friend of yours to set up a distribution of his choice and then run with it.
Because of technology and drugs, life expectancy has never been higher.
No. It's because we are rich, stinking rich, stupid, filthy rich. One would think that people in Asia, South America and Africa can just take our research and make generic drugs for themselves, but no, their life expectancy is like that of mosquitoes during the winter. Go figure.