> Great - so one day consumers might have a choice between a 15GHz Intel PC for $400, > or a 1GHz OpenPC for $1500. Some choice - nobody will buy open hardware unless > it is mainstream, and it will never be mainstream unless the average person > can see the benefits - most average people don't change their OS.
So you want to force what an average person should do? Bad idea.
BTW it is so right now. When you use Linux f.e. when it comes to choosing wireless card, you can choose between cheap card that has all the bang it needs - just dont work in Linux (which is obviously not an option) or you can choose expensive, old chip based card that works with Linux.
Call it OpenWIFI.:)
> If I write a software package I would prefer that it not be usable > by the customers of closed hardware. This means that the vendors of > closed hardware will need to reinvent my software package or open > their hardware.
And that is exactly what Linus does not want to.
>> "Trusted computing" is simple an implementation of hardware that >> can be controlled to execute software or not based on the fact >> who you trust.
> Define "you".
Obviously - me who owns the hardware.
> If I buy a computer and I am provided all keys embedded > in the hardware (and their associated related keys) then > it functions as you describe
Yes - that is perfectly good, don't you agree?
> I can sign software and the computer will trust it, or I > can sign data and a remote computer that trusts my computer > will trust the data.
Is it wrong? I like the idea very much.
> However, this is not the model envisioned in Trusted Computing.
No. This is exactly the model. The problem is *WHO* owns the hardware, not the DRM itself.
> In general the keys and associated related keys will not be > given to computer owners,
So don't buy the machine.
> but will be maintained by a 3rd party. Therefore, it isn't about > who "you" trust, but rather who "they" trust. The "they" in this > case might be a media distributor who doesn't trust "you" but > rather wants to communicate directly with your computer hardware, > which they trust only because you don't have control of it.
Don't buy the content then.
> If my computer had a chip in it that would track all software > running on it and certify this list using a keypair that I > provided it with, and if the chip would only allow software > I signed to be run, then I would consider this an EXCELLENT > feature.
Oh, yes. You see the point now.:)
> It gives me more control over my own hardware and makes rootkit > detection foolproof and remote software installation impossible > (without my authorization). The key is whoever knows the keys > controls the whole scheme. I submit that the keys should be > owned by whoever pays for the hardware.
Exactly. But consider thay paying for hardware does not exactly makes you the owner of it. F.e. when you rent a car you pay for it but you don't own it.
When you buy commercial software (well most of it) - you don't buy to own it, you buy to own a license.
So the real and only option to fight for control of your hardware (not to fight against DRM) is to vote with your wallet. Complex software licenses that impose something on hardware vendors about *their* hardware is'nt going to make any good.
> Besides, proponets of DRM have the goal to directly impeded > the lives of just about every single person in the country > and eventually the entire planet. Software patents only have > an indirect effect on the population at large by retarding > progress in software development.
I don't know what you are talking about. DRM? Well fuck it. Don't use it. It is just as simple - no other answer. You cannot prohibit it, but you can boycott it.
I don't see any problems with DRM. I am full time computer user of loads of devices. I work primary in IT to support myself. And yet still I haven't encountered ANY problems regarding DRM. But I did encountered problems with patents - like distro I use does not have MP3 support, and so on. GPL is *SOFTWARE* license - it should not get into hardware issues.
And a bit irrevelant. I would like to see explained how The New GPL Thing will deal with real problems like software patenst. Not futuristic paranoia of ALL HARDWARE BEING BORG AND CLOSED. Since the latter won't happen soon. I am a bit pragmatic.:)
> On the one hand, the whole point of open source is that you can change it and then run your > changed version.
But obviously you cannot run it on anythig - you need a compatible piece of standard hardware. Am I right here?
> That shouldn't be suddenly untrue at the arbitrary border between > hardware and software.
There is no border. Software is abstract from hardware. With few layers of it. I can run the same software (code base) on different hardware, that is nice.
> Hardware that uses approved versions of open source while actively > preventing my version from running violates the spirit of the thing.
So don't buy this hardware. It serves no purpose to you.
> On the other hand, most of us have spent the last decade saying > that its OK to use both open source and closed source software > on the same machine.
Well - why not?:) But it was not RMS certainly.;)
> No one argues, for example, that you can't run GCC on top of > a closed-source unix kernel
RMS does.
> even though it requires that kernel in order to run. Nor does > anyone argue that the processor and other chips used by the > kernel must be an open, free design.
You cannot leverage Open Source concept to hardware - hardware is something phisical that needs to be manufactured/assembled - it is not only the design/concept/bits. It is actual meat.
With this in mind you cannot use software license for hardware - it has no point. Hardware is totally different from software.
> The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force > it down our throats as usual.
Yeah - I fully agree. That is exactly the problem. But I would not call it "force" since he cannot do that. I would call it that he will do anything to make it happen - and I find it stupid since he is fighting against (IMHO) minor theoretical problems instead of focusing on real problems like copyright fragmentation. If code has like 1000 developers and it is GPLed you have certain trouble to defend it in court. There are general problems with respecting GPL license. There are patents and so on.
But RMS instead of focusing real problems focuses on fixing future unreal problems - it is like he is fighting with wind-mills.
> He's a strange bird in that he really gets the freedom issue at one level > while it flies totally over his head at another.
> I don't see what the big deal is. I mean really, if you have the source code, > it is implied that you should be able to tweak how things work.
It is implied that you can twaek the source code. Not the way how the hardware works. OpenSource Software license should not force how the HARDWARE should work. I think it needs separate license/certification for hardware. Like OpenHardware. This could solve the problem - then you will known - this hardware is OK, it is compatible, we like it. That other hardware is piece of smelly crap and we don't like it. Simple.
Have you ever tried to buy notebook for running Linux? I have recently and it was pure hacking - meaning hunting for information on various components in very obscure places. Of cource there are some sites that certify hardware for Linux but the choice is very narrow.
> What's the point of having the source code without the ability to > tweak things (ie: if the hardware is locked to not accept your tweaks?).
The point is that you can run it on DIFFERENT hardware. Practically it is an advantage - right now x86 is an architecture of the day, 5 years later it can be whatever. Using Linux (and OpenSource software) I have the comfort of knowing that if the hardware changes I will probably switch to the better option still using the same tools.
Now with closed source when given piece of software runs x86 and the vendor does not want to port it to something else you are done with it.
> This leads to "trusted computing"
This is a buzzword. Full of crap. "Trusted computing" is simple an implementation of hardware that can be controlled to execute software or not based on the fact who you trust. It is perfectly normal and it will be implemented as it is valuable. It neutral as technology - same as kitchen knife, I can make a delicious food with a knife, I can also stab you with it - does this mean that knifes are bad? No that only means that people stabbing other people are bad. Same with Trusted Computing, DRM, hardware level execution protection - it is neutral.
> ---while this discussion is centered around `devices', it might find its way > into computers. Imagine all the motherboard manufacturers being forced (by > the paid off politicians?) to not allow you to run non-signed operating system.
They are free of doing that. Maybe I am first person to tell you that but theoreticaly polititians have mandate of masses. It is the worst system called capitalism/democracy - but there is nothing better.
> Obviously MS will get a signature, as well as major Linux distributions, but... > What's the use of having the entire source for Linux, if you cannot compile > and run your own version?
You are reffering to an scenario that is not quite possible, and a bit dramatic.
> I see GPL3 as an extention and realization that hardware now a days is > exactly like software. General purpose microcontrollers running some > software is NOT a `device' in the same sense it was a few years back, > it's a computer running software. Very few devices are `custom built' > ---most are just microcontrollers with software determining how the > thing works and `what it is'. GPL3 essentially says hardware = software > as far as licensing is concerned. You cannot close hardware if you use > open software on it. I think it makes sense.
But you can CHOOSE what hardware you use - at least right now. I can buy and use whatever I want.
> Anyone who disagrees with this isn't a consumer of hardware/software.
I am and I disagree.
> They're hardware vendors looking to lock out users, while at the same > time getting a free ride from open software.
> Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by.
Yeah, right. Pointless point - not to argue with its merit but it does not really matter if he is revelant or not. It makes no difference for your argument. Only purpose is FUD so I will ignore that.:)
> He probably thinks that the entire community is contributing to GNU/Linux because they > like him personally.
I think he does not. I think he knows that there are: - hackers who just like to do this and like *Linux* - companies made by hackers which benefit from such model (Red Hat f.e.) - companies that use the code and therefore need to contribute
In fact now it does not merit at all if he matters or not. He stated like 10000 times, that he made Linux open from personal reasons (it allowed him to speed up the developement, get peer review and so on - just the normal benefits of open source) and he stated he does what he feels is right, if somebody has other vision he is free to fork the code (but constrained by GPL) and do whatever he wants.
Note that when saying "Linux wont use GPL3" he means Linux - the product to which he has copyright for the name and so on. Not so stupid.:) You can fork Linux and given that you get permission from others that contributed (can be difficult since some of them are dead and so on) you can change the license to WHATEVER you want, but it can't be called Linux (call it GPL3nux).:)
He is perfectly sane and clear on that for me. But back to practical merits.
> What good does free software do us if we cannot modify it and continue to run > the modified code? We already don't own many of the things we buy - proprietary > software, music, movies and many other things.
Don't buy them - nobody FORCES you to buy this stuff, you do it with your own choice.
> Now we won't own (control) the hardware we purchase either?
No. I will. Don't know about you - but I don't buy hardware that I cant make use of - that would be stupid.
> If GNU/Linux had started 20 years later than it did this wouldn't even be an issue. > DRM would've killed it before it even got off the ground. Linus would just be the > name of a Peanuts character.
Yeah. "If {useless assumption}..." - that is an argument. Really. Good, practical, solid point.:)))
You are certainly right - but it is only one side of the coin. From the other side I see much benefit from being able to control what can be run on my hardware - note that when you buy hardware it is possible that you don't exactly buy it to own it but you f.e. license it to use it. Quite normal and I would not like that to change.
But it is irrevelant after all. You decide which hardware to buy and if you don't like it - don't buy it. Simple. Same thing with the license. Whomever may come up with whatever stupid (or wise) license - you can use it or not. Stallman writes license, Linus does not like it and does not use it. Perfectly normal for me.
The real question is that Stallman (really meaning FSF as an entity) is doing any good coming up with license, that major projects won't use.
Old and well discussed problem here - free software vs. open source, philosophy vs. implementation, theory vs. practice and so on... Nothing new really.
But what strikes me is that (it is an subjective impression) Stallman tries to force this license (I don't like it). It looks to me like he thinks that he knows better that you SHOULD use it. I think developers are not so dumb and they will use whatever license they like for their project. With this in mind when producing license you should consider practical merits instead of philosophical ones - after all the license serves practical purposes. What is the point of producing something, then evangelising it that nobody will use?
For me patents are bigger and practical problem (we all agree that software/implementation patents are bad - do we?) than DRMed hardware - why not focus on these merits and come up with something usefull instead of rushing into controversial merits that are not so revelant?
Actually it did work - think adware which in my opinion falls under this description of patent - giving computer resources for free - software is computer resource/asset. Many companies did it and do it on daily basis, think Google (you are using their computer resources while reciving their ads). Etc.
The patent description goes then to specific implementation when the system downloads targeted ads to use locally or untargeted when it does not know the target.
The only thing in it that is just not-so retarded is the fact of storing adds localy (cache anyone?). I am sure loads of adware programs did it before.
In summary - retarded patent aiming at Google, so retardet that it is pathetic and funny actually. I wish MS to spend more resources on shit like that. Good way to go for them (not like they have an major operating system release on due which is like 3 years late and still in early beta) .:)
Yes users do stupid stuff - I can agree with that. It does not give you right to call them stupid - they are probably uninformed in IT stuff same as you are uninformed (I assume) in medicine, dentistics and so on. I don't call you stupid because you (I assume) know shit about medicine and need to use a doctor in case you are sick. That is for starters.
The real issue is that Windows is inherently insecure because of (order does NOT matter):
- most users run as Administrators members (and Windows XP SP2 - the latest retail version creates such accounts by default) - Windows is packed with technologies like "Fax Sending Service" (notice it was like one of serious flaws recently) and other shit meant there (like users running as admins) for backward (meaning early 90ties?) compability - just dump that. yes dump the compatibility, fuck it - choose between safety in todays operations or compatibility with not properly written DOS and Windows 9x programs - Windows incorporates technologies that are insecure by default - like you can click on EXE file and run it from a browser (giving you dialog, that potential user will not read, with just an *ADVISE* not to run the program) - hell dump it, not allow to run native programs from Internet without some serious hasle - Windows is most targeted due the market share
You seriously think that the last argument is most obvious? It is meaningfull but it is not the *only* argument. Windows has design flaws that market share DOES NOT explain.
> I know some CD's have it as well, but most don't, > and you may as well at least make the effort to check.
These are no CD's or formaly Audio Compact Discs - if they issue some non-standard DRM mechanisms they cannot be marketed as CD's and need to be properly marked as these are no CD's (in common sense). At least here where I live.:)
It is exactly an issue of calling something the name which it isn't. AudioCD is a standardized format and it DOES NOT include any DRM extensions (f.e. making it not work in car audio player or your computer).
If you bought something that is advertised as a CD (audio) - f.e. it was on the same shelf that other real CD's - and it does not work in your AudioCD player (namely your computer, your hifi, your car) you can bring it back to the store and return it since it is not an AudioCD.
6. VT (virtualisation - think vmware and various open source projects being in mainstream kernel right now) 7. Software As Service vs. Boxed Software which still does not solve your problems before you get a decent service with the software. MS is trying to do services but the fact is that only real revenue they recive (considering their size) is boxed-sets of Office and Windows XP. 8. Simple, replicable ideas - now almost everybody have widgets on destkop - Linux/OSX got it early with Konfabulator and Karramba and such (Windows probably got theirs also), Apple then made it mainstream with Dashboard, then goes Yahoo! with widgets for Windows (WTF wants Yahoo! widgets on Mac?), then goes Opera then goes just about anybody... and on the end is MS with no widgets for current Windows at all. Just wank off waiting for Vista - we will deliver yesterday technology when we are ready to.:) Probably some more points here but I'am not feeling quite brilliant right now.:)
Of course it is *part* of wrongly designed software. I mean WTF needs the option to black out text in word processor using a rectangle? It should not be possible at all, or produce big fat warning message everytime it occurs.
> What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel* > because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license?
They *may* - and this is the point. They want to stay independent
(...)
> then make their users go compile the linux kernel themselves if > they want that...
But already their users *may* go compile their kernel on their own - that is exactly the point. What is your argument?
> Then they can complain about how much linus is hurting open source > software by not using the license they want.
Or alternatively they *may* fork current kernel which is released on GPL (not future-GPL) *forever*.
> Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release > its software under any particular license?
They do not demand anything - they just state that this license is not proper according to them. Sun can still "do-what-they-wanna".
> Sun is *already* giving away their software for free.
So fucking what? MS is giving away MS Windows Media Encoder for free - does it make it anyway more free? Free as in beer contrasted to free speech - simple as that.
> Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to > sell software that it didn't even write in the first place.
Maybe, just, please, consider that they (RH) don't sell software?:) They sell service. Welcome to 21st century.
Because you've already sayed it - *still*. It is stil free for download. But it is *possible* to cease that - and that is why it is not compilant. Because you are dependent on one vendor. Point.
Free or not - same like being pregnant - you are or you are not. Java is not (free).
> but I think the statement the failure of open source Java > means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered > PC's... to bring affordable computing to children in developing > nations is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes > Sun look like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children > access to computers, when it is the program creator that does > not allow Java on the laptops.
Exactly. Because (if You already haven't known that) RedHat is directly competing with Sun so this is basically a bullshit PR note to kick each other in the nuts.
RedHat for me has two faces - one is corporation side marketing/PR/and-so-on bullshit stuff.
The other is RH's great commitment to free software, RHEL is purely free software, with all sources aviable. You have some mandatory (on desktop) packages and some third-party binary-blob-drivers. But that is necesity for them to be on market.
Besides that RH is trully GPL, they give out sources, they pay for loads of developers working directly on GPLed code, they sponsor events, they even sponsor and support their free (like both beer and speech) distribution which is Fedora, they buy code and then release it as GPL so others can use it if they wish...
Etc.
RH is *great* company, with great attitude and great business model. Call me stupid - but I see it like this.
> make sure your users don't work as administrator > but under an unprivileged user account
For office desktop - OK it is possible with some hassles. But what with notebooks that are odten work/personal system - Windows is way awkard in dealing with this separation in usedull way. Make an user a non-admin on his laptop and for sure he will flood the help desk with loads of calls, like: - what is the password for changing this... erm... network setting cause I am in this hotel and this lady asks me for the password to turn the Internet on - can you make foo application work? I don't know - it just crashes producing somekind of not permited error Etc. etc.
Look in theory it can be done with Windows - Windows has superb privilege mechanisms - much better than cheesy unix stuff. To bad it it to complex and too clunky and hard to setup. It should come with sensible defaults (as some desktop oriented Linux distros or OSX) - sure it is a compromise, but you have limited resources either to deal with support and security. After all the user is to make his job done, the computer is just a tool. Problem is that Windows is a very poor tool in this matter. (and I *trully* wish it would be better)
(...)
> build the network in such a way that programs cannot directly "connect home" > but can connect to the Internet only via well-defined proxy servers
But what is the point if the proxy will still relay everything? Maybe you've misspelled it - you mean proxies that filter what is comming thru them - again - possible, but costly and hard to implement, and still not deterministic. What if I send TCP encapsulated into email messages via valid white-listed servers? What if I do it over SSL since I've just cracked Outlook to do so? How will you filter that? Complex enough? What is your budget on security?
> setup mail so that incoming office documents opened from mail do not > open in Office but in the free Office viewers instead
Stupid client side solution. Scan the documents on server. Stupid.
I agree with you. But one thing - email should link not to "the document" (unless you've intended it). In proper content management system it should link to precise *version* of the document - the version you are reffering to.
I mean that email is not instantly read when you send it - sending link to whatever system holding the content you reffer to may result in reader seeing other version (i.e. corrected in the mean time) than you intended.
But I agree with you - pseudo-modern systems usage boils to attach DOC file and send it. Then after some time you end with footeen different versions of the same content.:\ Call it the Windows way of sharing, since Windows does not have any decent forms of collaboration on files bulit-in users do the most obvious thing after all - they mail the file.
It is hard to blame the users and banning them from doing what they have done for years is stupid. If not attachments - look they kind of work in real world - what option do you suggest?
Most of users are just to lazy - they won't tag their documents, version it in back-office CMS and so on because they just want to stand to what they know about it and do not understand the benefits - how you deal with that?
KDE is just open source desktop shell - it is not tied to Linux in any way. Sure it is mostly used on Linux but such clasification (KDE = Linux) is just opposite to spirit of free software. KDE is free so you can run it on any ststem - be it Solaris, Linux, *BSD, OSX, Windows whatever.
If I like KDE and dont like Linux I could possibly run it on *BSD.
It is strange that/. editors seem to not uderstand *principle* rules of free software.
> Lets say you have 10 users all running firefox, at the same time, then > one of them uses a customers credit card to buy stuff from some online > store. How do you find that user?
Ummm... Let them connect to the outside world only via proxy to which they need to login?
Actually NTFS (filesystem that Windows NT uses) can be case sensitive. It is that by default shell and kernel is configured to be case insensitive. This is due to POSIX compatibility which requires case sensivity.
It is not about cheap you are talking about. You are talking about your data security (in context of backuping it). First requirement is the data to be safe. Next is to be cheap. So if you wan't real sure solution it is probably big iron.:) A *nix (Samba or whatever access you wish - it will probably have it) server with decent disk (like 2x 300GB) configured as file server. Additionaly (for backup purposes) some form of tape backup (automated library would be the best) and frequent backups/working backups for your data.
It will not be cheap. It will be normal price I guess.
And also do not forget basic backup security measures like: 1) Having *two* (more is better actually) copies in independent (geographically) locations. 2) Testing disaster recovery often - to make sure your backup is worth anything.
It will not be home-cheap. It will be such-solution-normal-price.
But with this web-based/AJAX thingies it is a bit a conflict of interest for Microsoft. MS desperately tries to jump onto the services band-wagon. But the truth is that their main revenue comes from shrink-wrapped software (like Windows or Office). They *try* to laverage that to other areas but they fail miserably.
Take MS vs. Google. Now Google still IMHO does everything before MS, and then MS goes "me too" and issues something similar but yet worse than Google offering. In normal situation - meaning MS has no money to pump from OS/software revenue into new markets they would not get a chance against Google - they will simply bankrupt. Right now they pump the money but I doubt they get any revenue (even to go on zero line) from their web services.
Now as far as I understand they wan't to couple web-based software (more like service) with shrink-wrappedsoftware like Windows and Office. I base that on various interviews with MS execs about MS product line I've read. But this is like flawed idea from the begining. The most valuable part (IMHO) about web software is that it only needs a browser and server infrastructure on the other end. So in fact you do not need to pay any special attention to the client side (as you would have to with shrink-wrapped software). So for e.g. you could have a big extranet with 5000 clients across the world, using one sophisticated application by web and only thing you need is decent server architecture and on client side - commodity: standard browser running on any OS, maybe a printer or smth. to get the job done.
This is completely the opposite of having fat clients loaded with bloated OS and software suites - the MS way.
Meaning - WTF? This is/. - I need to review blog comparsion for grannies/teens whatever? I review lots of publishing software (and not - not just PHP based, free-as-in-beer stuff). There ale lots of valuable positions - but I mean the comparsion. It is flawed - it just compares ease of use and nice interface, blogging is not about that. Blogging is complicated. I mean I would like to see comparsion of heavy CMS systems that *also* do versioning, publication of *any* file type (photos, flash, movies and shit like that), decent folksonomy, dozens of plugins, easy API etc.
This would be blogging soft for me. But this comparsion is retarded (in my geek head of course). I like power/flexibility/functionality - whatever I do - be it blogging via SSH and VIM, be it PERL or better Python - but let it be flexible and powerful. Not fuckin' retarded.
Slashdot Mirror
> Great - so one day consumers might have a choice between a 15GHz Intel PC for $400,
:)
:)
> or a 1GHz OpenPC for $1500. Some choice - nobody will buy open hardware unless
> it is mainstream, and it will never be mainstream unless the average person
> can see the benefits - most average people don't change their OS.
So you want to force what an average person should do? Bad idea.
BTW it is so right now. When you use Linux f.e. when it comes to choosing wireless card, you can choose between cheap card that has all the bang it needs - just dont work in Linux (which is obviously not an option) or you can choose expensive, old chip based card that works with Linux.
Call it OpenWIFI.
> If I write a software package I would prefer that it not be usable
> by the customers of closed hardware. This means that the vendors of
> closed hardware will need to reinvent my software package or open
> their hardware.
And that is exactly what Linus does not want to.
>> "Trusted computing" is simple an implementation of hardware that
>> can be controlled to execute software or not based on the fact
>> who you trust.
> Define "you".
Obviously - me who owns the hardware.
> If I buy a computer and I am provided all keys embedded
> in the hardware (and their associated related keys) then
> it functions as you describe
Yes - that is perfectly good, don't you agree?
> I can sign software and the computer will trust it, or I
> can sign data and a remote computer that trusts my computer
> will trust the data.
Is it wrong? I like the idea very much.
> However, this is not the model envisioned in Trusted Computing.
No. This is exactly the model. The problem is *WHO* owns the hardware, not the DRM itself.
> In general the keys and associated related keys will not be
> given to computer owners,
So don't buy the machine.
> but will be maintained by a 3rd party. Therefore, it isn't about
> who "you" trust, but rather who "they" trust. The "they" in this
> case might be a media distributor who doesn't trust "you" but
> rather wants to communicate directly with your computer hardware,
> which they trust only because you don't have control of it.
Don't buy the content then.
> If my computer had a chip in it that would track all software
> running on it and certify this list using a keypair that I
> provided it with, and if the chip would only allow software
> I signed to be run, then I would consider this an EXCELLENT
> feature.
Oh, yes. You see the point now.
> It gives me more control over my own hardware and makes rootkit
> detection foolproof and remote software installation impossible
> (without my authorization). The key is whoever knows the keys
> controls the whole scheme. I submit that the keys should be
> owned by whoever pays for the hardware.
Exactly. But consider thay paying for hardware does not exactly makes you the owner of it. F.e. when you rent a car you pay for it but you don't own it.
When you buy commercial software (well most of it) - you don't buy to own it, you buy to own a license.
So the real and only option to fight for control of your hardware (not to fight against DRM) is to vote with your wallet. Complex software licenses that impose something on hardware vendors about *their* hardware is'nt going to make any good.
You like being dramatic... :)
> Besides, proponets of DRM have the goal to directly impeded
> the lives of just about every single person in the country
> and eventually the entire planet. Software patents only have
> an indirect effect on the population at large by retarding
> progress in software development.
I don't know what you are talking about. DRM? Well fuck it. Don't use it. It is just as simple - no other answer. You cannot prohibit it, but you can boycott it.
I don't see any problems with DRM. I am full time computer user of loads of devices. I work primary in IT to support myself. And yet still I haven't encountered ANY problems regarding DRM. But I did encountered problems with patents - like distro I use does not have MP3 support, and so on. GPL is *SOFTWARE* license - it should not get into hardware issues.
> This is a twisted and difficult issue.
:)
:) But it was not RMS certainly. ;)
And a bit irrevelant. I would like to see explained how The New GPL Thing will deal with real problems like software patenst. Not futuristic paranoia of ALL HARDWARE BEING BORG AND CLOSED. Since the latter won't happen soon. I am a bit pragmatic.
> On the one hand, the whole point of open source is that you can change it and then run your
> changed version.
But obviously you cannot run it on anythig - you need a compatible piece of standard hardware. Am I right here?
> That shouldn't be suddenly untrue at the arbitrary border between
> hardware and software.
There is no border. Software is abstract from hardware. With few layers of it. I can run the same software (code base) on different hardware, that is nice.
> Hardware that uses approved versions of open source while actively
> preventing my version from running violates the spirit of the thing.
So don't buy this hardware. It serves no purpose to you.
> On the other hand, most of us have spent the last decade saying
> that its OK to use both open source and closed source software
> on the same machine.
Well - why not?
> No one argues, for example, that you can't run GCC on top of
> a closed-source unix kernel
RMS does.
> even though it requires that kernel in order to run. Nor does
> anyone argue that the processor and other chips used by the
> kernel must be an open, free design.
You cannot leverage Open Source concept to hardware - hardware is something phisical that needs to be manufactured/assembled - it is not only the design/concept/bits. It is actual meat.
With this in mind you cannot use software license for hardware - it has no point. Hardware is totally different from software.
> The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force
> it down our throats as usual.
Yeah - I fully agree. That is exactly the problem. But I would not call it "force" since he cannot do that. I would call it that he will do anything to make it happen - and I find it stupid since he is fighting against (IMHO) minor theoretical problems instead of focusing on real problems like copyright fragmentation. If code has like 1000 developers and it is GPLed you have certain trouble to defend it in court. There are general problems with respecting GPL license. There are patents and so on.
But RMS instead of focusing real problems focuses on fixing future unreal problems - it is like he is fighting with wind-mills.
> He's a strange bird in that he really gets the freedom issue at one level
> while it flies totally over his head at another.
I think he is mentally sick.
> I don't see what the big deal is. I mean really, if you have the source code,
> it is implied that you should be able to tweak how things work.
It is implied that you can twaek the source code. Not the way how the hardware works. OpenSource Software license should not force how the HARDWARE should work. I think it needs separate license/certification for hardware. Like OpenHardware. This could solve the problem - then you will known - this hardware is OK, it is compatible, we like it. That other hardware is piece of smelly crap and we don't like it. Simple.
Have you ever tried to buy notebook for running Linux? I have recently and it was pure hacking - meaning hunting for information on various components in very obscure places. Of cource there are some sites that certify hardware for Linux but the choice is very narrow.
> What's the point of having the source code without the ability to
> tweak things (ie: if the hardware is locked to not accept your tweaks?).
The point is that you can run it on DIFFERENT hardware. Practically it is an advantage - right now x86 is an architecture of the day, 5 years later it can be whatever. Using Linux (and OpenSource software) I have the comfort of knowing that if the hardware changes I will probably switch to the better option still using the same tools.
Now with closed source when given piece of software runs x86 and the vendor does not want to port it to something else you are done with it.
> This leads to "trusted computing"
This is a buzzword. Full of crap. "Trusted computing" is simple an implementation of hardware that can be controlled to execute software or not based on the fact who you trust. It is perfectly normal and it will be implemented as it is valuable. It neutral as technology - same as kitchen knife, I can make a delicious food with a knife, I can also stab you with it - does this mean that knifes are bad? No that only means that people stabbing other people are bad. Same with Trusted Computing, DRM, hardware level execution protection - it is neutral.
> ---while this discussion is centered around `devices', it might find its way
> into computers. Imagine all the motherboard manufacturers being forced (by
> the paid off politicians?) to not allow you to run non-signed operating system.
They are free of doing that. Maybe I am first person to tell you that but theoreticaly polititians have mandate of masses. It is the worst system called capitalism/democracy - but there is nothing better.
> Obviously MS will get a signature, as well as major Linux distributions, but...
> What's the use of having the entire source for Linux, if you cannot compile
> and run your own version?
You are reffering to an scenario that is not quite possible, and a bit dramatic.
> I see GPL3 as an extention and realization that hardware now a days is
> exactly like software. General purpose microcontrollers running some
> software is NOT a `device' in the same sense it was a few years back,
> it's a computer running software. Very few devices are `custom built'
> ---most are just microcontrollers with software determining how the
> thing works and `what it is'. GPL3 essentially says hardware = software
> as far as licensing is concerned. You cannot close hardware if you use
> open software on it. I think it makes sense.
But you can CHOOSE what hardware you use - at least right now. I can buy and use whatever I want.
> Anyone who disagrees with this isn't a consumer of hardware/software.
I am and I disagree.
> They're hardware vendors looking to lock out users, while at the same
> time getting a free ride from open software.
Who exactly?
> Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by.
:)
:) You can fork Linux and given that you get permission from others that contributed (can be difficult since some of them are dead and so on) you can change the license to WHATEVER you want, but it can't be called Linux (call it GPL3nux). :)
:)))
Yeah, right. Pointless point - not to argue with its merit but it does not really matter if he is revelant or not. It makes no difference for your argument. Only purpose is FUD so I will ignore that.
> He probably thinks that the entire community is contributing to GNU/Linux because they
> like him personally.
I think he does not. I think he knows that there are:
- hackers who just like to do this and like *Linux*
- companies made by hackers which benefit from such model (Red Hat f.e.)
- companies that use the code and therefore need to contribute
In fact now it does not merit at all if he matters or not. He stated like 10000 times, that he made Linux open from personal reasons (it allowed him to speed up the developement, get peer review and so on - just the normal benefits of open source) and he stated he does what he feels is right, if somebody has other vision he is free to fork the code (but constrained by GPL) and do whatever he wants.
Note that when saying "Linux wont use GPL3" he means Linux - the product to which he has copyright for the name and so on. Not so stupid.
He is perfectly sane and clear on that for me. But back to practical merits.
> What good does free software do us if we cannot modify it and continue to run
> the modified code? We already don't own many of the things we buy - proprietary
> software, music, movies and many other things.
Don't buy them - nobody FORCES you to buy this stuff, you do it with your own choice.
> Now we won't own (control) the hardware we purchase either?
No. I will. Don't know about you - but I don't buy hardware that I cant make use of - that would be stupid.
> If GNU/Linux had started 20 years later than it did this wouldn't even be an issue.
> DRM would've killed it before it even got off the ground. Linus would just be the
> name of a Peanuts character.
Yeah. "If {useless assumption}..." - that is an argument. Really. Good, practical, solid point.
You are certainly right - but it is only one side of the coin. From the other side I see much benefit from being able to control what can be run on my hardware - note that when you buy hardware it is possible that you don't exactly buy it to own it but you f.e. license it to use it. Quite normal and I would not like that to change.
But it is irrevelant after all. You decide which hardware to buy and if you don't like it - don't buy it. Simple. Same thing with the license. Whomever may come up with whatever stupid (or wise) license - you can use it or not. Stallman writes license, Linus does not like it and does not use it. Perfectly normal for me.
The real question is that Stallman (really meaning FSF as an entity) is doing any good coming up with license, that major projects won't use.
Old and well discussed problem here - free software vs. open source, philosophy vs. implementation, theory vs. practice and so on... Nothing new really.
But what strikes me is that (it is an subjective impression) Stallman tries to force this license (I don't like it). It looks to me like he thinks that he knows better that you SHOULD use it. I think developers are not so dumb and they will use whatever license they like for their project. With this in mind when producing license you should consider practical merits instead of philosophical ones - after all the license serves practical purposes. What is the point of producing something, then evangelising it that nobody will use?
For me patents are bigger and practical problem (we all agree that software/implementation patents are bad - do we?) than DRMed hardware - why not focus on these merits and come up with something usefull instead of rushing into controversial merits that are not so revelant?
Actually it did work - think adware which in my opinion falls under this description of patent - giving computer resources for free - software is computer resource/asset. Many companies did it and do it on daily basis, think Google (you are using their computer resources while reciving their ads). Etc.
:)
The patent description goes then to specific implementation when the system downloads targeted ads to use locally or untargeted when it does not know the target.
The only thing in it that is just not-so retarded is the fact of storing adds localy (cache anyone?). I am sure loads of adware programs did it before.
In summary - retarded patent aiming at Google, so retardet that it is pathetic and funny actually. I wish MS to spend more resources on shit like that. Good way to go for them (not like they have an major operating system release on due which is like 3 years late and still in early beta) .
> Apple doesn't release any piece of source code.
Just what the fuck you are talking about? They do. mDNSresponder for example.
Yes users do stupid stuff - I can agree with that. It does not give you right to call them stupid - they are probably uninformed in IT stuff same as you are uninformed (I assume) in medicine, dentistics and so on. I don't call you stupid because you (I assume) know shit about medicine and need to use a doctor in case you are sick. That is for starters.
The real issue is that Windows is inherently insecure because of (order does NOT matter):
- most users run as Administrators members (and Windows XP SP2 - the latest retail version creates such accounts by default)
- Windows is packed with technologies like "Fax Sending Service" (notice it was like one of serious flaws recently) and other shit meant there (like users running as admins) for backward (meaning early 90ties?) compability - just dump that. yes dump the compatibility, fuck it - choose between safety in todays operations or compatibility with not properly written DOS and Windows 9x programs
- Windows incorporates technologies that are insecure by default - like you can click on EXE file and run it from a browser (giving you dialog, that potential user will not read, with just an *ADVISE* not to run the program) - hell dump it, not allow to run native programs from Internet without some serious hasle
- Windows is most targeted due the market share
You seriously think that the last argument is most obvious? It is meaningfull but it is not the *only* argument. Windows has design flaws that market share DOES NOT explain.
> I know some CD's have it as well, but most don't,
:)
> and you may as well at least make the effort to check.
These are no CD's or formaly Audio Compact Discs - if they issue some non-standard DRM mechanisms they cannot be marketed as CD's and need to be properly marked as these are no CD's (in common sense). At least here where I live.
It is exactly an issue of calling something the name which it isn't. AudioCD is a standardized format and it DOES NOT include any DRM extensions (f.e. making it not work in car audio player or your computer).
If you bought something that is advertised as a CD (audio) - f.e. it was on the same shelf that other real CD's - and it does not work in your AudioCD player (namely your computer, your hifi, your car) you can bring it back to the store and return it since it is not an AudioCD.
6. VT (virtualisation - think vmware and various open source projects being in mainstream kernel right now) :) :)
7. Software As Service vs. Boxed Software which still does not solve your problems before you get a decent service with the software. MS is trying to do services but the fact is that only real revenue they recive (considering their size) is boxed-sets of Office and Windows XP.
8. Simple, replicable ideas - now almost everybody have widgets on destkop - Linux/OSX got it early with Konfabulator and Karramba and such (Windows probably got theirs also), Apple then made it mainstream with Dashboard, then goes Yahoo! with widgets for Windows (WTF wants Yahoo! widgets on Mac?), then goes Opera then goes just about anybody... and on the end is MS with no widgets for current Windows at all. Just wank off waiting for Vista - we will deliver yesterday technology when we are ready to.
Probably some more points here but I'am not feeling quite brilliant right now.
Of course it is *part* of wrongly designed software. I mean WTF needs the option to black out text in word processor using a rectangle? It should not be possible at all, or produce big fat warning message everytime it occurs.
Well it boils down to the fact that it is easier to use Windows as non-admin when youknow the Administrator password. :)
> What next, are they going to refuse to include the linux *kernel*
:) They sell service. Welcome to 21st century.
> because it doesn't use the latest version of the GNU license?
They *may* - and this is the point. They want to stay independent
(...)
> then make their users go compile the linux kernel themselves if
> they want that...
But already their users *may* go compile their kernel on their own - that is exactly the point. What is your argument?
> Then they can complain about how much linus is hurting open source
> software by not using the license they want.
Or alternatively they *may* fork current kernel which is released on GPL (not future-GPL) *forever*.
> Where do they get off demanding that sun or any company release
> its software under any particular license?
They do not demand anything - they just state that this license is not proper according to them. Sun can still "do-what-they-wanna".
> Sun is *already* giving away their software for free.
So fucking what? MS is giving away MS Windows Media Encoder for free - does it make it anyway more free? Free as in beer contrasted to free speech - simple as that.
> Red Hat and others should consider themselves lucky that it gets to
> sell software that it didn't even write in the first place.
Maybe, just, please, consider that they (RH) don't sell software?
Because you've already sayed it - *still*. It is stil free for download. But it is *possible* to cease that - and that is why it is not compilant. Because you are dependent on one vendor. Point.
Free or not - same like being pregnant - you are or you are not. Java is not (free).
> This may not be a popular sentiment here
/. ;)
... to bring affordable computing to children in developing
:)
No. It is OK to bash Red Hat on
> but I think the statement the failure of open source Java
> means that it can't be used on millions of $100, Linux-powered
> PC's
> nations is a bit of a cheap shot. The way it is stated, it makes
> Sun look like some sort of terrible ogre, that is denying children
> access to computers, when it is the program creator that does
> not allow Java on the laptops.
Exactly. Because (if You already haven't known that) RedHat is directly competing with Sun so this is basically a bullshit PR note to kick each other in the nuts.
RedHat for me has two faces - one is corporation side marketing/PR/and-so-on bullshit stuff.
The other is RH's great commitment to free software, RHEL is purely free software, with all sources aviable. You have some mandatory (on desktop) packages and some third-party binary-blob-drivers. But that is necesity for them to be on market.
Besides that RH is trully GPL, they give out sources, they pay for loads of developers working directly on GPLed code, they sponsor events, they even sponsor and support their free (like both beer and speech) distribution which is Fedora, they buy code and then release it as GPL so others can use it if they wish...
Etc.
RH is *great* company, with great attitude and great business model. Call me stupid - but I see it like this.
Oh, and I use SuSE.
> make sure your users don't work as administrator
> but under an unprivileged user account
For office desktop - OK it is possible with some hassles. But what with notebooks that are odten work/personal system - Windows is way awkard in dealing with this separation in usedull way. Make an user a non-admin on his laptop and for sure he will flood the help desk with loads of calls, like:
- what is the password for changing this... erm... network setting cause I am in this hotel and this lady asks me for the password to turn the Internet on
- can you make foo application work? I don't know - it just crashes producing somekind of not permited error
Etc. etc.
Look in theory it can be done with Windows - Windows has superb privilege mechanisms - much better than cheesy unix stuff. To bad it it to complex and too clunky and hard to setup. It should come with sensible defaults (as some desktop oriented Linux distros or OSX) - sure it is a compromise, but you have limited resources either to deal with support and security. After all the user is to make his job done, the computer is just a tool. Problem is that Windows is a very poor tool in this matter. (and I *trully* wish it would be better)
(...)
> build the network in such a way that programs cannot directly "connect home"
> but can connect to the Internet only via well-defined proxy servers
But what is the point if the proxy will still relay everything? Maybe you've misspelled it - you mean proxies that filter what is comming thru them - again - possible, but costly and hard to implement, and still not deterministic. What if I send TCP encapsulated into email messages via valid white-listed servers? What if I do it over SSL since I've just cracked Outlook to do so? How will you filter that? Complex enough? What is your budget on security?
> setup mail so that incoming office documents opened from mail do not
> open in Office but in the free Office viewers instead
Stupid client side solution. Scan the documents on server. Stupid.
I agree with you. But one thing - email should link not to "the document" (unless you've intended it). In proper content management system it should link to precise *version* of the document - the version you are reffering to.
:\ Call it the Windows way of sharing, since Windows does not have any decent forms of collaboration on files bulit-in users do the most obvious thing after all - they mail the file.
I mean that email is not instantly read when you send it - sending link to whatever system holding the content you reffer to may result in reader seeing other version (i.e. corrected in the mean time) than you intended.
But I agree with you - pseudo-modern systems usage boils to attach DOC file and send it. Then after some time you end with footeen different versions of the same content.
It is hard to blame the users and banning them from doing what they have done for years is stupid. If not attachments - look they kind of work in real world - what option do you suggest?
Most of users are just to lazy - they won't tag their documents, version it in back-office CMS and so on because they just want to stand to what they know about it and do not understand the benefits - how you deal with that?
KDE is just open source desktop shell - it is not tied to Linux in any way. Sure it is mostly used on Linux but such clasification (KDE = Linux) is just opposite to spirit of free software. KDE is free so you can run it on any ststem - be it Solaris, Linux, *BSD, OSX, Windows whatever.
/. editors seem to not uderstand *principle* rules of free software.
If I like KDE and dont like Linux I could possibly run it on *BSD.
It is strange that
> Lets say you have 10 users all running firefox, at the same time, then
> one of them uses a customers credit card to buy stuff from some online
> store. How do you find that user?
Ummm... Let them connect to the outside world only via proxy to which they need to login?
Easy one...
Actually NTFS (filesystem that Windows NT uses) can be case sensitive. It is that by default shell and kernel is configured to be case insensitive. This is due to POSIX compatibility which requires case sensivity.
It is not about cheap you are talking about. You are talking about your data security (in context of backuping it). First requirement is the data to be safe. Next is to be cheap. So if you wan't real sure solution it is probably big iron. :) A *nix (Samba or whatever access you wish - it will probably have it) server with decent disk (like 2x 300GB) configured as file server. Additionaly (for backup purposes) some form of tape backup (automated library would be the best) and frequent backups/working backups for your data.
It will not be cheap. It will be normal price I guess.
And also do not forget basic backup security measures like:
1) Having *two* (more is better actually) copies in independent (geographically) locations.
2) Testing disaster recovery often - to make sure your backup is worth anything.
It will not be home-cheap. It will be such-solution-normal-price.
But with this web-based/AJAX thingies it is a bit a conflict of interest for Microsoft. MS desperately tries to jump onto the services band-wagon. But the truth is that their main revenue comes from shrink-wrapped software (like Windows or Office). They *try* to laverage that to other areas but they fail miserably.
Take MS vs. Google. Now Google still IMHO does everything before MS, and then MS goes "me too" and issues something similar but yet worse than Google offering. In normal situation - meaning MS has no money to pump from OS/software revenue into new markets they would not get a chance against Google - they will simply bankrupt. Right now they pump the money but I doubt they get any revenue (even to go on zero line) from their web services.
Now as far as I understand they wan't to couple web-based software (more like service) with shrink-wrappedsoftware like Windows and Office. I base that on various interviews with MS execs about MS product line I've read. But this is like flawed idea from the begining. The most valuable part (IMHO) about web software is that it only needs a browser and server infrastructure on the other end. So in fact you do not need to pay any special attention to the client side (as you would have to with shrink-wrapped software). So for e.g. you could have a big extranet with 5000 clients across the world, using one sophisticated application by web and only thing you need is decent server architecture and on client side - commodity: standard browser running on any OS, maybe a printer or smth. to get the job done.
This is completely the opposite of having fat clients loaded with bloated OS and software suites - the MS way.
So I see a conflict here.
> The one factor that will keep this happening is performance and speed.
The other (probably the most important) problem will be with legal options (like terms of use).
Meaning - WTF? This is /. - I need to review blog comparsion for grannies/teens whatever? I review lots of publishing software (and not - not just PHP based, free-as-in-beer stuff). There ale lots of valuable positions - but I mean the comparsion. It is flawed - it just compares ease of use and nice interface, blogging is not about that. Blogging is complicated. I mean I would like to see comparsion of heavy CMS systems that *also* do versioning, publication of *any* file type (photos, flash, movies and shit like that), decent folksonomy, dozens of plugins, easy API etc.
This would be blogging soft for me. But this comparsion is retarded (in my geek head of course). I like power/flexibility/functionality - whatever I do - be it blogging via SSH and VIM, be it PERL or better Python - but let it be flexible and powerful. Not fuckin' retarded.
Stupid comparsion IMHO.