They take some extremely popular movie X, slap DRM on it, sell millions of copies to a group of consumers (say teens) who don't necessarily value or "get" the subtleties of freedom and rights; they have a disc, view the movie, instant gratification relieved, get movie Y.
The root of the problem is not DRM or even the movie studios; It's morons. It has been this way since the start of time, not going to change anytime soon either.
So either I lose my rights, or I lose the ability to see the (few) true quality pieces produced.
What rights? The right to watch movies? Hate to break it to you; That's not a right. That's a privledge the owners of the copyright are granting you under their terms. You can either accept their terms or choose not to watch. No rights lost; Not unless we start forcing the studios to put out movies in specific formats; We'd be taking away the rights of the copyright holders to chose how to distribute their works.
Don't get me wrong; I'm against DRM as much as the next guy. I just chose not to buy the crap that has it. Vote with the dollar, it's the only way they'll listen.
Well, no Linus, it's not their problem. It's the user's problem. You're a big believer in letting people do what they want to do.. that's great stuff. Very liberal minded. I'm sure I've said something along those lines myself. Of course, I tend to clarify it with the caveat that what they want to do can't hurt or take away the freedom of others. Is that just an omission on the part of the reporter or do you really believe you have no moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong?
To answer this, let's take a look at the biggest users of DRM: The audio/video industry. Say they take movie X, slap some unbreakable DRM on it. They own the rights to the movie and content, therefore it's their choice how they market and release it ( if that is their goal ). And it's my choice whether I wish to buy a knowingly crippled product ( the right to watch the movie on approved players ).
What would you argue I do here: Class action them into releasing their rightfully owned product in a more open format? What grounds would I have to do so? I'm not being forced to buy their product ( and in fact, the DRM would hurt their sales ). You want to get riled up about an injustice, look at the states and mandatory car insurance.
In this, Linus is absolutely correct: Let people play with DRM; In the long term, it hardly matters.
I doubt he thought that far ahead, or thought they were gonna screw him over it. Everything's easy with hindsight.
If it's anything like where I work, the cops think they can do anything and get away with it. Typically, they are quite right; They have done anything and gotten away with it. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he thought he'd be able to just coast on through this with that mentality.
First, you say this, Being that Pegasus and Mercury were both free, I don't see how this is a free market in action.
Then you say this,
The lack of funding is from support licenses and manual purchases (as in RTFM). Many of his older base didn't need the manuals but purchased them anyway.
Had he had a large enough install base, he would not have had this problem. Hence, the market has decided.
Part of the problem is this; When asked if we ( software developers ) can do something, the answer is typically yes; Of course we can do something. Given enough time and money, we can write software to accomplish just about anything. The problem lies in that we may not have experience in that field, or we do but this request is different in a way to make it difficult.
Software development is a lot like engineering, only without the hundreds of years of experience to pull from. And it's a lot like janitorial work, only without the experience to draw from there as well. Managers, marketting ( and schools really ) like to see it like a burger to be flipped.
Myspace is painful to look at, and really, no one I know is so interesting that I need to go read their blogs. The entire idea of a whole page dedicated to me is egotistical in the extreme; I realize I am not that important.
1) An OS with an exceptionally delayed production cycle. From a company with a less than stellar coding rep. Color me cynical, but I'm still worried they pushed it out the door early.
2) They rewrote the tcp stack. This terrifies me. We have what is essentially untested code in a critical component of the OS. Again, from a company with a less than stellar coding rep.
3) Support; It takes longer than a month for techs to figure out a new OS.
4) Infrastructure; Most systems in place in a corporation can't run vista. Further, we will not be upgrading just to pay the new tax to MS.
If in three or five years vista adoption is lacking, then that's a story; As of now, it's just common sense.
The only ONLY things one can count on a web browser understanding is plaintext (7 bit ascii) and HTML. Requiring Javascript, especially with all the really nasty bugs that it, and its implementations, have is an asshole thing to do. You seem to be an asshole.
While I don't argue the point ( I very much am an asshole ), I happen to be an asshole that's right. So let me ask you this; Which version of HTML should they depend on? Obviously CSS is out; As is xhtml. Hell, html4.0 would probably be a bad idea too.
And how about this html anyway? Who's to say that's useful at all, with all it's buggy implementations. Telnet. Everyone has telnet, and it's pretty hard to fook telnet session.
Javascript adds functionality to a website; It's oddities are well understood for the major browsers, and it's not as if it's hard to get a hold of a browser that does javascript.
Low or not, this is a public system funded with public money. It should be available to the lowest common denominator. The javascript stuff is fine, but it still must be usable without
Uh, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this. It's not as if Javascript is a proprietary app, or something that's hard to get a hold of; Any modern browser will have it. Hell, any semi-modern browser will have it.
Following your logic, they shouldn't use CSS either. Or any html beyond 1.0.
No. No it's not. That's not to say that I can count on a client having other scripting language, but that Javascript is NOT ubiquitous, and certainly not guaranteed to be updated if it IS present.
It's close enough as to not make a difference. Look at it this way; How many browsers out there don't support javascript? How many people are using them? Now how many people have javascript turned off?
I think you'd find that the numbers involved are excedingly low.
Generally, it's wise not to open your mouth unless you know what you are talking about;
The kernel firewall knows how to MASQ udp packets; There's a timeout associated with them. So if you get a random UDP packet that it doesn't have a matching connection for, it'll drop it.
The real problem is being an administrator for a network which doesn't block outgoing traffic.
While you are spot on with XP, with 2k the upgrade from NT 3 was immense. 2k was lightyears beyond NT or 98, which is why it replaced everything else as quickly as it did.
In fact, MS really shot itself in the foot with 2k, in a way; It was so good that it's still a viable OS today.
XP was merely an incremental improvement. In fact, in a corporate environment, it was a bigger hassle to work with than 2k was. Why everyone upgraded is remincent of lemmings.
Only about four failures in one year and you are ready to condemn the whole company.
It's not just the failures, it's what they are. Frankly, after the whole root kit fiasco, I gave up on Sony. The rest is just reassurance that I made the right decision.
From the end user perspective, no. More choices are not better. The fewer the better. In fact, you will notice that an application that "just works" is highly sought after, instead of one that gives the user a never ending parade of choices.
From a middle tier perspective, more choices are good; Let me, the admin, make the choices for my end users. Give me all the options in the world. Just hide them from the end user so they aren't confused by them.
In a non-corporate environment, the vendors themselves have to play this role. But really, I don't see a problem with that.
"New Scientist is running an article on lifestyle drugs that claim to help you function on little or no sleep. I'm dubious, but the interviewee in the article claims they work well. 'Yves (not his real name), a 31- year-old software developer from Seattle, often doesn't have time for a full night's sleep. So he swallows something to make sure he doesn't need one.'"
Perhaps, but I can't fault ICANN for this one, as much as I might like to. Like it or not, most internet technologies have their roots in latin speaking countries, which means systems developed there may not be tweaked to work with outside language schemes.
If the fault lies with anyone, it's with the individual contributers of the tech. Or better, with the non-latin countries appearent lack of interest in some of the core projects needed to push this through ICANN ( specifically DNS, httpd ).
Computer security should be handled with the same priority as physical security (keeping facilities secure)
Unless you have valuable products you are storing, most places' physical security begins and ends with deterrent and auditing. It's cheaper to put a single lock on the door and an alarm system that logs off site than it is to put in reinforced glass with bars and magnetic locks.
This is not the point of view you want to take with data security, which is the "product" that you are trying to protect.
There's nothing about tech support that requires a degree. Why bother to spend tens of thousands of dollars and several years on formal schooling to take the same job you could have had out of high school? Yes, someone with a BS -is- too good for tech support.
Slashdot Mirror
They take some extremely popular movie X, slap DRM on it, sell millions of copies to a group of consumers (say teens) who don't necessarily value or "get" the subtleties of freedom and rights; they have a disc, view the movie, instant gratification relieved, get movie Y.
The root of the problem is not DRM or even the movie studios; It's morons. It has been this way since the start of time, not going to change anytime soon either.
So either I lose my rights, or I lose the ability to see the (few) true quality pieces produced.
What rights? The right to watch movies? Hate to break it to you; That's not a right. That's a privledge the owners of the copyright are granting you under their terms. You can either accept their terms or choose not to watch. No rights lost; Not unless we start forcing the studios to put out movies in specific formats; We'd be taking away the rights of the copyright holders to chose how to distribute their works.
Don't get me wrong; I'm against DRM as much as the next guy. I just chose not to buy the crap that has it. Vote with the dollar, it's the only way they'll listen.
Well, no Linus, it's not their problem. It's the user's problem. You're a big believer in letting people do what they want to do.. that's great stuff. Very liberal minded. I'm sure I've said something along those lines myself. Of course, I tend to clarify it with the caveat that what they want to do can't hurt or take away the freedom of others. Is that just an omission on the part of the reporter or do you really believe you have no moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong?
To answer this, let's take a look at the biggest users of DRM: The audio/video industry. Say they take movie X, slap some unbreakable DRM on it. They own the rights to the movie and content, therefore it's their choice how they market and release it ( if that is their goal ). And it's my choice whether I wish to buy a knowingly crippled product ( the right to watch the movie on approved players ).
What would you argue I do here: Class action them into releasing their rightfully owned product in a more open format? What grounds would I have to do so? I'm not being forced to buy their product ( and in fact, the DRM would hurt their sales ). You want to get riled up about an injustice, look at the states and mandatory car insurance.
In this, Linus is absolutely correct: Let people play with DRM; In the long term, it hardly matters.
I doubt he thought that far ahead, or thought they were gonna screw him over it. Everything's easy with hindsight.
If it's anything like where I work, the cops think they can do anything and get away with it. Typically, they are quite right; They have done anything and gotten away with it. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he thought he'd be able to just coast on through this with that mentality.
The market decided that they didn't need support or manuals, not that they didn't want the FREE programs.
Well yes, but Pegasus != FREE programs. Pegasus was free, yes, but not all free programs are pegasus.
First, you say this,
Being that Pegasus and Mercury were both free, I don't see how this is a free market in action.
Then you say this,
The lack of funding is from support licenses and manual purchases (as in RTFM). Many of his older base didn't need the manuals but purchased them anyway.
Had he had a large enough install base, he would not have had this problem. Hence, the market has decided.
Part of the problem is this; When asked if we ( software developers ) can do something, the answer is typically yes; Of course we can do something. Given enough time and money, we can write software to accomplish just about anything. The problem lies in that we may not have experience in that field, or we do but this request is different in a way to make it difficult.
Software development is a lot like engineering, only without the hundreds of years of experience to pull from. And it's a lot like janitorial work, only without the experience to draw from there as well. Managers, marketting ( and schools really ) like to see it like a burger to be flipped.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the lack of funding indicate that nobody wants to use it anymore? Free market in action and all that?
Further, what would Pegasus do that thunderbird or outlook doesn't do? Would it be better money spent writing custom plugins for thunderbird?
Does that count?
Myspace is painful to look at, and really, no one I know is so interesting that I need to go read their blogs. The entire idea of a whole page dedicated to me is egotistical in the extreme; I realize I am not that important.
Let's go through the bullet points, shall we?
1) An OS with an exceptionally delayed production cycle. From a company with a less than stellar coding rep. Color me cynical, but I'm still worried they pushed it out the door early.
2) They rewrote the tcp stack. This terrifies me. We have what is essentially untested code in a critical component of the OS. Again, from a company with a less than stellar coding rep.
3) Support; It takes longer than a month for techs to figure out a new OS.
4) Infrastructure; Most systems in place in a corporation can't run vista. Further, we will not be upgrading just to pay the new tax to MS.
If in three or five years vista adoption is lacking, then that's a story; As of now, it's just common sense.
The only ONLY things one can count on a web browser understanding is plaintext (7 bit ascii) and HTML. Requiring Javascript, especially with all the really nasty bugs that it, and its implementations, have is an asshole thing to do. You seem to be an asshole.
While I don't argue the point ( I very much am an asshole ), I happen to be an asshole that's right. So let me ask you this; Which version of HTML should they depend on? Obviously CSS is out; As is xhtml. Hell, html4.0 would probably be a bad idea too.
And how about this html anyway? Who's to say that's useful at all, with all it's buggy implementations. Telnet. Everyone has telnet, and it's pretty hard to fook telnet session.
Javascript adds functionality to a website; It's oddities are well understood for the major browsers, and it's not as if it's hard to get a hold of a browser that does javascript.
Low or not, this is a public system funded with public money. It should be available to the lowest common denominator. The javascript stuff is fine, but it still must be usable without
Uh, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying this. It's not as if Javascript is a proprietary app, or something that's hard to get a hold of; Any modern browser will have it. Hell, any semi-modern browser will have it.
Following your logic, they shouldn't use CSS either. Or any html beyond 1.0.
There are extremely strong technical reasons not to rely on JavaScript to deliver content.
I agree with this, mostly. For my part, I use javascript as a sort of helper of the webpage; If it's not present, no big loss.
But following your argument, they shouldn't use CSS either.
No. No it's not. That's not to say that I can count on a client having other scripting language, but that Javascript is NOT ubiquitous, and certainly not guaranteed to be updated if it IS present.
It's close enough as to not make a difference. Look at it this way; How many browsers out there don't support javascript? How many people are using them? Now how many people have javascript turned off?
I think you'd find that the numbers involved are excedingly low.
Because Javascript does some neat things, despite it's bad rep. And it's the only client side scripting language that you can count the client having.
Generally, it's wise not to open your mouth unless you know what you are talking about;
The kernel firewall knows how to MASQ udp packets; There's a timeout associated with them. So if you get a random UDP packet that it doesn't have a matching connection for, it'll drop it.
The real problem is being an administrator for a network which doesn't block outgoing traffic.
Alarm.com
On the otherhand, this question seems almost custom made for this response, so who knows if it's astroturfing.
It's a freakin' ad.
Pushing would be forcing you to install IE7 to use yahoo.
While you are spot on with XP, with 2k the upgrade from NT 3 was immense. 2k was lightyears beyond NT or 98, which is why it replaced everything else as quickly as it did.
In fact, MS really shot itself in the foot with 2k, in a way; It was so good that it's still a viable OS today.
XP was merely an incremental improvement. In fact, in a corporate environment, it was a bigger hassle to work with than 2k was. Why everyone upgraded is remincent of lemmings.
Only about four failures in one year and you are ready to condemn the whole company.
It's not just the failures, it's what they are. Frankly, after the whole root kit fiasco, I gave up on Sony. The rest is just reassurance that I made the right decision.
From the end user perspective, no. More choices are not better. The fewer the better. In fact, you will notice that an application that "just works" is highly sought after, instead of one that gives the user a never ending parade of choices.
From a middle tier perspective, more choices are good; Let me, the admin, make the choices for my end users. Give me all the options in the world. Just hide them from the end user so they aren't confused by them.
In a non-corporate environment, the vendors themselves have to play this role. But really, I don't see a problem with that.
"New Scientist is running an article on lifestyle drugs that claim to help you function on little or no sleep. I'm dubious, but the interviewee in the article claims they work well. 'Yves (not his real name), a 31- year-old software developer from Seattle, often doesn't have time for a full night's sleep. So he swallows something to make sure he doesn't need one.'"
It's refreshing to see evolution still at work.
Perhaps, but I can't fault ICANN for this one, as much as I might like to. Like it or not, most internet technologies have their roots in latin speaking countries, which means systems developed there may not be tweaked to work with outside language schemes.
If the fault lies with anyone, it's with the individual contributers of the tech. Or better, with the non-latin countries appearent lack of interest in some of the core projects needed to push this through ICANN ( specifically DNS, httpd ).
And, of course, this only works on mice. Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?
Indeed! I say we offer up tens of millions of our fellow human beings until we too get the cool shit.
Where do I sign?
Computer security should be handled with the same priority as physical security (keeping facilities secure)
Unless you have valuable products you are storing, most places' physical security begins and ends with deterrent and auditing. It's cheaper to put a single lock on the door and an alarm system that logs off site than it is to put in reinforced glass with bars and magnetic locks.
This is not the point of view you want to take with data security, which is the "product" that you are trying to protect.
There's nothing about tech support that requires a degree. Why bother to spend tens of thousands of dollars and several years on formal schooling to take the same job you could have had out of high school? Yes, someone with a BS -is- too good for tech support.
Obviously not, as the market is pointing out.