But I reckon the thing about the free/open source software is that the people who write it are not just interested in making a load of cash, they have genuine pride in the stuff they make. I am sure that when someone works on a project, they want that project to be popular, and that they also will use it themself very often.
It's that whole action-reaction business that's going on. It seems to me that if say GNU/Linux ever sees a user base like Windows, then maybe security problems or whatever will start springing up all over the place. But I think that when people complain about them, the community will listen, and the developers will do their best to change the way things work to be more secure.
That's the way I believe it works in open source. It's actually good that you are bringing up these issues, I think that writing free software and donating to free software are fine things to do, but another fine thing to do is offer criticism, preferably constructive criticism. If the things you say are true, someone will listen and changes will eventually be made.
That's something I just don't think Microsoft has in its favour, a true willingness to listen to and satisfy the needs of its user base.
Yeah sorry, I don't agree with that... I have used Gentoo recently and I am using Slackware at the moment, and I have to say that they don't really seem very similar to me. They are both pretty "nerdcore", but that's about it. Slackware has a kind of elegant simplicity that Gentoo lacks. Gentoo has an entirely different feel to it.
I just thought I would post a brief message about supermount. If anyone wants to upgrade to 2.6.7 and still use supermount, I don't think vanilla kernels have it in there (yet, I'm sure it'll get in there sooner or later). I'm pretty sure the Mandrake and Gentoo kernels have support for it (gentoo-dev-sources do, anyway), but I just looked at gentoo-dev-sources and it is at version 2.6.5, dunno about Mandrake, but I'm sure it will take a few days for all the distros to catch up.
If you want to upgrade for security reasons, but you also want supermount in your kernel (as I do), this guy seems to have a patch for 2.6.7, which might come in handy if you don't want to wait for your distro to catch up. I am going to use this patch myself, but I cannot guarantee that it won't bone your system so to speak. The patch is not just supermount, it looks like it has some other stuff in it too, so decide for yourself!
Seeing as how I'm posting this, I may as well give a little background for those not "in the know". Supermount is a sort of filesystem, you mount your CD-ROM and floppy drives (or even USB sticks) with it, and it will automatically mount and unmount the media when you insert or remove it, kind of like on Windows. Personally, I think it is great, and it is hard to live without it now I have it.
You can learn more about it at the project website. Jeez, if it turns out the vanilla kernel does have supermount after all, I am going to look a right idiot... *presses Submit*
Precisely. You just need to remember those three little words: "Embrace and expand". Imagine if the government went out and released a new video codec, the best one out there yet. However, as there are already quite a few video codecs out there, nobody seems particularly quick to adopt it. However, Microsoft sets their beady eyes upon it, change it a little bit (just enough to make it incompatible), patent it, then make it the default choice in the next version of Windows Media Player. As it's the Windows default, and a good codec to boot, it becomes very widespread, and anyone who wants to view it without Windows Media Player is up shit creek.
Well, that might seem like a good scenario to you, but to me it seems that Public Domain software is a good way to get ripped off. I really wish it wasn't, but that's just the way it is, and that's why the GPL exists.
"But the decision of the EC might just come into effect very soon, regardless of Microsoft's appeal."
Yeah, and damn good thing too! I don't see why the rulings that were made didn't just come into effect right away. I don't really know much about legal proceedings and such, but I'm pretty sure that if a fellow gets convicted of murder or whatever and sent to prison, he isn't just allowed to say "OMG NO FAIR I APPEAL MAN" and then he can walk free for three years until his appeal comes back.
The way I see it, Microsoft should simply have to comply right away. Then, if they want to lodge an appeal claim, then they are perfectly entitled to do so. If they win, they get their fine back with interest, as well as compensation for any money lost due to the other rulings. Maybe, as they say, once their systems are openly documented they cannot simply be UN-documented if they are found to be innocent. Then again, if a jailed man is found to be innocent, his lost time can't just be given back. That's the way the law works, and it needs to be the same for everyone!
Well you may have a point, but I KNOW that my body is pretty repulsive, and I KNOW that most sane people have absolutely no desire to gaze upon my hideous form. That is why I wear clothes, and they cover my whole body, except my hands and sometimes my lower arms.
There are times and places for revealing certain parts of even unsightly bodies. The swimming pool is one of those places... you go for a swim, you just have to accept there will be the occasional fat guy with a back rug who wears skimpy speedos. If you go to a beach, there will be the occasional obese lady with no top on. It's what you come to expect.
Now it is arguable that maybe with a convention costume you expect the odd overconspicuous flabby limb. But when you can see a PERFECT OUTLINE OF HIS FRICKING GENITALS then things are going seriously wrong! I admit he is pretty brave, but frankly, he deserves to be mocked. A sticking out beer gut, fair enough. Perfect scrotal detail, posted to the web for everyone to see, just... no.
Ok, I think this story was posted before, but I want my rant so I am posting anyway...
Can anybody tell me exactly how this ISN'T price fixing? Eh? As far as I know, the whole iTunes thing is doing pretty well, and $0.99/song seems like a pretty fair price to me, considering how you just get a DRM'd file, no CD case or nice insert/booklet thing or whatever. This move just looks like the RIAA is some kind of cartel or something, who just try to keep prices as high as they can get away with because they have a stranglehold on the market... oh, oh, hang on, is that EXACTLY WHAT IT FRICKING WELL IS?
I'm truly sorry if there is some reason apart from lust for coinage that means they have to raise the price, like bandwidth has suddenly become more expensive, or the money generated does not leave the artist with enough money to live or something like that, but to this customer, it almost looks criminal.
Bastards, I'll laugh when you're dead, RIAA, and I'll never pay you a penny again.
How about if I download one of your songs, decide that I like it, then buy the album? There will always be those who don't want to pay, but real fans of music will always want to support the artists they love.
For me, and many people I know, the illegal method of file-sharing is the best way to avoid being forced to eat the rubbish the big record labels try and shove down your throat.
If I cannot find music that I like, I will not buy music. If the big labels try and stop me finding out for myself... well then, their loss!
Yeah... I mean jeez, TECHNICALLY the people who come up with these grand schemes of user enslavement must be reasonably bright, but this whole Trusted Computing stuff does make me wonder, it is just a load of complete nonsense! Not to underestimate the threat, of course, but seriously... suppose this thing actually takes off... it's SUCH a serious inconvenience that you'd have pretty much EVERY hacker in the world trying to crack it...
Even if the odds were pretty slim of cracking it or whatever, the sheer amount of people would be bound to yield some kind of hack eventually. If it's illegal? So what! Word gets around, look at filesharing, Kazaa doesn't exactly get big TV adverts, and it certainly aint legal (well, let's face it, not for what most people use it for).
And suppose your average John Smith sits down in front of the TV after a frustrating day of trying to [insert task prevented by Trusted Computing here], and sees an advert for a NEW kind of computer that does what YOU want, just like the good old days, or he sees a political broadcast for a candidate promising to outlaw TC... what do you think he's going to do?
Yeah, so I'm thinking this is just going to turn out to be a ridiculous waste of a lot of time and money.
I agree, keeping the PL at 1000 is damaging. I use Kazaa Lite myself, and I turn it off from the options. The PL idea does NOT force people to share files. If you have a PL of 1, you can still download as much as you like.
What it DOES do however, is to reward those who DO host and manage (manage in terms of assigning keywords, ratings, etc.) a lot of desireable files. Now, in an ideal world, this would not be necessary, but the world is far from ideal and it is. IIRC, when two people are downloading a file from the same person, the one with the higher PL gets the most bandwidth. This seems like a good idea to me, it rewards those who share, thus keeping the system alive.
Now I have heard people complaining that they have a slow connection, so they cannot compete with people with broadband connections, as those people can upload much more and therefore achieve a higher PL in less time. This is true. However, if you only have a 56K modem, the PL should mean little to you. As I understand it, since 56Kers can only get a maximum download speed of ~4KB/s anyway, if you have a PL of 5 zillion, your download still aint going to come very fast. With broadband, the percentage of someone's bandwidth you are allocated could make much more of a difference.
Basically, I think the PL is a good idea, and I would appeal to everyone who uses Kazaa Lite or whatever to turn PL = 1000 off. Thanks.
I admit that I use P2P apps a lot, to download music without paying. But at the same time I own quite a lot of CDs. And you know what? A lot of the time those CDs have been bought as a direct result of downloading music!
For me, P2P is a great way for me to listen to new bands that I discover. If I like them, I buy the CD because frankly I feel guilty not paying for the music, and also the mp3s people share tend to have been ripped from a gouged CD, using some 3rd-rate software to encode it at 128kb/s CBR.
It is the same for most of my friends. Many of them seem to agree P2P is only necessary because the current distribution methods seem to be an anachronism. I would rather pay for a service whereby maybe I can stream a couple of songs from an album to see if I like them, then pay to download them. Yes, I know there are services like iTunes and emusic, but these services have their own problems, like regional issues (I live in the UK, so this causes problems with different labels having distribution rights and such) and hardware (I believe iTunes is still only available for Mac, although perhaps I read about PC support in the future perhaps? I forget).
So, basically I am in support of this campaign and I truly hope that they expedite the implementation of a more modern and more useful system for acquiring music. However, I have my doubts- sometimes I think that the large record companies feel such a great need to control peoples musical tastes that they might fear that the greater freedom that an electronic system could provide would cause them to lose control of being able to force certain bands down peoples throats as "the next big thing"......but I hope not:)
Slashdot Mirror
But I reckon the thing about the free/open source software is that the people who write it are not just interested in making a load of cash, they have genuine pride in the stuff they make. I am sure that when someone works on a project, they want that project to be popular, and that they also will use it themself very often.
It's that whole action-reaction business that's going on. It seems to me that if say GNU/Linux ever sees a user base like Windows, then maybe security problems or whatever will start springing up all over the place. But I think that when people complain about them, the community will listen, and the developers will do their best to change the way things work to be more secure.
That's the way I believe it works in open source. It's actually good that you are bringing up these issues, I think that writing free software and donating to free software are fine things to do, but another fine thing to do is offer criticism, preferably constructive criticism. If the things you say are true, someone will listen and changes will eventually be made.
That's something I just don't think Microsoft has in its favour, a true willingness to listen to and satisfy the needs of its user base.
Yeah sorry, I don't agree with that... I have used Gentoo recently and I am using Slackware at the moment, and I have to say that they don't really seem very similar to me. They are both pretty "nerdcore", but that's about it. Slackware has a kind of elegant simplicity that Gentoo lacks. Gentoo has an entirely different feel to it.
I just thought I would post a brief message about supermount. If anyone wants to upgrade to 2.6.7 and still use supermount, I don't think vanilla kernels have it in there (yet, I'm sure it'll get in there sooner or later). I'm pretty sure the Mandrake and Gentoo kernels have support for it (gentoo-dev-sources do, anyway), but I just looked at gentoo-dev-sources and it is at version 2.6.5, dunno about Mandrake, but I'm sure it will take a few days for all the distros to catch up.
If you want to upgrade for security reasons, but you also want supermount in your kernel (as I do), this guy seems to have a patch for 2.6.7, which might come in handy if you don't want to wait for your distro to catch up. I am going to use this patch myself, but I cannot guarantee that it won't bone your system so to speak. The patch is not just supermount, it looks like it has some other stuff in it too, so decide for yourself!
Seeing as how I'm posting this, I may as well give a little background for those not "in the know". Supermount is a sort of filesystem, you mount your CD-ROM and floppy drives (or even USB sticks) with it, and it will automatically mount and unmount the media when you insert or remove it, kind of like on Windows. Personally, I think it is great, and it is hard to live without it now I have it.
You can learn more about it at the project website. Jeez, if it turns out the vanilla kernel does have supermount after all, I am going to look a right idiot... *presses Submit*
Precisely. You just need to remember those three little words: "Embrace and expand". Imagine if the government went out and released a new video codec, the best one out there yet. However, as there are already quite a few video codecs out there, nobody seems particularly quick to adopt it. However, Microsoft sets their beady eyes upon it, change it a little bit (just enough to make it incompatible), patent it, then make it the default choice in the next version of Windows Media Player. As it's the Windows default, and a good codec to boot, it becomes very widespread, and anyone who wants to view it without Windows Media Player is up shit creek.
Well, that might seem like a good scenario to you, but to me it seems that Public Domain software is a good way to get ripped off. I really wish it wasn't, but that's just the way it is, and that's why the GPL exists.
The way I see it, Microsoft should simply have to comply right away. Then, if they want to lodge an appeal claim, then they are perfectly entitled to do so. If they win, they get their fine back with interest, as well as compensation for any money lost due to the other rulings. Maybe, as they say, once their systems are openly documented they cannot simply be UN-documented if they are found to be innocent. Then again, if a jailed man is found to be innocent, his lost time can't just be given back. That's the way the law works, and it needs to be the same for everyone!
Well you may have a point, but I KNOW that my body is pretty repulsive, and I KNOW that most sane people have absolutely no desire to gaze upon my hideous form. That is why I wear clothes, and they cover my whole body, except my hands and sometimes my lower arms.
There are times and places for revealing certain parts of even unsightly bodies. The swimming pool is one of those places... you go for a swim, you just have to accept there will be the occasional fat guy with a back rug who wears skimpy speedos. If you go to a beach, there will be the occasional obese lady with no top on. It's what you come to expect.
Now it is arguable that maybe with a convention costume you expect the odd overconspicuous flabby limb. But when you can see a PERFECT OUTLINE OF HIS FRICKING GENITALS then things are going seriously wrong! I admit he is pretty brave, but frankly, he deserves to be mocked. A sticking out beer gut, fair enough. Perfect scrotal detail, posted to the web for everyone to see, just... no.
Ok, I think this story was posted before, but I want my rant so I am posting anyway...
Can anybody tell me exactly how this ISN'T price fixing? Eh? As far as I know, the whole iTunes thing is doing pretty well, and $0.99/song seems like a pretty fair price to me, considering how you just get a DRM'd file, no CD case or nice insert/booklet thing or whatever. This move just looks like the RIAA is some kind of cartel or something, who just try to keep prices as high as they can get away with because they have a stranglehold on the market... oh, oh, hang on, is that EXACTLY WHAT IT FRICKING WELL IS?
I'm truly sorry if there is some reason apart from lust for coinage that means they have to raise the price, like bandwidth has suddenly become more expensive, or the money generated does not leave the artist with enough money to live or something like that, but to this customer, it almost looks criminal.
Bastards, I'll laugh when you're dead, RIAA, and I'll never pay you a penny again.
How about if I download one of your songs, decide that I like it, then buy the album? There will always be those who don't want to pay, but real fans of music will always want to support the artists they love.
For me, and many people I know, the illegal method of file-sharing is the best way to avoid being forced to eat the rubbish the big record labels try and shove down your throat.
If I cannot find music that I like, I will not buy music. If the big labels try and stop me finding out for myself... well then, their loss!
Yeah... I mean jeez, TECHNICALLY the people who come up with these grand schemes of user enslavement must be reasonably bright, but this whole Trusted Computing stuff does make me wonder, it is just a load of complete nonsense! Not to underestimate the threat, of course, but seriously... suppose this thing actually takes off... it's SUCH a serious inconvenience that you'd have pretty much EVERY hacker in the world trying to crack it...
Even if the odds were pretty slim of cracking it or whatever, the sheer amount of people would be bound to yield some kind of hack eventually. If it's illegal? So what! Word gets around, look at filesharing, Kazaa doesn't exactly get big TV adverts, and it certainly aint legal (well, let's face it, not for what most people use it for).
And suppose your average John Smith sits down in front of the TV after a frustrating day of trying to [insert task prevented by Trusted Computing here], and sees an advert for a NEW kind of computer that does what YOU want, just like the good old days, or he sees a political broadcast for a candidate promising to outlaw TC... what do you think he's going to do?
Yeah, so I'm thinking this is just going to turn out to be a ridiculous waste of a lot of time and money.
I agree, keeping the PL at 1000 is damaging. I use Kazaa Lite myself, and I turn it off from the options. The PL idea does NOT force people to share files. If you have a PL of 1, you can still download as much as you like. What it DOES do however, is to reward those who DO host and manage (manage in terms of assigning keywords, ratings, etc.) a lot of desireable files. Now, in an ideal world, this would not be necessary, but the world is far from ideal and it is. IIRC, when two people are downloading a file from the same person, the one with the higher PL gets the most bandwidth. This seems like a good idea to me, it rewards those who share, thus keeping the system alive. Now I have heard people complaining that they have a slow connection, so they cannot compete with people with broadband connections, as those people can upload much more and therefore achieve a higher PL in less time. This is true. However, if you only have a 56K modem, the PL should mean little to you. As I understand it, since 56Kers can only get a maximum download speed of ~4KB/s anyway, if you have a PL of 5 zillion, your download still aint going to come very fast. With broadband, the percentage of someone's bandwidth you are allocated could make much more of a difference. Basically, I think the PL is a good idea, and I would appeal to everyone who uses Kazaa Lite or whatever to turn PL = 1000 off. Thanks.
I admit that I use P2P apps a lot, to download music without paying. But at the same time I own quite a lot of CDs. And you know what? A lot of the time those CDs have been bought as a direct result of downloading music!
...but I hope not :)
For me, P2P is a great way for me to listen to new bands that I discover. If I like them, I buy the CD because frankly I feel guilty not paying for the music, and also the mp3s people share tend to have been ripped from a gouged CD, using some 3rd-rate software to encode it at 128kb/s CBR.
It is the same for most of my friends. Many of them seem to agree P2P is only necessary because the current distribution methods seem to be an anachronism. I would rather pay for a service whereby maybe I can stream a couple of songs from an album to see if I like them, then pay to download them. Yes, I know there are services like iTunes and emusic, but these services have their own problems, like regional issues (I live in the UK, so this causes problems with different labels having distribution rights and such) and hardware (I believe iTunes is still only available for Mac, although perhaps I read about PC support in the future perhaps? I forget).
So, basically I am in support of this campaign and I truly hope that they expedite the implementation of a more modern and more useful system for acquiring music. However, I have my doubts- sometimes I think that the large record companies feel such a great need to control peoples musical tastes that they might fear that the greater freedom that an electronic system could provide would cause them to lose control of being able to force certain bands down peoples throats as "the next big thing"...