The solution to piracy is never going to find success in copy protection.
The industry will never learn. I remember the rise and fall of floppy disk copy protection. They even used frickin' lasers to punch unwritable bits in the disks. But all the schemes were quickly cracked.
There have been some very strong protection schemes over the years. But they've all been expensive to implement, and completely unsuitable for mass market products.
That was "many years ago", as you said. Many years ago people moved to Linux because Solaris was closed, expensive and only ran on expensive hardware. If Solaris had been open, free and usable on cheap commodity hardware, it would have cut off the air supply for Linux and Free/NetBSD. Those operating systems wouldn't have died, but they would have remained purely hobbyist systems.
By the time Solaris was released for x86, Linux had already become the dominant Unix on that platform. By the time Sun offered free downloads of their OS, Linux had more name recognition than Solaris.
Solaris will likely be under an OSI-approved license.
You missed the poster's main point. If Solaris is to follow down the road of Java, and Java ain't under an OSI-approved license, what makes you think Solaris will be?
Unless of course that letter was addressed to *you*. You are then allowed to open it. If you subsequently discover that the sender stuffed the wrong letter into your envelope, you are under no obligation to turn yourself in to the police.
I was a little annoyed that the whole Akallabeth got left out, though.
I agree. Without that part of the tale told in full, it's pretty damned hard to understand Sauron's whole motivation. I mean, how are we supposed to empathize with Sauron when we don't understand where he's coming from?
I want a good common filesystem, and not just for Windows. I want a filesystem that Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OSX and Windows can read/write. The "good" criteria eliminates FAT32. UFS is free, open, tried and true. So why is it only available readonly in Linux?
Having an open-source bios wont prevent DRM any more then having an open-source OS will prevent file permission restrictions.
With an Open Source OS, I can hack away those file permissions while retaining full compatiblity with the orginal. Nothing difficult about it. The only reason it hasn't been done, is because file permissions are beneficial to the owner of the system.
If there's DRM in the BIOS that isn't beneficial to the owner, he'll get rid of it if he can. He might not be able to do it himself, but someone else will. If it's possible, of course. It depends on the implementation.
Nothing about DRM will prevent musicians from creating music and giving it to the world.
It doesn't prevent it, but most proposed implementations would sure as hell hinder it! The user will not be able to play a "free" song unless there is something certifying the user's right to play it. That certification isn't going to be free.
Actually, Darwin is "an OS all its own". Don't fall into the Microsoft trap and make your definition of OS too broad. Darwin might not be a complete graphical workstation environment for non-technical users, but it certainly is a complete operating system.
Has anybody else heard of this? It was news to me...
That's standard automotive practice. The manufacturers claim that it's to ensure only trained personnel work on the vehicles "for your safety". But even the dealers bitch about it, because they have to buy new expensive tools from their supplier on a regular basis.
Since automobile dealerships are franchises, the manufacturer doesn't make any direct money from these dealer-only repairs. But I bet they make a heck of a lot of money from tool sales and training from their captive franchises.
If it's a loss leader, why can't they just say so instead of lying?
I've seen through experience that individuals do the same thing when they sell stuff. It's not limited to "Big Business". Go to any garage sale and you'll see it.
"$500 for the car, and I'll throw in the tirechains for *free*!"
"$50 for the puppy, and I'll through in the bag of dogfood for *free*!"
"Here's an old PC for the orphanage charity drive, and I'll throw in the 14.4 modem for *free*!"
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 1
No he doesn't. He asks that you refer to a GNU system that uses a Linux kernel as "GNU/Linux".
Oh, if that's the case, then what's the big deal? As near as I can tell, and I've been around a while, no one has ever taken a working GNU System, ripped out Hurd by the roots, and welded in a Linux kernel to create a "GNU System with a Linux kernel". While Debian currently distributes a GNU/Hurd that can be considered a proper "GNU System", I am not aware of any Linux distro that uses it as a base.
I won't name any names, but I met someone who wrote their own kernel. Not Linus, not Andy, not Ken or Dennis. Just this guy barely out of college. But he showed me a working kernel on his laptop.
Writing a kernel isn't rocket science. It's just a different programming domain than most of us are used to.
Unfortunately, Dawes isn't the only person around with this ego problem. I won't name any names, but there are quite a few people who are willing to destroy their project's community through ego. It's not about licensing, it's about thinking you're more important than your users.
"Dammit, I'm going to integrate the fratzenjammer because I said so. If you don't like it go use libfu instead! Hey, come back! Where are you going?"
I had similar experiences with the closed NVidia drivers. I am using FreeBSD 5.2, but the proprietary driver is not updated for the newer kernel. This would cause an occasional hard crash that I simply could not tolerate anymore. The open source nv driver isn't that good, so I went out and bought a radeon, and am now using the open source radeon driver. I couldn't be happier.
p.s. It's a R200 chip. They're getting rare, but you can still find some new.
It's also what the ESR and Co. meant when they coined the term Open Source Software. Openness allowing it to be moved in different directions when the project leaders decide to make bad decisions.
What if I'm trying to install onto that 20Mb 486 because that's the only system I have available? distcc isn't going to help! And even if I had another faster system to build on, I still need a minimal Gentoo on that 486 to even be able utilize distcc!
It might help me once I get a minimal Gentoo system installed, but on a 20Mb 486 system, ALL I WANT is a minimal system!
There are very many different kinds of "friendly". Most distros use the definition of "friendly to newbies who don't want to learn anything". Slackware, on the other hand, uses the definition of "friendly to those who bother to learn about the system."
The speed difference between the GUI and the command line entirely depends on what you're doing.
The GUI is faster for people who only have a vague idea of what they want to do. "I know I saw that option in one of these dialogs, now where is it dammit!"
But the CLI is faster for people who have an in depth knowledge of the system. "I need to find the progress report Joe wrote where he discussed the fratzenjammer contract. No problem!"
It's also faster if you have to do repetitive tasks. "Open jpg, resize, save as png. Open jpg, resize, save as png. One thousand more images to convert! Now I wish I had learned the command line!"
Slashdot Mirror
Just ignore your middle mouse button
Oooh! Just like Windows!
The solution to piracy is never going to find success in copy protection.
The industry will never learn. I remember the rise and fall of floppy disk copy protection. They even used frickin' lasers to punch unwritable bits in the disks. But all the schemes were quickly cracked.
There have been some very strong protection schemes over the years. But they've all been expensive to implement, and completely unsuitable for mass market products.
That was "many years ago", as you said. Many years ago people moved to Linux because Solaris was closed, expensive and only ran on expensive hardware. If Solaris had been open, free and usable on cheap commodity hardware, it would have cut off the air supply for Linux and Free/NetBSD. Those operating systems wouldn't have died, but they would have remained purely hobbyist systems.
By the time Solaris was released for x86, Linux had already become the dominant Unix on that platform. By the time Sun offered free downloads of their OS, Linux had more name recognition than Solaris.
Correct. But totally beside the point. We were talking about an operating system, not a compiler or build chain.
Solaris will likely be under an OSI-approved license.
You missed the poster's main point. If Solaris is to follow down the road of Java, and Java ain't under an OSI-approved license, what makes you think Solaris will be?
Unless of course that letter was addressed to *you*. You are then allowed to open it. If you subsequently discover that the sender stuffed the wrong letter into your envelope, you are under no obligation to turn yourself in to the police.
there were people in the theater who were laughing uncontrollably for no reason except that wait, they're eagles! hahahahah!
What I thought was funniest, was after eleven hours everyone's eyeballs shrinking and imploding into puffs of flame the same time Sauron's did...
I was a little annoyed that the whole Akallabeth got left out, though.
I agree. Without that part of the tale told in full, it's pretty damned hard to understand Sauron's whole motivation. I mean, how are we supposed to empathize with Sauron when we don't understand where he's coming from?
The "true fans" marathon will be a re-enactment of the trilogy the way it was supposed to have been filmed.
Damn cheese doodles! Better go grab my Silmarilion, because it looks like I'm going to have a long reign on the throne...
I want a good common filesystem, and not just for Windows. I want a filesystem that Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OSX and Windows can read/write. The "good" criteria eliminates FAT32. UFS is free, open, tried and true. So why is it only available readonly in Linux?
Having an open-source bios wont prevent DRM any more then having an open-source OS will prevent file permission restrictions.
With an Open Source OS, I can hack away those file permissions while retaining full compatiblity with the orginal. Nothing difficult about it. The only reason it hasn't been done, is because file permissions are beneficial to the owner of the system.
If there's DRM in the BIOS that isn't beneficial to the owner, he'll get rid of it if he can. He might not be able to do it himself, but someone else will. If it's possible, of course. It depends on the implementation.
Nothing about DRM will prevent musicians from creating music and giving it to the world.
It doesn't prevent it, but most proposed implementations would sure as hell hinder it! The user will not be able to play a "free" song unless there is something certifying the user's right to play it. That certification isn't going to be free.
Actually, Darwin is "an OS all its own". Don't fall into the Microsoft trap and make your definition of OS too broad. Darwin might not be a complete graphical workstation environment for non-technical users, but it certainly is a complete operating system.
Has anybody else heard of this? It was news to me...
That's standard automotive practice. The manufacturers claim that it's to ensure only trained personnel work on the vehicles "for your safety". But even the dealers bitch about it, because they have to buy new expensive tools from their supplier on a regular basis.
Since automobile dealerships are franchises, the manufacturer doesn't make any direct money from these dealer-only repairs. But I bet they make a heck of a lot of money from tool sales and training from their captive franchises.
If it's a loss leader, why can't they just say so instead of lying?
I've seen through experience that individuals do the same thing when they sell stuff. It's not limited to "Big Business". Go to any garage sale and you'll see it.
"$500 for the car, and I'll throw in the tirechains for *free*!"
"$50 for the puppy, and I'll through in the bag of dogfood for *free*!"
"Here's an old PC for the orphanage charity drive, and I'll throw in the 14.4 modem for *free*!"
No he doesn't. He asks that you refer to a GNU system that uses a Linux kernel as "GNU/Linux".
Oh, if that's the case, then what's the big deal? As near as I can tell, and I've been around a while, no one has ever taken a working GNU System, ripped out Hurd by the roots, and welded in a Linux kernel to create a "GNU System with a Linux kernel". While Debian currently distributes a GNU/Hurd that can be considered a proper "GNU System", I am not aware of any Linux distro that uses it as a base.
I won't name any names, but I met someone who wrote their own kernel. Not Linus, not Andy, not Ken or Dennis. Just this guy barely out of college. But he showed me a working kernel on his laptop.
Writing a kernel isn't rocket science. It's just a different programming domain than most of us are used to.
Unfortunately, Dawes isn't the only person around with this ego problem. I won't name any names, but there are quite a few people who are willing to destroy their project's community through ego. It's not about licensing, it's about thinking you're more important than your users.
"Dammit, I'm going to integrate the fratzenjammer because I said so. If you don't like it go use libfu instead! Hey, come back! Where are you going?"
I had similar experiences with the closed NVidia drivers. I am using FreeBSD 5.2, but the proprietary driver is not updated for the newer kernel. This would cause an occasional hard crash that I simply could not tolerate anymore. The open source nv driver isn't that good, so I went out and bought a radeon, and am now using the open source radeon driver. I couldn't be happier.
p.s. It's a R200 chip. They're getting rare, but you can still find some new.
Freedom is pragmatic.
It's also what the ESR and Co. meant when they coined the term Open Source Software. Openness allowing it to be moved in different directions when the project leaders decide to make bad decisions.
What if I'm trying to install onto that 20Mb 486 because that's the only system I have available? distcc isn't going to help! And even if I had another faster system to build on, I still need a minimal Gentoo on that 486 to even be able utilize distcc!
It might help me once I get a minimal Gentoo system installed, but on a 20Mb 486 system, ALL I WANT is a minimal system!
There are very many different kinds of "friendly". Most distros use the definition of "friendly to newbies who don't want to learn anything". Slackware, on the other hand, uses the definition of "friendly to those who bother to learn about the system."
The speed difference between the GUI and the command line entirely depends on what you're doing.
The GUI is faster for people who only have a vague idea of what they want to do. "I know I saw that option in one of these dialogs, now where is it dammit!"
But the CLI is faster for people who have an in depth knowledge of the system. "I need to find the progress report Joe wrote where he discussed the fratzenjammer contract. No problem!"
It's also faster if you have to do repetitive tasks. "Open jpg, resize, save as png. Open jpg, resize, save as png. One thousand more images to convert! Now I wish I had learned the command line!"