> Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in man-hours and effort it would cost them to re-write every single portion of Picassa using Glib/GTK or QT?
I don't know, but seeing that the main UI is already written in QT...
> and it's a very nice framework to work with. We chose to write our tools using QT instead of.NET and we plan to use these tools only on XP systems.net isn't a UI framework. Plus there are people who have made GTK, QT (project was abandoned), wx etc. availible on.NET.
> Once you enter the real world, you will realize that other people stealing the fruit of your labor (be it code, art, or credit for bagging the new account) sucks.
It's copyright infringement, not stealing.
If I steal someone's car, they won't have it anymore.
If I steal music from a store, they won't have the CDs/DRM licenses or whatever I took.
I don't advocate copyright infringement, just please use the proper terms.:)
> The problem is: DirectX 10 is tremendously well designed, and offers functionality way beyond what OpenGL offers.
No, the problem is: OpenGL on windows vista will still be version 1.5, and will not be upgraded, the security features of vista prevent it from being even extended to opengl 2.0 through various hacks.
> I hardly think you can appeal to the current state of copyright/patent law to justify introducing artifical scarcity.
Tell that to mobile phone providers that strip out a feature of their networks like caller-id, when in actual fact it was part of the network infrastructure from the start.
> Fast forward to the future, people are dying on the street because they can't replicate food, how can you justify that?
People survived many years without this magical replication, using a technique called... Farming! Of course poor people tend to have issues getting food, but that's probably not going to change with replication technology for better or for worse.
Of course your future doesn't take into account charities that may actually make opensource projects or such that aren't DRM'd from being copied etc.
> In Second Life it's just a game,
It's never just a game whenever you're dealing with people. Stop doing the typical W-hat fud.
> there's little to no suffering, so there's little to no ethical issues with DRM, but in the future people will suffer from DRM, and when I look at Second Life I can see that future.
Then what is your marvelous solution to preventing the need of DRM?
> I am simply saying that if the technology ever becomes available to make replication a viable option it will not be the start of a golden age of plenty, it will be the start of a desponic age of artificial scarcity.
> The creator of any given object in Second Life can set bits that say whether or not you can copy/edit/sell that object. The game then enforces those bits.
Note: The 'DRM' applied in Second life, doesn't let you disable one from transfering (reselling) and disabling copying at the same time. It's one or the other.
> As it is done on the server and only the compiled textures and polys are sent to the client, there's no much you can do to get around this form of DRM.
There are some debugging hooks you can use to grab locations of the poly objects (or prims), not that hard actually. You can also 'rip' textures right out of memory, it's very easy with OpenGL interceptors... So no, there are ways around this form of DRM, and they have been exploited.
Not to mention if you know how, you can get the GUID of a texture and just use the exact texture some person used on objects, clothing etc. With knowledge of the GUID, you can place the textures easilly on a the polys (prims).
By they way, remember the vendor bugs in 1.5?
> The end result is a pretty distopian vision of the future. You walk around in this world where you are free to conjure anything you want out of thin air, but you are prevented from using the things you see around you as a base for your creations by absentee content owners.
I'm quite happy with that, because there is no in-game patent crap I have to deal with, if I want to develop a competing technology to someone else. It's not like the real world, whereby company X makes a graphic card, but you can't replicate the technologies of the graphic card because that company has patents, so you can't in turn make something.. better.
The DRM on Second life really was designed to enforce copyrights, otherwise Second life just wouldn't work for buinsess prospectives at all. But if you have a better solution, do tell.
> Often an object of some beauty will be created by someone who has left the game entirely. There is absolutely no way for a regular player to get the DRM removed from the object so it can be reused.
Theres abandonware too in real life. Just because it's abandonware doesn't mean it's okay for you to infringe on copyrights. In the real world, many people, companies won't persue you because you're redistributing abandonware because:
1) You're not worth a lawsuit 2) They're often more worried about their current life issues 3) It's something that doesn't concern them at all anymore.
It's still illegal. However, you might want to enquire Lindenlabs once you have a inventory item that's over 50 years of age (public domain, no?). I really do think Lindenlabs would be willing todo something about that.
> There are some players who release all their work with none of the DRM bits turned on, but they are few and far between.
A lot of people on Second life release things completely with permisions, the only issue is that the quality of their stuff is often, crap. At least when you compare it to the commercial stuff availible.
> I can imagine a time where this ability to conjure things into existance will be provided to us in the real world using nanotechnology or some other new technology. Will our creations be DRM infested?
Oh no! I can't break the copyright law so I can make a thousand of the same t-shirts I just baught.
Oh no! I can't break the copyright law, so I can't sell this stuff that I am allowed to make multiple copies for personal use.
Oh no! I might have to design it myself, something similar, so much work to deal with.
> Surely they will, because we all still live under the belief that we have some innate right control what others do with our creations.
I have a problem when you can't release something as opensource if you want to. Not with people releasing proprietory technology.
I also have a problem with patents that prevent competition or opensource projects from doing anything related.
> The old man's actions seem to be a bit overdone (his head jerking, looking around, etc.), while the other dude(?) appeared to be rigid as a board.
I'd tell you to bug report it, but I can't find their bugzilla address. Guess someone will have to fork it!
> The mouths moved absolutely nowhere near how they should have. Emu(Emo? Freddie? What's his name?) screamed or something at one point, and his(from here-out I will refer to this character as a male) lips hardly moved.
See above
> The length of the movie, considering it is called a movie, and that it took so long to develop, leaves me a bit dumbfounded. I was under the impression that it was to be a full-length movie. Last I checked, nobody wants to sit down with their family on a Friday evening to watch a 10 minute movie (including credits and titles)...
Ack, another bug! So many issues, is this even version 1?
Re:this is the wrong problem....
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
LOL, i no i shudn't ask, but wen is ver bar.x.y comming out? ^^
Re:Release early release often
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
> At a bare minimum they should have nightly tarballs
Trust me, some users aren't happy with that.
They want a repository for their distro, but it could be a six versions old of the distro they've chosen. It could be experimental version of the distro etc. etc.
> It makes perfect sense, but the point is that method needs to be fixed, sped up, something so that either it's easier to use something from "CVS" or the builds come out faster.
Some projects I work on, build nighties everyday, which are accessible by everyone. But the nighties aren't built for the users, because the users should stick to the packages by their distro. The code isn't polished or essentially ready to be used in a production enviroment.
> Getting the fixed code to the users faster would allow for better testing, resulting in a better product.
At least when the user hears it's fixed in CVS, they know it's been fixed. If they're adept enough to use CVS, and not lazy, they will definately be able to give useful bug reports.
If you're too busy to contribute to the project when you the bleeding edge code, in my opinion you should go away. You're only slowing it down by taking up the limited developer's time with petty issues, when they could be working on the application.
Seriously, posting 'I know the rules say I shouldn't, but when is release X comming out?' everyday on the forums only pisses off developers.
> If users can't use your CVS, it's that much longer for your bug fixes to be tested, slowing down the whole project.
The users that know how to use CVS are more likely to give useful bug reports. If a user can't even use CVS, I don't expect them to give usable bug reports. Also, because they can't use CVS they won't mess up their system.
Some developers, feel really obligated to help people whos system they've messed up themselves from grabbing code from CVS (I know a few) and trying to get it to work. Now, making it easier to get code from CVS in my opinion would only increase the number of instances of this happening. Taking up the good hearted developer's time.
Re:Not a cop-out, just a fact
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
> I disagree. If a project is freezing on some kind of regular/irregular basis and producing a stable release of source with or without binaries then they are focusing on users...
We build nighties in one of my projects, but it's not because it's user focused, it's project focused really. We need to know when things break as a whole. We also freeze every so often so we can work out the bugs (otherwise we'd never get them fixed).
Please. Do not generalize actions to everything.
Re:I seem to be saying this a lot lately...
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
> Most of us have better things to do with our time than compiling other people's programs to get them to work on our machines.
Then you can wait for the next release, like you do with non-opensource software (at least you'll know the bug will be fixed in the next release).
> I don't have the patience or time to deal with such matters, my computer is there to help me get my job done, and my job is not figuring out how to make your software work on my computer.
You can however pay people to spend time and patience on the problem for you instead.
> If you want more than codemonkeys using your software, you better cater to people who simply want to use the application for its purpose.
That depends really on the developer, many developers I have met, develop things for mostly their own use than other people's. I imagine some of them are willing to make their application more useful to others for a donation. Think bounties.
> What if you had to walk up to Detroit to get a part and install it yourself when there was a recall?
Well, I'm not walking all the way from Europe todo it.
> You'd probably find a car manufacturer that would take care of the problem for you, because you don't have time to be an auto mechanic, you need your car to get to work in the morning.
Using your logic... Nah, that requires time I'm not willing to waste on a car.
> The point of technology is that the average person shouldn't need to know or care what goes underneath the hood, so long as it is going to work and someone else can fix it.
Not all technology is for the average person. Certainly LaTeX isn't, but many professionals use it anyway. I doubt the 'average person' would like it.
Re:I seem to be saying this a lot lately...
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
> CVS is as likely to break your application and introduce new bugs as it is to fix bugs from previous releases.
It depends how the project is setup. Some projects have two CVS directories, usually, 'stable' and.. something else that symbolises the word 'experimental'.
If you're using one of those projects, the 'stable' should pretty much only have bug fixes in it, while experimental have all the new features and doodads etc.
> In general, CVS should be considered unstable and the majority of users
Yes, it should, but at least they know, when it's fixed in CVS, that means in the next release, it will be fixed. They also know, that they can try to fix the bug themselves if they want or try out the code in CVS.
> Which of course, compiling from CVS isn't going to help in any short order.
I'd like to point out, that some projects (like VideoLan) have nightly builds. So one may not need to compile these things. It depends on the project.
E-mails sent and received can be decrypted quickly if you have the certificate. But remember how long it took you to generate that certificate (assuming a PGP system is used)?
Imagine generating every possible combination of such certificates (which still wouldn't happen within our life time). Then trying all those certificates to see which one is the right key.
> So the government, which can invoke the army's help, or the police force, each with powerful mainframes, can't break some 40 year old's crappy email encryption that's used to send pictures of kiddies to his mates.
Slashdot Mirror
> Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in man-hours and effort it would cost them to re-write every single portion of Picassa using Glib/GTK or QT?
I don't know, but seeing that the main UI is already written in QT...
> The app does not "run under wine". It links against WineLib. Big sh*t.
No... It definately runs under Wine (a custom version). There isn't a elf executable of Picasa.
Before you even argue the point. LOOK AT IT.
> almost everything electronic uses non-open software, so good luck avoiding them.
Pah! You just need to learn how to read machine language!
It's all there!
FOSS has taken over, there is no escape!
Picasa wasn't compiled against winelib. It's not a native elf executable.
It runs under a custom Wine enviroment.
> Wine is not needed; it's statically compiled in.
Believe it or not, it isn't.
> and it's a very nice framework to work with. We chose to write our tools using QT instead of .NET and we plan to use these tools only on XP systems .net isn't a UI framework. Plus there are people who have made GTK, QT (project was abandoned), wx etc. availible on .NET.
> Once you enter the real world, you will realize that other people stealing the fruit of your labor (be it code, art, or credit for bagging the new account) sucks.
:)
It's copyright infringement, not stealing.
If I steal someone's car, they won't have it anymore.
If I steal music from a store, they won't have the CDs/DRM licenses or whatever I took.
I don't advocate copyright infringement, just please use the proper terms.
> The problem is: DirectX 10 is tremendously well designed, and offers functionality way beyond what OpenGL offers.
No, the problem is: OpenGL on windows vista will still be version 1.5, and will not be upgraded, the security features of vista prevent it from being even extended to opengl 2.0 through various hacks.
Please answer my question,
Then what is your marvelous solution to preventing the need of DRM?
> I hardly think you can appeal to the current state of copyright/patent law to justify introducing artifical scarcity.
Tell that to mobile phone providers that strip out a feature of their networks like caller-id, when in actual fact it was part of the network infrastructure from the start.
> Fast forward to the future, people are dying on the street because they can't replicate food, how can you justify that?
People survived many years without this magical replication, using a technique called... Farming! Of course poor people tend to have issues getting food, but that's probably not going to change with replication technology for better or for worse.
Of course your future doesn't take into account charities that may actually make opensource projects or such that aren't DRM'd from being copied etc.
> In Second Life it's just a game,
It's never just a game whenever you're dealing with people. Stop doing the typical W-hat fud.
> there's little to no suffering, so there's little to no ethical issues with DRM, but in the future people will suffer from DRM, and when I look at Second Life I can see that future.
Then what is your marvelous solution to preventing the need of DRM?
> I am simply saying that if the technology ever becomes available to make replication a viable option it will not be the start of a golden age of plenty, it will be the start of a desponic age of artificial scarcity.
I doubt it.
> I'm guessing you've never played Second Life.
I love Second Life.
> The creator of any given object in Second Life can set bits that say whether or not you can copy/edit/sell that object. The game then enforces those bits.
Note: The 'DRM' applied in Second life, doesn't let you disable one from transfering (reselling) and disabling copying at the same time. It's one or the other.
> As it is done on the server and only the compiled textures and polys are sent to the client, there's no much you can do to get around this form of DRM.
There are some debugging hooks you can use to grab locations of the poly objects (or prims), not that hard actually. You can also 'rip' textures right out of memory, it's very easy with OpenGL interceptors... So no, there are ways around this form of DRM, and they have been exploited.
Not to mention if you know how, you can get the GUID of a texture and just use the exact texture some person used on objects, clothing etc. With knowledge of the GUID, you can place the textures easilly on a the polys (prims).
By they way, remember the vendor bugs in 1.5?
> The end result is a pretty distopian vision of the future. You walk around in this world where you are free to conjure anything you want out of thin air, but you are prevented from using the things you see around you as a base for your creations by absentee content owners.
I'm quite happy with that, because there is no in-game patent crap I have to deal with, if I want to develop a competing technology to someone else. It's not like the real world, whereby company X makes a graphic card, but you can't replicate the technologies of the graphic card because that company has patents, so you can't in turn make something.. better.
The DRM on Second life really was designed to enforce copyrights, otherwise Second life just wouldn't work for buinsess prospectives at all. But if you have a better solution, do tell.
> Often an object of some beauty will be created by someone who has left the game entirely. There is absolutely no way for a regular player to get the DRM removed from the object so it can be reused.
Theres abandonware too in real life. Just because it's abandonware doesn't mean it's okay for you to infringe on copyrights. In the real world, many people, companies won't persue you because you're redistributing abandonware because:
1) You're not worth a lawsuit
2) They're often more worried about their current life issues
3) It's something that doesn't concern them at all anymore.
It's still illegal. However, you might want to enquire Lindenlabs once you have a inventory item that's over 50 years of age (public domain, no?). I really do think Lindenlabs would be willing todo something about that.
> There are some players who release all their work with none of the DRM bits turned on, but they are few and far between.
A lot of people on Second life release things completely with permisions, the only issue is that the quality of their stuff is often, crap. At least when you compare it to the commercial stuff availible.
> I can imagine a time where this ability to conjure things into existance will be provided to us in the real world using nanotechnology or some other new technology. Will our creations be DRM infested?
Oh no! I can't break the copyright law so I can make a thousand of the same t-shirts I just baught.
Oh no! I can't break the copyright law, so I can't sell this stuff that I am allowed to make multiple copies for personal use.
Oh no! I might have to design it myself, something similar, so much work to deal with.
> Surely they will, because we all still live under the belief that we have some innate right control what others do with our creations.
I have a problem when you can't release something as opensource if you want to. Not with people releasing proprietory technology.
I also have a problem with patents that prevent competition or opensource projects from doing anything related.
On Second life, there isn't any of this.
> The old man's actions seem to be a bit overdone (his head jerking, looking around, etc.), while the other dude(?) appeared to be rigid as a board.
I'd tell you to bug report it, but I can't find their bugzilla address. Guess someone will have to fork it!
> The mouths moved absolutely nowhere near how they should have. Emu(Emo? Freddie? What's his name?) screamed or something at one point, and his(from here-out I will refer to this character as a male) lips hardly moved.
See above
> The length of the movie, considering it is called a movie, and that it took so long to develop, leaves me a bit dumbfounded. I was under the impression that it was to be a full-length movie. Last I checked, nobody wants to sit down with their family on a Friday evening to watch a 10 minute movie (including credits and titles)...
Ack, another bug! So many issues, is this even version 1?
LOL, i no i shudn't ask, but wen is ver bar.x.y comming out? ^^
> At a bare minimum they should have nightly tarballs
Trust me, some users aren't happy with that.
They want a repository for their distro, but it could be a six versions old of the distro they've chosen. It could be experimental version of the distro etc. etc.
What is considered reasonable?
> It makes perfect sense, but the point is that method needs to be fixed, sped up, something so that either it's easier to use something from "CVS" or the builds come out faster.
Some projects I work on, build nighties everyday, which are accessible by everyone. But the nighties aren't built for the users, because the users should stick to the packages by their distro. The code isn't polished or essentially ready to be used in a production enviroment.
> Getting the fixed code to the users faster would allow for better testing, resulting in a better product.
At least when the user hears it's fixed in CVS, they know it's been fixed. If they're adept enough to use CVS, and not lazy, they will definately be able to give useful bug reports.
If you're too busy to contribute to the project when you the bleeding edge code, in my opinion you should go away. You're only slowing it down by taking up the limited developer's time with petty issues, when they could be working on the application.
Seriously, posting 'I know the rules say I shouldn't, but when is release X comming out?' everyday on the forums only pisses off developers.
> If users can't use your CVS, it's that much longer for your bug fixes to be tested, slowing down the whole project.
The users that know how to use CVS are more likely to give useful bug reports. If a user can't even use CVS, I don't expect them to give usable bug reports. Also, because they can't use CVS they won't mess up their system.
Some developers, feel really obligated to help people whos system they've messed up themselves from grabbing code from CVS (I know a few) and trying to get it to work. Now, making it easier to get code from CVS in my opinion would only increase the number of instances of this happening. Taking up the good hearted developer's time.
> I disagree. If a project is freezing on some kind of regular/irregular basis and producing a stable release of source with or without binaries then they are focusing on users...
We build nighties in one of my projects, but it's not because it's user focused, it's project focused really. We need to know when things break as a whole. We also freeze every so often so we can work out the bugs (otherwise we'd never get them fixed).
Please. Do not generalize actions to everything.
> Most of us have better things to do with our time than compiling other people's programs to get them to work on our machines.
Then you can wait for the next release, like you do with non-opensource software (at least you'll know the bug will be fixed in the next release).
> I don't have the patience or time to deal with such matters, my computer is there to help me get my job done, and my job is not figuring out how to make your software work on my computer.
You can however pay people to spend time and patience on the problem for you instead.
> If you want more than codemonkeys using your software, you better cater to people who simply want to use the application for its purpose.
That depends really on the developer, many developers I have met, develop things for mostly their own use than other people's. I imagine some of them are willing to make their application more useful to others for a donation. Think bounties.
> What if you had to walk up to Detroit to get a part and install it yourself when there was a recall?
Well, I'm not walking all the way from Europe todo it.
> You'd probably find a car manufacturer that would take care of the problem for you, because you don't have time to be an auto mechanic, you need your car to get to work in the morning.
Using your logic... Nah, that requires time I'm not willing to waste on a car.
> The point of technology is that the average person shouldn't need to know or care what goes underneath the hood, so long as it is going to work and someone else can fix it.
Not all technology is for the average person. Certainly LaTeX isn't, but many professionals use it anyway. I doubt the 'average person' would like it.
> CVS is as likely to break your application and introduce new bugs as it is to fix bugs from previous releases.
It depends how the project is setup. Some projects have two CVS directories, usually, 'stable' and.. something else that symbolises the word 'experimental'.
If you're using one of those projects, the 'stable' should pretty much only have bug fixes in it, while experimental have all the new features and doodads etc.
> In general, CVS should be considered unstable and the majority of users
Yes, it should, but at least they know, when it's fixed in CVS, that means in the next release, it will be fixed. They also know, that they can try to fix the bug themselves if they want or try out the code in CVS.
> Which of course, compiling from CVS isn't going to help in any short order.
I'd like to point out, that some projects (like VideoLan) have nightly builds. So one may not need to compile these things. It depends on the project.
Doesn't it make perfect sense to you?
The fix is in CVS, meaning that you can do it the hard way and compile everything. Or you wait for the next build released, which will have it fixed.
My guess is that he tried to download quicktime, and found iTunes was 'bundled' with it.
There is also allofmp3 which one can use.
A md5hash is a hash. Not encryption.
E-mails sent and received can be decrypted quickly if you have the certificate. But remember how long it took you to generate that certificate (assuming a PGP system is used)?
Imagine generating every possible combination of such certificates (which still wouldn't happen within our life time). Then trying all those certificates to see which one is the right key.
I see the government having a problem doing that.
> This from the government that doesn't allow its citizens to own firearms... big surprise
Seen what happens when you give a American a firearm?
They're insane!
The pedophiles think of the children, so I don't have to.
> So the government, which can invoke the army's help, or the police force, each with powerful mainframes, can't break some 40 year old's crappy email encryption that's used to send pictures of kiddies to his mates.
Pretty much can't within our life times.