How would you control it? Most people don't already have a Bluetooth gamepad, and I learned from the Mario-inspired platformer Pixeline and the Jungle Treasure that on-screen gamepads are hard to use.
The license have to be shown to the buyer before purchase to be valid.
For a PC sold online, a conspicuous notice should be sufficient: "Use of this product is subject to acceptance of software license agreements and online service terms of use. If you do not agree to Windows terms, do not purchase this product."
Meanwhile, as a developer I would hate this because now I either have to target and test against two different hardware configurations.
Sony did two configurations on the original PlayStation. There were two major versions of its GPU with different bugs. Games had to work on both the green debug unit and the blue debug unit, which had the different GPU versions, before shipping.
Nintendo did two configurations with the Nintendo 64 Expansion Pak (which upgraded RAM from 4 MB to 8 MB) and the Game Boy Color (CPU, RAM, and video upgrade).
"The professional-grade computer that's also your PlayStation." "Access your BSD apps, files, and photos from any device that supports PS4 Remote Play"
Then the attack ads come, turning Microsoft's "Scroogled" ad campaign back at it. The overall pattern is to describe things that can be done with Windows combined with something undesirable associated with Windows, then describe the same thing that can be done with free software on FreeBSD followed by footage of a PlayStation-exclusive game.
Microsoft attack "With this computer, you can surf the web, talk to your friends, while someone in Seattle spies on you." "With WorkStation 4, you can surf the web, talk to your friends, and play games like Uncharted 4."
Adobe Creative Cloud attack "With this computer, you can write a novel, draw comics, and keep paying a monthly bill for the apps you use." "With WorkStation 4, you can write a novel, draw comics, and play games like LittleBigPlanet 3."
Or look at what PS2 Linux and PS3 Other OS did wrong and what Steam and other PC game markets are doing right. How did Steam pick up steam back in the dial-up era when it was best known as the online activation for Half-Life 2?
How much money would you have to shell out to developers to encourage them to make software for that platform?
If it runs PS4 games, it's covered under the PS4 marketing budget. As for the FreeBSD side, most GNU/Linux apps port fairly easily.
Hell, Let's Encrypt makes it a matter of downloading a program on Windows, Linux or Mac and running it. You could do that for a subdomain.dyndns.org if you could really be bothered.
Error: rateLimited:: There were too many requests of a given type:: Error creating new cert:: Too many certificates already issued for: dyndns.org
Only five customers of a particular dynamic DNS provider can obtain certificates from Let's Encrypt in any 7-day window unless the provider applies to join the Public Suffix List, which can take weeks and can be refused.
I have a file server (CentOS running samba) they could connect to
An iPhone, Android phone, iPad, or Android tablet is more likely to come with an HTTPS client than to come with a Samba client. If you want to run an HTTPS server on your CentOS NAS, you'd still need to either A. buy a domain on a "real" TLD and get a cert for it, or B. run a private CA, issue a cert to the NAS, and somehow push your CA's root to these devices.
The real WTF is that https://www.libressl.org/ produces "Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at www.libressl.org." They aren't even eating their own dog food.
Who is going to makes FreeBSD games for < 0.001% of the market?
Let's pretend for a moment that Sony had taken the PlayStation 4 in the direction that Microsoft is currently attempting to take the Xbox One, which can run the same UWP games as Windows 10. Back in May, there were already 40 million PlayStation 4 consoles sold, one for about every 200 people on the planet. A WorkStation 4 that can run both FreeBSD applications and PlayStation 4 games wouldn't have a games problem.
Perhaps the market in your South American country differs from that in North America and Western Europe. If your country's import duties are anything like those of Brazil, including a free operating system rather than Windows may be a way to reduce tax obligation.
Usable trust already exists in the form of username/password... why not just use it? All that is really necessary is for browser vendors to get off their collective asses and apply the TLS-SRP patches wasting away in their ticketing systems
You appear to refer to Bug 405155 in bugzilla.mozilla.org, which hasn't had significant activity in the past five years. The biggest issue they found is that TLS-SRP still sends the username in the clear where the MITM can snoop it, and if username is an email address, that could leak personally identifying information.
And certificates for such things are NOT REQUIRED to be signed by a well-known CA.
True for a router's administration interface, not so much if you want to allow friends and family to browse the files on your home NAS. Most are unlikely to be technical enough to install your private CA's root certificate.
If you want a real certificate with browser ubiquity, you can get them for USD $4.99
Plus the cost of a domain in a real TLD. Certificate authorities in the CAB Forum tend not to issue certs for dynamic IP addresses, for.local, or for made-up TLDs such as.onion (Tor) or.bit (Namecoin). Plus the cost of renewing all those every year.
Because of rate limiting, Let's Encrypt works only if you buy your own domain and dynamic DNS hosting. So if you sell a million appliances, you end up with a million users who each have to buy and renew a domain and buy and renew a dynamic DNS hosting plan.
I wouldn't (for the sake of this argument) care if my router was all http because it doesn't answer on the WAN port.
The web interface presented by a cleartext HTTP server cannot use any APIs that are restricted to secure contexts. (A secure context contains only scripts from potentially trustworthy origins, particularly hosts that resolve to 127.0.0.1, the file: scheme, and the https: scheme.) The spec lists several web APIs that it encourages browser makers to restrict to secure contexts. Examples of such APIs that a web server inside an appliance on a home LAN might want to use include Service Workers, Geolocation, Media Capture, and especially Fullscreen.
For example, consider a router with a network attached storage (NAS) feature. If you connect a mass storage device to its USB port, it shares the files on the LAN through SMB, SFTP, and HTTP protocols. If you load videos onto this device, the user may want to watch them on the full screen. But because the Fullscreen API can be used to spoof browser UI, the spec encourages browsers to restrict it to secure contexts. This means the NAS feature will have to support HTTPS.
even my routers are using HTTPS, with a key and certificate pair generated by me for my own CA
Do you allow friends and family visiting your home onto your home network? Does your router have a web server that can serve files to internal users? If so, how do friends and family install the root certificate for your CA if they want to view the files that you've chosen to share with them?
That's sort of difficult when makers of networking appliances Tivoize their hardware in order to comply with national radio regulators' requirements for robustness of the radio against user modification to use frequencies or power levels not authorized in a particular country, and hardware makers aren't eager to advertise how locked down a networking appliance is against user-made software. See the TP-Link case.
Yet Sony felt like using FreeBSD when it built Orbis OS, the operating system of the PlayStation 4 game console. Why can't it ship FreeBSD on a WorkStation 4?
Yes, I could buy a desktop, but I want an integrated keyboard with no screen.
You mean a PC built into a keyboard chassis, Commodore 64 or Apple IIc style? A quick Google search for keyboard pc turns up this one. Just add monitor.
I think the idea of a "barebook", such as those by MSI, Clevo, or Compal, is that it includes everything but CPU, RAM, and storage, at the cost of being significantly bulkier and more expensive than a fully assembled laptop.
Where does the EULA *MICROSOFT* produces say "it" being the entire computer, most of which is not theirs?
I don't have the Windows Vista EULA handy, but the Windows 10 EULA states:
By accepting this agreement or using the software, you agree to all of these terms, and consent to the transmission of certain information during activation and during your use of the software as per the privacy statement described in Section 3. If you do not accept and comply with these terms, you may not use the software or its features. You may contact the device manufacturer or installer, or your retailer if you purchased the software directly, to determine its return policy and return the software or device for a refund or credit under that policy. You must comply with that policy, which might require you to return the software with the entire device on which the software is installed for a refund or credit, if any.
Key words: "which might require you to return the software with the entire device on which the software is installed"
The featured article doesn't appear to state how big the plaintiff's Sony laptop was, but I do know System76 doesn't make anything smaller than 14 inches (source).
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't Nintendo also own a minority share in Creatures and/or Game Freak?
I was referring to "Hell, I'd love to have the original Mario game (8-bit graphics and all) on my phone."
How would you control it? Most people don't already have a Bluetooth gamepad, and I learned from the Mario-inspired platformer Pixeline and the Jungle Treasure that on-screen gamepads are hard to use.
That was my point. Why isn't the website of a TLS implementation available through TLS?
The license have to be shown to the buyer before purchase to be valid.
For a PC sold online, a conspicuous notice should be sufficient: "Use of this product is subject to acceptance of software license agreements and online service terms of use. If you do not agree to Windows terms, do not purchase this product."
Meanwhile, as a developer I would hate this because now I either have to target and test against two different hardware configurations.
Sony did two configurations on the original PlayStation. There were two major versions of its GPU with different bugs. Games had to work on both the green debug unit and the blue debug unit, which had the different GPU versions, before shipping.
Nintendo did two configurations with the Nintendo 64 Expansion Pak (which upgraded RAM from 4 MB to 8 MB) and the Game Boy Color (CPU, RAM, and video upgrade).
How are you going to market the WS4?
"The professional-grade computer that's also your PlayStation."
"Access your BSD apps, files, and photos from any device that supports PS4 Remote Play"
Then the attack ads come, turning Microsoft's "Scroogled" ad campaign back at it. The overall pattern is to describe things that can be done with Windows combined with something undesirable associated with Windows, then describe the same thing that can be done with free software on FreeBSD followed by footage of a PlayStation-exclusive game.
Microsoft attack
"With this computer, you can surf the web, talk to your friends, while someone in Seattle spies on you."
"With WorkStation 4, you can surf the web, talk to your friends, and play games like Uncharted 4."
Adobe Creative Cloud attack
"With this computer, you can write a novel, draw comics, and keep paying a monthly bill for the apps you use."
"With WorkStation 4, you can write a novel, draw comics, and play games like LittleBigPlanet 3."
Or look at what PS2 Linux and PS3 Other OS did wrong and what Steam and other PC game markets are doing right. How did Steam pick up steam back in the dial-up era when it was best known as the online activation for Half-Life 2?
How much money would you have to shell out to developers to encourage them to make software for that platform?
If it runs PS4 games, it's covered under the PS4 marketing budget. As for the FreeBSD side, most GNU/Linux apps port fairly easily.
Hell, Let's Encrypt makes it a matter of downloading a program on Windows, Linux or Mac and running it. You could do that for a subdomain.dyndns.org if you could really be bothered.
As described in this post on Let's Encrypt forums, trying that would produce the following error:
Only five customers of a particular dynamic DNS provider can obtain certificates from Let's Encrypt in any 7-day window unless the provider applies to join the Public Suffix List, which can take weeks and can be refused.
I have a file server (CentOS running samba) they could connect to
An iPhone, Android phone, iPad, or Android tablet is more likely to come with an HTTPS client than to come with a Samba client. If you want to run an HTTPS server on your CentOS NAS, you'd still need to either A. buy a domain on a "real" TLD and get a cert for it, or B. run a private CA, issue a cert to the NAS, and somehow push your CA's root to these devices.
The real WTF is that https://www.libressl.org/ produces "Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at www.libressl.org." They aren't even eating their own dog food.
Who is going to makes FreeBSD games for < 0.001% of the market?
Let's pretend for a moment that Sony had taken the PlayStation 4 in the direction that Microsoft is currently attempting to take the Xbox One, which can run the same UWP games as Windows 10. Back in May, there were already 40 million PlayStation 4 consoles sold, one for about every 200 people on the planet. A WorkStation 4 that can run both FreeBSD applications and PlayStation 4 games wouldn't have a games problem.
What you call "a complete non-starter" others call "the price of choosing freedom over the mainstream".
Perhaps the market in your South American country differs from that in North America and Western Europe. If your country's import duties are anything like those of Brazil, including a free operating system rather than Windows may be a way to reduce tax obligation.
Usable trust already exists in the form of username/password... why not just use it? All that is really necessary is for browser vendors to get off their collective asses and apply the TLS-SRP patches wasting away in their ticketing systems
You appear to refer to Bug 405155 in bugzilla.mozilla.org, which hasn't had significant activity in the past five years. The biggest issue they found is that TLS-SRP still sends the username in the clear where the MITM can snoop it, and if username is an email address, that could leak personally identifying information.
And certificates for such things are NOT REQUIRED to be signed by a well-known CA.
True for a router's administration interface, not so much if you want to allow friends and family to browse the files on your home NAS. Most are unlikely to be technical enough to install your private CA's root certificate.
Generate a CSR
Against what domain?
If you want a real certificate with browser ubiquity, you can get them for USD $4.99
Plus the cost of a domain in a real TLD. Certificate authorities in the CAB Forum tend not to issue certs for dynamic IP addresses, for .local, or for made-up TLDs such as .onion (Tor) or .bit (Namecoin). Plus the cost of renewing all those every year.
Because of rate limiting, Let's Encrypt works only if you buy your own domain and dynamic DNS hosting. So if you sell a million appliances, you end up with a million users who each have to buy and renew a domain and buy and renew a dynamic DNS hosting plan.
I wouldn't (for the sake of this argument) care if my router was all http because it doesn't answer on the WAN port.
The web interface presented by a cleartext HTTP server cannot use any APIs that are restricted to secure contexts. (A secure context contains only scripts from potentially trustworthy origins, particularly hosts that resolve to 127.0.0.1, the file: scheme, and the https: scheme.) The spec lists several web APIs that it encourages browser makers to restrict to secure contexts. Examples of such APIs that a web server inside an appliance on a home LAN might want to use include Service Workers, Geolocation, Media Capture, and especially Fullscreen.
For example, consider a router with a network attached storage (NAS) feature. If you connect a mass storage device to its USB port, it shares the files on the LAN through SMB, SFTP, and HTTP protocols. If you load videos onto this device, the user may want to watch them on the full screen. But because the Fullscreen API can be used to spoof browser UI, the spec encourages browsers to restrict it to secure contexts. This means the NAS feature will have to support HTTPS.
even my routers are using HTTPS, with a key and certificate pair generated by me for my own CA
Do you allow friends and family visiting your home onto your home network? Does your router have a web server that can serve files to internal users? If so, how do friends and family install the root certificate for your CA if they want to view the files that you've chosen to share with them?
Roll your own ( software)
That's sort of difficult when makers of networking appliances Tivoize their hardware in order to comply with national radio regulators' requirements for robustness of the radio against user modification to use frequencies or power levels not authorized in a particular country, and hardware makers aren't eager to advertise how locked down a networking appliance is against user-made software. See the TP-Link case.
Yet Sony felt like using FreeBSD when it built Orbis OS, the operating system of the PlayStation 4 game console. Why can't it ship FreeBSD on a WorkStation 4?
Yes, I could buy a desktop, but I want an integrated keyboard with no screen.
You mean a PC built into a keyboard chassis, Commodore 64 or Apple IIc style? A quick Google search for keyboard pc turns up this one. Just add monitor.
I think the idea of a "barebook", such as those by MSI, Clevo, or Compal, is that it includes everything but CPU, RAM, and storage, at the cost of being significantly bulkier and more expensive than a fully assembled laptop.
Where does the EULA *MICROSOFT* produces say "it" being the entire computer, most of which is not theirs?
I don't have the Windows Vista EULA handy, but the Windows 10 EULA states:
Key words: "which might require you to return the software with the entire device on which the software is installed"
System76
They exist. Buy from them
The featured article doesn't appear to state how big the plaintiff's Sony laptop was, but I do know System76 doesn't make anything smaller than 14 inches (source).