...which means that he won't get very far, because ICANN will of course attempt to get a court order to stop him from releasing any information to the public, and he'll be prevented from doing so until the court renders its opinion one way or the other. And that's for every separate instance. ICANN will of course make sure that each attempt to get a court order takes as long as possible.
No, I'm not talking about what happened to Stefan Puffer, but what Harris County is telling everyone.
In essence, they're telling everyone "don't tell us about any security vulnerabilities we might have. If you do, we'll prosecute you".
Okay, Harris County, have it your way. If you want to live in ignorance, fine. The end result is that your network will end up being hacked by people who really are black hats and who don't give a shit about the integrity of your computer systems or network.
It's unfortunate that other entities that are inclined to be more reasonable will suffer, but so be it. Those that are really enlightened will probably put up a statement on their website saying something like "if you manage to hack into our systems or network and notify us immediately of the fact that you did so and how you did it, and do not make any modifications to our data or copy any of it that isn't already published, we'll not only refrain from suing you, but we'll pay you a reward for your efforts" -- the intent being to make it clear to white hat hackers that they really do want to know about security vulnerabilities.
But the bottom line is that places like Harris County will end up having a lot more problems than more enlightened places. Evolution in action.
I, for one, am not going to tell anyone a damned thing about any security vulnerability of theirs I stumble across unless I happen to work for them and have gotten prior permission to look for security vulnerabilities. And I'll laugh at anyone who behaves the way Harris County did and manages to get hacked later on.
This is not entirely true...big corps can lobby congressman but not judges and juries...
True. But the part of the government that is under control of the big corps in this case will be the prosecution. At the federal level, this means Attorney General John Ashcroft.
What, you think the fact that the government is pursuing the case against Dmitri Sklyarov in spite of Adobe's apparent wishes to the contrary is an accident? No, Adobe's public stance is that the charges against Sklyarov should be dropped, but you can bet that they told the feds in private to stick it to him.
The strategy I discuss in my previous posting depends on the corporations' control of the prosecution, not the judiciary.
...unless my understanding of how criminal and civil law works in the U.S. is badly flawed.
Remember that the prosecution has a huge incentive to keep the law on the books so it can be used to bludgeon people into submission. In a civil case, the plaintiff will of course be the content control people, while in a criminal case the prosecution will be the government. Since the government is basically the big corporations' bitch, it will do whatever the big corporations tell it to do. For brevity's sake, we'll roll the plaintiff and the prosecution into one, and call them the "bad guys".
So what does this mean in practice? It means that the bad guys will take the litigation as far as they can until they reach a point where a court ruling would set a precedent against their pet law.
Now, lower courts seem to be very reluctant to rule on Constitutional issues, so the only way you're going to get a lower court to rule against the DMCA is through more traditional means, like proof that the defendant didn't actually violate the DMCA. But that kind of argument is obviously counterproductive for the purposes of striking down the DMCA, so we'll have to assume that Perens' defense won't use it. So the lower courts will almost certainly rule against Perens.
So now it's on to the higher courts, at least at the district level. What I think will happen here is that the case will be litigated heavily, with the bad guys doing everything they can to extend the litigation. If it appears that there's a reasonable chance the judge will rule against the bad guys, then the bad guys will drop the charges right before the ruling. End result? No precedent set against use of the DMCA in that district, and maximal financial damage to the defendant.
I think this is exactly how it will play out in every case. It'll turn into a war of attrition, and the bad guys have many times the resources of the good guys, so the bad guys will win.
Most importantly, it will result in justice only for those with the cash to fight long enough to wind up in a court that would rule against the "bad guys". In other words, justice proportional to the amount of money one has, which seems to be the American Way.
It's a real pity too, because I bet we could *easily* round up 50,000 military-age people who would be willing to go to Afghanistan and keep it clean until the locals learned how to be civilized. It's the old men that don't have the stomach for it these days--a complete reversal from the 1960s.
Interesting that you should mention that -- the gutless old men of today are probably the very same gutless young men of the 1960s.
I think the main issue that's preventing most people from switching is that it isn't worth it. Linux, on the desktop, is not that much better than Windows XP on the desktop. Its not noticibly more stable, its not noticibly faster, but there are noticible downsides (application support and ease-of-use) to using it.
This is why Linux on the desktop needs a compelling advantage, and there's only one that I can think of: ease of use.
Let's face it: the desktop projects that are of any real size are also the ones that are going about it wrong. They tend to mirror Windows and the way Windows does things. I think Gnome is on the right track much more than KDE with respect to this, because they seem to be more willing to break from the Windows way of doing things. But their desktop environment is still far too complex.
We can do far better than that. We could create a desktop environment that's easier to work with than any other environment out there today (including MacOS X). But it would require rethinking how we do things and why. It would require simplifying everything.
Take desktop resolution management, for instance. Why bother making it possible to change resolutions? The only reason the normal user would be interested in doing that is to make desktop objects and fonts bigger or smaller, right? So obviously the right way to go about that is to set the resolution as high as the hardware (video card + monitor) is capable of and let the user change the size of the objects on the screen. And all applications would have to be built to respect those preferences. The control shouldn't be in the applications, it should be universal. It should be a desktop preference. Which means it's something that belongs in the "Desktop Options" menu on the desktop (yes, the desktop should have a menu bar across the top just like application windows have menus across their tops. Score one for Gnome).
Anyway, there are many such examples of things that could be drastically simplified for the user. But nobody seems to be really working on building a desktop environment that's simple. Instead, everyone is working on environments that are filled with nifty features. That's almost the antithesis of a simple environment.
Someone needs to go through the entire system and simplify it, pretty much from the ground up. I'm tempted to do it myself.
A full standard would allow O/Ses, as well as the BIOS to access the output device (be it LEDs or an LCD) and display a standard code for whatever the error is, which the user could then look up in the manual, or on the web.
Hmm...imagine the abuses this could be subject to if it became standard. Banner ads in your browser would fight each other to display a message on the LCD (or LED, or whatever) output device...
Good thing that wouldn't be a problem in Linux, only in Windows...
I'm glad to see that they're adding more standard capabilities to OpenGL. This is necessary from time to time to keep the standard reasonably modern.
But SGI sold some of their patents to Microsoft, and I have to wonder if any of them will cause problems for OpenGL 1.4. You know Microsoft isn't about to let OpenGL dominate as the standard for 3-D graphics...
Even if every new PC sold from now on is Palladium-compliant, what do you do about the installed base? What Killer App makes them all upgrade?
Nothing... initially.
But here's the problem: Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers can introduce Palladium versions of their hardware and software that will interoperate with non-Palladium versions. As long as people don't lose anything, they'll happily buy the new hardware and software. But once enough people have that, they can change the specs. So suddenly, the hardware manufacturers start making Palladium hardware that won't work with non-Palladium operating systems. Since most people by that time will be running Palladium-enabled, signed operating systems, they'll be able to get away with this. They may still offer non-Palladium hardware but they'll charge extra for it.
So now, suddenly, the cheapest hardware out there is also the most restrictive. And again, since most people will be running Palladium-enabled and signed OSes by that time, this won't be a big deal (in fact, most hardware comes with the OS preinstalled anyway, so the issue of Palladium-enabled OSes will be very minor).
And once that happens, hardware that can run Linux and other open source OSes will suddenly get a lot more expensive, which means that those OSes will all but disappear. Eventually the cost difference for "libre" hardware will be higher than the cost of a Microsoft Palladium-enabled OS plus whatever you might install on it for server use, and then Linux will start to disappear from the server as well.
Still think Palladium is dead?
Re:Details on Palladium from EFF's Seth Schoen...
on
The Power of Palladium
·
· Score: 2
"Microsoft assumed as a design criterion for Palladium that existing
versions of Windows should be able to run on a Palladium PC, as should existing
Windows applications, as should existing non-Windows operating systems like
Linux.
There is no attempt to stop people from booting whatever code they
currently use or may write in the future"...
That may be true... for now. But think about it. After Palladium
enabled hardware has been around a few years, almost everyone will be running
Palladium-enabled operating systems (and mostly Microsoft ones, at that).
And at that point, they'll manage to push through legislation (or whatever
the equivalent will be for the situation -- a rule by whatever agency has
controlling authority over the spec, for instance) requiring any new
Palladium hardware to refuse to boot something without a valid signature.
And the vast majority of people won't even notice, because almost all of
them will be running signed OSes anyway.
Microsoft has billions in the bank. They can afford to be
patient. And so can the large media conglomerates.
It *should* ideally be just a "copy-font-file-to-directory" operation. Flexibility sometimes is a liability, especially when we're talking about things like font directories. font aliases? mkfontdir? Gimme a break - sometimes I just think it is a good idea to have a "File Hierarchy Standard" for XFree. I say hardcode the font directory!!
I agree. And you know what? This should be very easy to implement, because the font server is a separate process from the rest of X, so the code to do this would be very localized.
In essence, the font server should be bright enough to scan a font directory for fonts and use them, and check for new fonts whenever a font request is made. How hard can it be?
It sounds very nice, but tell the maintenance crews, janitors, receptionists, and other "lower-level" employees that they can't support their family anymore because some paper-pusher thought illegally playing with the numbers would get him the promotion he wanted. Sure, the "corporation" needs to pay, but the "corporation" has real people in it, who didn't do anything wrong.
Are the people at the bottom of a criminal organization given any more consideration when that organization is taken down? Some (perhaps many) of the people at the bottom may not have been doing anything illegal except perhaps for supporting the organization itself.
How, then is a regular, for-profit corporation any different? And why should it be?
I also find your response very amusing in light of the fact that corporations today have no loyalty at all to their employees and regularly exercise that lack of loyalty. If a corporation is penalized as I outlines previously, the employees of that corporation will go through exactly the same thing as if that corporation had decided to "downsize". The only difference is that the benefit to the society that hosts the corporation is probably greater when said corporation is punished for breaking the law than when that same corporation goes through a round of "downsizing", since in the case of punishment the corporation at least can no longer continue its criminal ways.
Well, the problem is a little deeper than that. The problem is mainly unregulated corporations running rampant. If they can get away with something legally, they will, no matter how unethical it is.
So, to protect the consumer, laws need to be put in place to keep the corporations in line.
Of course, the real problem isn't that any additional laws need to be put into place to keep corps in line, but that corporations need to be subject to exactly the same laws that individuals are and with the exact same penalties, since the Supreme Court ruled that, in essence, corporations are people under the law.
So corporations need to be subject to criminal penalties, and should be forced to stand trial, exactly the same way that people are.
In the criminal justice system, there are a set of penalties and actions that are applied to individuals. Right now, actions include such things as seizure of property, arrest, etc. Penalties include fines, jail time, and death.
For every action or penalty that can be applied to an individual, an equivalent action or penalty needs to be created and applied to corporations:
The death penalty for individuals would translate to the forced permanent closure of a corporation, with the assets of the corporation seized, sold where necessary, and the resulting money evenly distributed to all citizens of the U.S. (or at least all taxpayers). The reason for distributing the assets among the people and not simply handing the corporation's assets to the owners is that there is no good equivalent for having children in the realm of corporations, so there isn't any real "inheritance" for corporations, and since much of the purpose of penalties is deterrence, corporate owners (shareholders in the case of publicly owned corporations) absolutely must not profit from the sentences resulting from a corporate conviction.
Jail time for an individual would translate to the forced closure of a corporation for the duration of the sentence. The corporation would be allowed to resume doing business at the end of the sentence. If the corporation happens to die in the interim, tough. People die in jail all the time, so I see no reason to treat corporations with kid gloves in this regard. Note that this would also be the equivalent of arrest: a corporation that is in the state of arrest would be forced to close up shop until no longer under arrest. And, of course, corporations would have to pay bail to get out of being in this state, just as individuals do.
Seizure of an individual's assets would translate to seizure of a corporation's assets, of course. Same thing for fines.
The end result is that corporate investors and owners would be forced to treat corporate criminal activity as seriously as individuals treat their own criminal activity. Some corporations still wouldn't care but at least when caught they would be subject to the same consequences as everyone else.
We can't legislate morality, but at least we can make those actions that are harmful to society costly. We already do that for individuals. I see no reason why we shouldn't do exactly the same for corporations.
I have to wonder if there are also some benefits to playing videogames regularly, such as faster reflexes, increased ability to control vehicles, etc.
I also wonder if there is some correlation between the intensity and/or longevity of the effects and age (I would expect that the effects are more pronounced and long-lasting in kids than adults, for instance).
Have you heard of DivX? (the hardware, not the file format) No? Why not?;^)
Because DivX players were more expensive than regular DVD players. That, combined with the requirement of hooking the thing up to a telephone line, is why it failed. Has little or nothing to do with freedom or rights, and everything to do with price and convenience.
With many (and more coming) big companies and governments betting on Linux, we can hope that it'd be optionnal... Allowing it to be mandatory would be suicidal for all those relying on Linux (like Disney, IBM, HP,...)
No. What'll happen is that hardware vendors will offer "unencumbered" hardware for a much higher price than DRM hardware -- because the CPU vendors will charge much higher prices for unencumbered CPUs.
So if you want to be free, you'll have to pay for it (rather handsomely, I might add). Or you could get DRM hardware for much cheaper. Your choice.
Guess which choice most people are going to take? Right: most people don't give a f*ck about freedom.
Oh, by the way, just because the spec right now might say that the computer will boot an "untrusted" OS doesn't mean they won't change the spec later (once the basic technology is entrenched) so that only "trusted" OSes will be allowed to boot -- they will. Count on it.
And if you think a law won't eventually be passed in the U.S. requiring the use of DRM-enabled hardware (the law will probably be written in such a way that one could apply for and obtain an exemption, and you can bet that the process of getting such an exemption will be very expensive -- so that only large corporations and the very wealthy can afford to get one), think again. Who owns the U.S. government? Right: the large corporations. Most of which would benefit in one way or another from such a law (especially if the exemption mechanism is included).
Because we are open and free comunity! Let's show them (M$) that we are diferent then they are and don't exclude them or think of them as a threat which they are not.
They are a threat. Haven't you been keeping up with the news? They're a key player in the attempt to force DRM into the PC hardware architecture (the DRM architecture in question would prevent you from loading an operating system that wasn't signed, at least indirectly, by one of the root certificates. That means no Linux).
Even if "unencumbered" x86 hardware were available (as in, systems running CPUs that don't have DRM built-in), that hardware will be a lot more expensive, because only servers would need such hardware, right? And you can bet the CPU manufacturers will charge a lot more money for the unencumbered CPU than the encumbered one.
But their Macintosh-using friends (c'mon, everyone knows at least one of them) will be constantly singing praises such as "_my_ computer doesn't tell me that those media files are protected".
Which is why you can bet something like S.2048 will pass at roughly the same time... then people with Macs won't be able to say that.
Remember, the decoding hardware will be on the CPU itself, not some add-on IC or something in the motherboard. You're not going to be able to avoid the hardware in a clone PC, and the only way to get around it potentially is to run software that ignores it.
You won't be able to run software that ignores it.
Just think: who exactly will be in control of the root certificates? I can almost guarantee it won't be anyone who likes Linux.
The biggest danger I see here is that TCPA compliant hardware will eventually refuse to load anything that isn't signed directly or indirectly by one or more of the root certificates. Oh, sure, the spec right now may call for the ability to load untrusted code, with the caveat that such untrusted code won't be able to view DRM-protected files, but come on -- how long do you really think it'll be before the spec is "improved" to remove that annoying feature?
Cool, I was hoping someone would respond intelligently...
Code might be more mature. Early versions of psql suffered a bit. MySQL has been looked at a lot, has a large install base, etc., so it's got more kinks worked out. Probably. YMMV.
I think the bugs have pretty much been ironed out (except perhaps for some truly obscure ones) in PostgreSQL. So I'm not sure that this advantage is really much of an advantage anymore, though it certainly once was.
Access control is more fine grained. I'm very used to MySQL's grant tables. You can get nearly the same thing in psql though.
True, but the differences are subtle! MySQL's GRANT interface seems to be a little nicer in that it lets you specify wildcards to match all databases, all tables, or all tables.
Windows support. You need Cygwin for psql on Windows. This isn't a biggie for me, but might be important to some...
I have no idea what sort of impact this would have on administration of each, or on performance for that matter. So I'll have to give the nod to MySQL on this one.
I can back up MySQL's DB files really easily, without the DB running if need be (did this once as an emergency backup and it saved my bacon).
You can do the same thing with PostgreSQL, I think, but I haven't actually tested this on a live database. You can lock all the tables in PostgreSQL if need be, and I'd think that as long as the database is running without fsync turned off it would work.
Lots of books, lots of code already written for MySQL. Although I suspect that psql will close that gap. But 8 times out of ten you see something from freshmeat written for MySQL.
This is definitely true! It's why I asked the question, because I'd like to see the same sort of support for PostgreSQL. If a ready-made application exists for MySQL that doesn't for PostgreSQL then that is certainly a compelling reason to use MySQL, provided that you don't also need the capabilities of PostgreSQL.
I'm personally more familiar with it...:-)
Yeah, I know what you mean.:-)
Anyway, there's a whole list of pros as well as cons over at MySQL's site. However, that list let out the most important thing to consider when choosing any technology: Is it the right tool for the job? Most of the time MySQL has been just fine for my needs.
And I completely agree with this, as long as you don't end up outgrowing the capabilities of what you're using. My experience shows, though, that this is a lot easier than you might think, which is why it's important to use a database-independent layer (like ADOdb) whenever possible, and to choose the most capable database engine that meets your needs.
And that's why I asked the question the way I did. I'm interested in knowing what compelling reasons exist for choosing MySQL over PostgreSQL. Sounds like the biggest one is the existence of some application for MySQL that already does what you want, but which doesn't exist for PostgreSQL.
I don't want to start a flamewar. I really don't -- this is a perfectly serious question:
What are the
advantages of using MySQL over PostgreSQL?
Seriously, what are they? I really want to know. It's important, because the more use a database gets, the greater the amount of support it gets and the more useful it becomes. So if there are some truly significant advantages to using MySQL over PostgreSQL, then it would be useful to know them so that PostgreSQL can be improved in those areas. So what are those advantages?
Speed? Perhaps. But what I've read indicates that PostgreSQL is faster under a heavy load. Under what additional situations would the additional speed be the deciding factor?
What features does MySQL have that PostgreSQL does not? I'm especially interested in those features that would make the difference in the decision to use MySQL over PostgreSQL.
My experience with both PostgreSQL and MySQL is that MySQL has the following advantages:
The administrative interface is nicer (I especially like that the access control is done entirely with tables within the database), and just seems like less of a kludge. But that may simply be because I used MySQL before PostgreSQL.
There are more ways to manipulate the database schema than in PostgreSQL (you can drop table columns easily, for instance). This advantage is mitigated somewhat by the fact that administrative functions in PostgreSQL can be performed within a transaction.
So what other advantages does MySQL have over PostgreSQL?
It is. But the uniformity that matters is on the individual's desktop, not between systems as many seem to think.
In other words, what matters is internal consistency. Once someone starts using a machine, they should be able to customize it to their own tastes. The machine needs to be consistent in how it interacts with the user, even after the user customizes it.
Now, that said, it's certainly desirable for the default interface to be something that people can get used to easily, but this does not argue against user customization. Remember that computers are there to make our lives easier, so it is the computer that should be made to adapt to us, not vice versa. That, more than any other reason, is why a user interface should be customizable.
There are valid reasons (other than aesthetics) for people to be able to customize their desktops. Different people see differently, and some color schemes are much easier on some people's eyes than others. But even if there is significant agreement within a population on the benefits of one particular color scheme, there isn't universal agreement. That's why it's important for people to be able to customize their environment.
What I have to wonder is whether or not people in the U.S. and in Europe notice that they're getting significantly worse treatment than China from Microsoft and decide to do something about it.
Of course, probably nothing would come from that anyway, what with "intellectual property" being so screwed up in the west ("What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours. Now bend over!", say the corporations, with the court system seemingly going along with this).
Slashdot Mirror
...which means that he won't get very far, because ICANN will of course attempt to get a court order to stop him from releasing any information to the public, and he'll be prevented from doing so until the court renders its opinion one way or the other. And that's for every separate instance. ICANN will of course make sure that each attempt to get a court order takes as long as possible.
In essence, they're telling everyone "don't tell us about any security vulnerabilities we might have. If you do, we'll prosecute you".
Okay, Harris County, have it your way. If you want to live in ignorance, fine. The end result is that your network will end up being hacked by people who really are black hats and who don't give a shit about the integrity of your computer systems or network.
It's unfortunate that other entities that are inclined to be more reasonable will suffer, but so be it. Those that are really enlightened will probably put up a statement on their website saying something like "if you manage to hack into our systems or network and notify us immediately of the fact that you did so and how you did it, and do not make any modifications to our data or copy any of it that isn't already published, we'll not only refrain from suing you, but we'll pay you a reward for your efforts" -- the intent being to make it clear to white hat hackers that they really do want to know about security vulnerabilities.
But the bottom line is that places like Harris County will end up having a lot more problems than more enlightened places. Evolution in action.
I, for one, am not going to tell anyone a damned thing about any security vulnerability of theirs I stumble across unless I happen to work for them and have gotten prior permission to look for security vulnerabilities. And I'll laugh at anyone who behaves the way Harris County did and manages to get hacked later on.
True. But the part of the government that is under control of the big corps in this case will be the prosecution. At the federal level, this means Attorney General John Ashcroft.
What, you think the fact that the government is pursuing the case against Dmitri Sklyarov in spite of Adobe's apparent wishes to the contrary is an accident? No, Adobe's public stance is that the charges against Sklyarov should be dropped, but you can bet that they told the feds in private to stick it to him.
The strategy I discuss in my previous posting depends on the corporations' control of the prosecution, not the judiciary.
Remember that the prosecution has a huge incentive to keep the law on the books so it can be used to bludgeon people into submission. In a civil case, the plaintiff will of course be the content control people, while in a criminal case the prosecution will be the government. Since the government is basically the big corporations' bitch, it will do whatever the big corporations tell it to do. For brevity's sake, we'll roll the plaintiff and the prosecution into one, and call them the "bad guys".
So what does this mean in practice? It means that the bad guys will take the litigation as far as they can until they reach a point where a court ruling would set a precedent against their pet law.
Now, lower courts seem to be very reluctant to rule on Constitutional issues, so the only way you're going to get a lower court to rule against the DMCA is through more traditional means, like proof that the defendant didn't actually violate the DMCA. But that kind of argument is obviously counterproductive for the purposes of striking down the DMCA, so we'll have to assume that Perens' defense won't use it. So the lower courts will almost certainly rule against Perens.
So now it's on to the higher courts, at least at the district level. What I think will happen here is that the case will be litigated heavily, with the bad guys doing everything they can to extend the litigation. If it appears that there's a reasonable chance the judge will rule against the bad guys, then the bad guys will drop the charges right before the ruling. End result? No precedent set against use of the DMCA in that district, and maximal financial damage to the defendant.
I think this is exactly how it will play out in every case. It'll turn into a war of attrition, and the bad guys have many times the resources of the good guys, so the bad guys will win.
Most importantly, it will result in justice only for those with the cash to fight long enough to wind up in a court that would rule against the "bad guys". In other words, justice proportional to the amount of money one has, which seems to be the American Way.
Interesting that you should mention that -- the gutless old men of today are probably the very same gutless young men of the 1960s.
This is why Linux on the desktop needs a compelling advantage, and there's only one that I can think of: ease of use.
Let's face it: the desktop projects that are of any real size are also the ones that are going about it wrong. They tend to mirror Windows and the way Windows does things. I think Gnome is on the right track much more than KDE with respect to this, because they seem to be more willing to break from the Windows way of doing things. But their desktop environment is still far too complex.
We can do far better than that. We could create a desktop environment that's easier to work with than any other environment out there today (including MacOS X). But it would require rethinking how we do things and why. It would require simplifying everything.
Take desktop resolution management, for instance. Why bother making it possible to change resolutions? The only reason the normal user would be interested in doing that is to make desktop objects and fonts bigger or smaller, right? So obviously the right way to go about that is to set the resolution as high as the hardware (video card + monitor) is capable of and let the user change the size of the objects on the screen. And all applications would have to be built to respect those preferences. The control shouldn't be in the applications, it should be universal. It should be a desktop preference. Which means it's something that belongs in the "Desktop Options" menu on the desktop (yes, the desktop should have a menu bar across the top just like application windows have menus across their tops. Score one for Gnome).
Anyway, there are many such examples of things that could be drastically simplified for the user. But nobody seems to be really working on building a desktop environment that's simple. Instead, everyone is working on environments that are filled with nifty features. That's almost the antithesis of a simple environment.
Someone needs to go through the entire system and simplify it, pretty much from the ground up. I'm tempted to do it myself.
Hmm...imagine the abuses this could be subject to if it became standard. Banner ads in your browser would fight each other to display a message on the LCD (or LED, or whatever) output device...
Good thing that wouldn't be a problem in Linux, only in Windows...
But SGI sold some of their patents to Microsoft, and I have to wonder if any of them will cause problems for OpenGL 1.4. You know Microsoft isn't about to let OpenGL dominate as the standard for 3-D graphics...
Nothing ... initially.
But here's the problem: Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers can introduce Palladium versions of their hardware and software that will interoperate with non-Palladium versions. As long as people don't lose anything, they'll happily buy the new hardware and software. But once enough people have that, they can change the specs. So suddenly, the hardware manufacturers start making Palladium hardware that won't work with non-Palladium operating systems. Since most people by that time will be running Palladium-enabled, signed operating systems, they'll be able to get away with this. They may still offer non-Palladium hardware but they'll charge extra for it.
So now, suddenly, the cheapest hardware out there is also the most restrictive. And again, since most people will be running Palladium-enabled and signed OSes by that time, this won't be a big deal (in fact, most hardware comes with the OS preinstalled anyway, so the issue of Palladium-enabled OSes will be very minor).
And once that happens, hardware that can run Linux and other open source OSes will suddenly get a lot more expensive, which means that those OSes will all but disappear. Eventually the cost difference for "libre" hardware will be higher than the cost of a Microsoft Palladium-enabled OS plus whatever you might install on it for server use, and then Linux will start to disappear from the server as well.
Still think Palladium is dead?
That may be true ... for now. But think about it. After Palladium
enabled hardware has been around a few years, almost everyone will be running
Palladium-enabled operating systems (and mostly Microsoft ones, at that).
And at that point, they'll manage to push through legislation (or whatever
the equivalent will be for the situation -- a rule by whatever agency has
controlling authority over the spec, for instance) requiring any new
Palladium hardware to refuse to boot something without a valid signature.
And the vast majority of people won't even notice, because almost all of them will be running signed OSes anyway.
Microsoft has billions in the bank. They can afford to be patient. And so can the large media conglomerates.
I agree. And you know what? This should be very easy to implement, because the font server is a separate process from the rest of X, so the code to do this would be very localized.
In essence, the font server should be bright enough to scan a font directory for fonts and use them, and check for new fonts whenever a font request is made. How hard can it be?
Yeah, well I'd like to see you try to get 999.99% uptime!
Though I'm sure there are some players out there (*cough*Qwest*cough*) that are getting 999.99% downtime...
Are the people at the bottom of a criminal organization given any more consideration when that organization is taken down? Some (perhaps many) of the people at the bottom may not have been doing anything illegal except perhaps for supporting the organization itself.
How, then is a regular, for-profit corporation any different? And why should it be?
I also find your response very amusing in light of the fact that corporations today have no loyalty at all to their employees and regularly exercise that lack of loyalty. If a corporation is penalized as I outlines previously, the employees of that corporation will go through exactly the same thing as if that corporation had decided to "downsize". The only difference is that the benefit to the society that hosts the corporation is probably greater when said corporation is punished for breaking the law than when that same corporation goes through a round of "downsizing", since in the case of punishment the corporation at least can no longer continue its criminal ways.
Of course, the real problem isn't that any additional laws need to be put into place to keep corps in line, but that corporations need to be subject to exactly the same laws that individuals are and with the exact same penalties, since the Supreme Court ruled that, in essence, corporations are people under the law.
So corporations need to be subject to criminal penalties, and should be forced to stand trial, exactly the same way that people are.
In the criminal justice system, there are a set of penalties and actions that are applied to individuals. Right now, actions include such things as seizure of property, arrest, etc. Penalties include fines, jail time, and death.
For every action or penalty that can be applied to an individual, an equivalent action or penalty needs to be created and applied to corporations:
The end result is that corporate investors and owners would be forced to treat corporate criminal activity as seriously as individuals treat their own criminal activity. Some corporations still wouldn't care but at least when caught they would be subject to the same consequences as everyone else.
We can't legislate morality, but at least we can make those actions that are harmful to society costly. We already do that for individuals. I see no reason why we shouldn't do exactly the same for corporations.
I also wonder if there is some correlation between the intensity and/or longevity of the effects and age (I would expect that the effects are more pronounced and long-lasting in kids than adults, for instance).
Because DivX players were more expensive than regular DVD players. That, combined with the requirement of hooking the thing up to a telephone line, is why it failed. Has little or nothing to do with freedom or rights, and everything to do with price and convenience.
No. What'll happen is that hardware vendors will offer "unencumbered" hardware for a much higher price than DRM hardware -- because the CPU vendors will charge much higher prices for unencumbered CPUs.
So if you want to be free, you'll have to pay for it (rather handsomely, I might add). Or you could get DRM hardware for much cheaper. Your choice.
Guess which choice most people are going to take? Right: most people don't give a f*ck about freedom.
Oh, by the way, just because the spec right now might say that the computer will boot an "untrusted" OS doesn't mean they won't change the spec later (once the basic technology is entrenched) so that only "trusted" OSes will be allowed to boot -- they will. Count on it.
And if you think a law won't eventually be passed in the U.S. requiring the use of DRM-enabled hardware (the law will probably be written in such a way that one could apply for and obtain an exemption, and you can bet that the process of getting such an exemption will be very expensive -- so that only large corporations and the very wealthy can afford to get one), think again. Who owns the U.S. government? Right: the large corporations. Most of which would benefit in one way or another from such a law (especially if the exemption mechanism is included).
They are a threat. Haven't you been keeping up with the news? They're a key player in the attempt to force DRM into the PC hardware architecture (the DRM architecture in question would prevent you from loading an operating system that wasn't signed, at least indirectly, by one of the root certificates. That means no Linux).
Even if "unencumbered" x86 hardware were available (as in, systems running CPUs that don't have DRM built-in), that hardware will be a lot more expensive, because only servers would need such hardware, right? And you can bet the CPU manufacturers will charge a lot more money for the unencumbered CPU than the encumbered one.
Which is why you can bet something like S.2048 will pass at roughly the same time ... then people with Macs won't be able to say that.
You won't be able to run software that ignores it.
Just think: who exactly will be in control of the root certificates? I can almost guarantee it won't be anyone who likes Linux.
The biggest danger I see here is that TCPA compliant hardware will eventually refuse to load anything that isn't signed directly or indirectly by one or more of the root certificates. Oh, sure, the spec right now may call for the ability to load untrusted code, with the caveat that such untrusted code won't be able to view DRM-protected files, but come on -- how long do you really think it'll be before the spec is "improved" to remove that annoying feature?
I think the bugs have pretty much been ironed out (except perhaps for some truly obscure ones) in PostgreSQL. So I'm not sure that this advantage is really much of an advantage anymore, though it certainly once was.
True, but the differences are subtle! MySQL's GRANT interface seems to be a little nicer in that it lets you specify wildcards to match all databases, all tables, or all tables.I have no idea what sort of impact this would have on administration of each, or on performance for that matter. So I'll have to give the nod to MySQL on this one.
You can do the same thing with PostgreSQL, I think, but I haven't actually tested this on a live database. You can lock all the tables in PostgreSQL if need be, and I'd think that as long as the database is running without fsync turned off it would work.
This is definitely true! It's why I asked the question, because I'd like to see the same sort of support for PostgreSQL. If a ready-made application exists for MySQL that doesn't for PostgreSQL then that is certainly a compelling reason to use MySQL, provided that you don't also need the capabilities of PostgreSQL.
Yeah, I know what you mean. :-)
And I completely agree with this, as long as you don't end up outgrowing the capabilities of what you're using. My experience shows, though, that this is a lot easier than you might think, which is why it's important to use a database-independent layer (like ADOdb) whenever possible, and to choose the most capable database engine that meets your needs.
And that's why I asked the question the way I did. I'm interested in knowing what compelling reasons exist for choosing MySQL over PostgreSQL. Sounds like the biggest one is the existence of some application for MySQL that already does what you want, but which doesn't exist for PostgreSQL.
Seriously, what are they? I really want to know. It's important, because the more use a database gets, the greater the amount of support it gets and the more useful it becomes. So if there are some truly significant advantages to using MySQL over PostgreSQL, then it would be useful to know them so that PostgreSQL can be improved in those areas. So what are those advantages?
Speed? Perhaps. But what I've read indicates that PostgreSQL is faster under a heavy load. Under what additional situations would the additional speed be the deciding factor?
What features does MySQL have that PostgreSQL does not? I'm especially interested in those features that would make the difference in the decision to use MySQL over PostgreSQL.
My experience with both PostgreSQL and MySQL is that MySQL has the following advantages:
So what other advantages does MySQL have over PostgreSQL?
Bastard!
It is. But the uniformity that matters is on the individual's desktop, not between systems as many seem to think.
In other words, what matters is internal consistency. Once someone starts using a machine, they should be able to customize it to their own tastes. The machine needs to be consistent in how it interacts with the user, even after the user customizes it.
Now, that said, it's certainly desirable for the default interface to be something that people can get used to easily, but this does not argue against user customization. Remember that computers are there to make our lives easier, so it is the computer that should be made to adapt to us, not vice versa. That, more than any other reason, is why a user interface should be customizable.
There are valid reasons (other than aesthetics) for people to be able to customize their desktops. Different people see differently, and some color schemes are much easier on some people's eyes than others. But even if there is significant agreement within a population on the benefits of one particular color scheme, there isn't universal agreement. That's why it's important for people to be able to customize their environment.
Of course, probably nothing would come from that anyway, what with "intellectual property" being so screwed up in the west ("What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours. Now bend over!", say the corporations, with the court system seemingly going along with this).