I posted on this very same matter back in November, though with an eye more towards sorting out such taxonomical discrepancies with code. I guess I should have hacked something up then. Still, nice to see folks thinking about the same issues.
Having spent the better part of a weekend trying to get RedHat 8 and ALSA to jive with a fairly standard pro-consumer soundcard to no avail, I'd say the first thing Linux sound developers need to do is get shit working. I mean ALSA is absurd: every time you upgrade your kernel, you recompile. Explain that to any pro studio user who's used to the Mac/Windows "install driver, reboot, get working" way of computing. Then explain to them about all the command line stuff they'll have to learn, about two differing and conflicting user interfaces, about all the different distributions and package formats. I'm not sure pro users are willing to sacrifice hours of thier time for a 5ms drop in latency or whatever Linux audio developers can promise, and they certainly won't give up tools like Logic, Reason, and Pro Tools.
Get stuff working for average users, Linux audio devs. Then we'll talk.
...like maybe Gentoo, if we're gonna talk distros? Having done several installfests, my university LUG has had consistent problems with various versions of the Mandrake distro on a variety of pretty generic, stable hardware. Mandrake used to have a rep for ease of use and a slick installer, but these days all they're known for is bloat and instability, at least in my circles. All corporate wellfare issues aside, put your money where the product is; in the Linux realm, that means RedHat for everyday use and Gentoo for power use. Mandrake can go hang.
Gestures support, dumbass. Read the FingerWorks site. I have their full ST model (a "keyless keyboard," essentially) and it's amazing. Their technology goes far beyond simple touchpads. It's worth every penny.
Thank you for making one of my now-standard arguments in the debate over "fair use," etc. If you know the people you're buying content from are going to persecute you for using that content in the ways you want to, don't buy it. Buy something else. Or at least have the rocks to buy it and fight legally, socially, politically, or artistically (think Negativland).
My mother is a college professor, and when "generation x" was the majority of her students, she was ready to quit academe and run screaming into the hills. Even when their mommies and daddies were paying for them, this sadass generation still had the obnoxious "whatever" attitude, a lack of moviation, and few redeeming qualities. One might infer, then, that their current economic standing is wholely self-imposed.
As an afterword, my mother is still teaching. The present generation, who's work ethic appears to be far stronger, is a "delight" to teach, in her words. These kids are already making their own success. You figure out who's gonna be kvetching about unfair economic trends 10 years from now.
What I wrote to the author of the article:
on
No More Mac Tweaking?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Discussions of interface issues often make for hot news items and even hotter discussion, but are they really relevant?
I appreciate the even-handed approach of your article, balancing the frustration of tweakers with the reality of developing a stable, attractive, and easy-to-use operating system. But, as a student looking towards Human Computer Interaction as a specialization and immersed in the literature of the field, it's safe to say that no interface will please 100% of the audience. Those out to tweak endlessly fall into a minority that no interface designer can possibly account for without going insane, just as a scientist can't possibly account for all the potential variables and random factors in an experiment.
In the artificial, "closed system" of interface design, the people with the free time and inclination to endlessly modify are always going to be unsatisfied. Is this newsworthy? A number of application developers have put out tools that enhance and work with OS X to rave reviews. There are a number of successful interface tweaks out there (my iBook has a fully transparent dock, for example). And, as someone who used to theme and skin, figuring out how to modify a closed program is part of the fun.
I won't stick by Apple 100% on all of their decisions like some Mac users (after all, I've spent the last 6 years in Linux/*nix). But I will say that if you're going to do an article that more than suggests to Apple what to do and where to go, there are far more pressing issues than letting skinning nuts with too much free time make Aqua look like rusted clockwork, or whathaveyou.
I'm happily typing this on a new white iBook 700MHz, rather decked out with a 40GB harddrive and 384MB of RAM. It may not have the raw horsepower of my roommate's Dell Inspiron 8200, but it also weighs a third of that behemoth, has more than twice the battery life, and most day-to-day operations feel faster, and the whole experience is more pleasurable.
What do I mean by "pleasurable?" Example: as a longtime Linux user, I prayed for decent antialiasing system-wide (well, except for the terminal). OS X's PostScript-driven graphics layer makes everything look gorgeous, sharp and readable. It's like looking at a printed page, maybe better. And I can keep my terminal and anything under x-font size unantialiased if I so desire. That's pleasurable. It makes the machine I interact with hours a day enjoyable to use.
Things just work, by and large. If I want to tinker, I can, but after years of spending hours and hours to get, well, ANYTHING working (somewhat self-inflicted: I used Gentoo, which I still love on the server side along with OpenBSD), it's amazing to just plug in devices and have them work the way they should. I forget who said it, but "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." With college, I don't have the time to tinker endlessly to get a printer working when I've got a paper due.
There are tons of open source apps that have either been ported or are being natively developed for OS X. This is a slow transition for the Mac community, however, and you'll still find lots of shareware and commercial programs out there, particularly in the utilities/customization arena. But as someone who's learned to accept that commercial development works for some products and open source for others, I think the OS X community has the right idea in accepting and supporting both.
I could go on for hours about how nice it is to have an OS that's actually integrated with its hardware, all the little aesthetic details and polish that Apple throws in, but most readers have heard it all before. I can safely say that as someone who's lived and breathed Linux (with forays into *BSD) for the last six years, I feel utterly satisfied with my switch, and I can reccomend it to anyone looking for a great desktop (or laptop) platform.
I am (was?) a more die-hard Linux user than most on Slashdot. I still love Linux on the server. But the split between GNOME and KDE, and therein between GNOME 1.x and 2.x, prompted me to drop Linux as a desktop platform in favor of Mac OS X. Without focusing on the platform I switched to, let me explain.
When actually trying to get work done, and not simply tinker around, having essentially three different widget sets and standards is a nightmare. I wasn't even using GNOME or KDE as a desktop; I used fluxbox. But some of my GNOME apps looked one way, the 2.x ones looked another, and the KDE apps yet another. Then comes trying to remember the keyboard shortcut conventions: do I shut this down with ctl-Q, ctl-x, alt-q, alt-x? On top of all this, there's the bloat of carrying around libraries for all three widget sets, and all their dependencies (and I still had a pretty stripped down install; I was running Gentoo).
Day-to-day, this made for a truly unpleasant, unproductive, and frustrating desktop experience, without even getting into issues of stability. Many will toot the horn of diversity and choice, but in this the GNOME/KDE split is simply a massive hassle for new and experienced users alike. I'm the secretary for my college's Linux User Group, and explaining the differences between all the desktop environments confuses new users into a catatonic state, leaving them so confused they don't know where to go for what.
I won't say that Linux can never succeed on the desktop. It just needs a shitload of work, and and the demolition of this KDE/GNOME barrier.
User Friendly, for as long as I've been aware of it, hasn't been funny. Obviousy I'm not the only one here with these sentiments. But why?
I believe it has something to do with the co-opting of geek culture. There's precious little difference between your average UF strip and any of the mediocre dead tree comics who made uninformed jokes about how much computers crash in your local paper's comics page. Most of their jokes aren't really that geeky - it seems like they simply pander to the wannabes, and there's nothing sadder than a wannabe geek. If you want some really geeky jokes, see the always-offensive Jerkcity for superb strips like this or this or even some of this.
Typical computer/office humor gets old real fast, just like Dilbert did. But from what I can see, UF never even had the biting humor and that Dilbert's heydays can claim.
While I hesitate to buy into the comparisons with martyrs of civil rights and women's suffrage, I understand and sympathize with RMS's views. I also agree that a miscommunication about his views on intellectual property occured, and clearly a well-written text can offer a much more cohesive explanation than five minutes of conversation on a hot DC sidewalk.
But perhaps this is exactly the point: I've recieved an outpour of sympathetic responses from red-blooded geeks from all parts, bemoaning our self-appointed representatives and their complex, often unrealistic viewpoints that can be explained only at length and implemented only in a closed system of their own design. However, the beautiful thing is: RMS, the NY Fair Use crowd, and their ilk have just as much right to their style of politicking as those of us who desire efficient and reasonable lobbying. And, as one Slashdotter enlightened me, it does take all kinds to really expose a tangled issue like this.
I am largely in agreement with RMS, with the GNU philosophy, and with the notion that 'intellectual property' is both a misnomer and a vile construct. But I've also been mired in enough DC politics from a young age to know that idealism lies well beyond the goal in sight, and as disheartening as that may be, it's the price of "majority rules" democracy. I appreciate RMS clearing up our misunderstanding, and I appreciate those of you who wrote in support of a more moderate geek political platform.
I apologize for taking a the view that what is unspoken is truth - the lawyer from the EFF explictly stated that they were denied a seat, having contacted well in advance and following procedure. The folks from NY Fair Use said no such thing at the time, and that's what I based that comment upon. However, I also placed a disclaimer forewarning that journalistic integrity is NOT the name of my game *grin* So there you go: listen to RMS. He would know.
"One important caveat is necessary. I am not suggesting that peer-production will supplant markets or firms. I am not suggesting that it is always the more efficient model of production for information and culture. What I am saying is that this emerging third model is (a) distinct from the other two, and (b) has certain systematic advantages over the other two in clearing human capital/creativity. When these advantages will outweigh the advantages that the other two models may have in triggering or directing human behavior with relatively reliable and reasonably wellunderstood triggers of money and hierarchy is a matter for more detailed study. I offer some lines of understanding the limitations of this model of production in Part III, but do not attempt a full answer to these questions here."
So does your blustering comment about "the realities of the marketblah blah blah rabble rabble" seem so worthwhile now?
Heh, I debated a bit about my choice of words, but no offense was meant. Your comments were perfectly apt, I think some of us were just hoping for something more poignant while remaining reasonable, along the lines of Mr. Reid.
I would like to say that I support your organization's stances on these issues, and I do not disagree with your tactics. More power to you!
I'll post this comment in response to those who equate the actions of the sneering New Yorkers for Fair Use and ESR with the civil rights heros of the 1960s: it's time to return to Earth, you've been on another planet too long.
You might notice that you rarely see Martin Luther King in anything but a three piece suit, even in the heat of summer. You might notice that he was educated, eloquent, and able to converse with anyone from the working class to wealthy politicians.
The Black Panthers where the militant end of a civil rights fight that many claim they did more harm than good for with their unreasonable stances (freeing all black prisoners, regardless of their crimes, for example). And it was the media's coverage of the atrocities in Alabama that ultimately swayed the American public; what system is bigger than the media? They were working it.
And let's get real: as potentially chilling the effects of DRM are, they pale in comparison to the fights of the 1960s, and it's insulting to equate the two. Even more insulting, had you seen the behaviour of these "rambunctious ones." They were no Martin Luther Kings. They were no heros.
I'm not "charging" Stallman with anything. I'm a fan of the man's life work, the GPL first and foremost. You are correct on his take on intellectual property. I asked him explicitly if anything less than a total redefinition, or perhaps abolition, of intellectual property into his terms would be acceptable to him. He said "No."
I charge him with nothing. He's an opionated and provactive man, and a brilliant one at that. What I question is the worth of such militant opinions to the cause of reaching a solution that benefits consumers. That's all.
Sorry, it's the reasonable and informed folks who work hard to involve themselves in the decision making process and gain a position of authority and respect in their field who eventually allow a compromise. Not the "pain in the ass" who trapses in when it's convienient, makes a scene, and takes off to fume about how oppressed they are.
The very idea that we're so utterly oppressed and outnumbered in this situation is disgusting. A little hard work, and we could have had another table full of consumer representatives. But nobody but DigitalConsumer.org bothered to do that work, opting instead for the "Merry Prankster" approach.
You'll excuse me if I'm sick at the idea spawning yet another protest generation. Protesting is an easy, ego-boosting, self-indulgent and lazy activity. It takes years of hard work to get to a position of legitimacy where people take your views serious, and you have experiences to back them up. The representatives of the tech industry there had that legitimacy, and the protesters came no where close to it.
Good causes are undermined by bad representatives. Take the anti-globalization, anti-corporate folks: a great cause, undermined at every protest by goddamn puppets, hipster fashionistas with no coherent politics, and kids drinking Cokes while telling reporters about corporate evils. And don't get me started on how far the privledged, drugged-out, self-styled revolutionaries of the 1960s set back left wing causes for decades to come.
Boycotts, letter writing campaigns, protests, television commercials: cram 'em all. What we need are experts, professionals, and trained lobbiests who can beat the "opposition" at their own game. Period. I live in Washington, I've grown up around the people who make the decisions that affect the world. That's how things get done, like it or not.
I'll post this comment in response to those who equate the actions of the sneering New Yorkers for Fair Use and ESR with the civil rights heros of the 1960s: it's time to return to Earth, you've been on another planet too long.
You might notice that you rarely see Martin Luther King in anything but a three piece suit, even in the heat of summer. You might notice that he was educated, eloquent, and able to converse with anyone from the working class to wealthy politicians.
The Black Panthers where the militant end of a civil rights fight that many claim they did more harm than good for with their unreasonable stances (freeing all black prisoners, regardless of their crimes, for example). And it was the media's coverage of the atrocities in Alabama that ultimately swayed the American public; what system is bigger than the media? They were working it.
And let's get real: as potentially chilling the effects of DRM are, they pale in comparison to the fights of the 1960s, and it's insulting to equate the two. Even more insulting, had you seen the behaviour of these "rambunctious ones." They were no Martin Luther Kings. They were no heros.
AGGH! I never agreed with DRM, look at the damn text of the article! I'm vehemently opposed to it, just like the tech industry people! The people who were calmly and logically fighting for our rights!
I'll just say that you're the first person to interpret those lines that way. So take what I'm saying at face value: I don't like Jack Valenti, I don't think he's a good guy, and I don't think he's reasonable, nor was I trying to convey any of that. I was just goddamn surprised that he nodded in approval, with the rest of the group, that P2P wasn't inherently a bad thing.
Sheesh. Sometimes your allies take the most persuading.
That's the first I've ever been called timid, but I was a damn signt embarassed, though on the behalf of those making fools of themselves.
Get a clue. The folks participating legitimately in the discussion made some jokes, even Jack Valenti grinned when he was called out on his old VCR comments by a rep from Philips. Even though there were some greedy shits in the group, they were the exception. The "aim of the group," which you're obviously uninformed on, having neither been near this event nor availed yourself of transcript (which may or may not yet be available), was to come to a balance between all the sides represented.
The majority opposed DRM. Think about it: the tech industry can sell more machines at a lower cost if they don't have to integrate DRM, and they know DRM will stifle the commodity hardware market. So they were on your side. Just because the meeting is going on in a big, spooky government office doesn't mean it was a conspiritorial gestapo session.
Stop watching so many movies and get involved. These processes are open to the public and people with an under-represented viewpoint. You just gotta work for it.
Sorry. In the Real World of Washington, DC, these geektavists had the opportunity to formally request a presence on the panel. Only the EFF did, and they were likely denied their seat due to conflict with the MPAA. While this sucks, it leaves ample opportunity for motivated activists willing to play the game, lobby hard, and get heard. Nobody opens their ears automatically in Washington, but they will if you work for it.
I think you might wanna think about your paranoid vision above. It's not that they "didn't let the good guys speak," it's that the good guys didn't push hard enough to get to speak. We're talking Washington, where you have to lobby, make some calls, you know: work for what you want. Don't blame the evil empire, blame your rebel heros who were sitting around bitching about the evil MPAA on IRC or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted on this very same matter back in November, though with an eye more towards sorting out such taxonomical discrepancies with code. I guess I should have hacked something up then. Still, nice to see folks thinking about the same issues.
Having spent the better part of a weekend trying to get RedHat 8 and ALSA to jive with a fairly standard pro-consumer soundcard to no avail, I'd say the first thing Linux sound developers need to do is get shit working. I mean ALSA is absurd: every time you upgrade your kernel, you recompile. Explain that to any pro studio user who's used to the Mac/Windows "install driver, reboot, get working" way of computing. Then explain to them about all the command line stuff they'll have to learn, about two differing and conflicting user interfaces, about all the different distributions and package formats. I'm not sure pro users are willing to sacrifice hours of thier time for a 5ms drop in latency or whatever Linux audio developers can promise, and they certainly won't give up tools like Logic, Reason, and Pro Tools. Get stuff working for average users, Linux audio devs. Then we'll talk.
...like maybe Gentoo, if we're gonna talk distros? Having done several installfests, my university LUG has had consistent problems with various versions of the Mandrake distro on a variety of pretty generic, stable hardware. Mandrake used to have a rep for ease of use and a slick installer, but these days all they're known for is bloat and instability, at least in my circles. All corporate wellfare issues aside, put your money where the product is; in the Linux realm, that means RedHat for everyday use and Gentoo for power use. Mandrake can go hang.
Gestures support, dumbass. Read the FingerWorks site. I have their full ST model (a "keyless keyboard," essentially) and it's amazing. Their technology goes far beyond simple touchpads. It's worth every penny.
Thank you for making one of my now-standard arguments in the debate over "fair use," etc. If you know the people you're buying content from are going to persecute you for using that content in the ways you want to, don't buy it. Buy something else. Or at least have the rocks to buy it and fight legally, socially, politically, or artistically (think Negativland).
My mother is a college professor, and when "generation x" was the majority of her students, she was ready to quit academe and run screaming into the hills. Even when their mommies and daddies were paying for them, this sadass generation still had the obnoxious "whatever" attitude, a lack of moviation, and few redeeming qualities. One might infer, then, that their current economic standing is wholely self-imposed.
As an afterword, my mother is still teaching. The present generation, who's work ethic appears to be far stronger, is a "delight" to teach, in her words. These kids are already making their own success. You figure out who's gonna be kvetching about unfair economic trends 10 years from now.
Discussions of interface issues often make for hot news items and even hotter discussion, but are they really relevant?
I appreciate the even-handed approach of your article, balancing the frustration of tweakers with the reality of developing a stable, attractive, and easy-to-use operating system. But, as a student looking towards Human Computer Interaction as a specialization and immersed in the literature of the field, it's safe to say that no interface will please 100% of the audience. Those out to tweak endlessly fall into a minority that no interface designer can possibly account for without going insane, just as a scientist can't possibly account for all the potential variables and random factors in an experiment.
In the artificial, "closed system" of interface design, the people with the free time and inclination to endlessly modify are always going to be unsatisfied. Is this newsworthy? A number of application developers have put out tools that enhance and work with OS X to rave reviews. There are a number of successful interface tweaks out there (my iBook has a fully transparent dock, for example). And, as someone who used to theme and skin, figuring out how to modify a closed program is part of the fun.
I won't stick by Apple 100% on all of their decisions like some Mac users (after all, I've spent the last 6 years in Linux/*nix). But I will say that if you're going to do an article that more than suggests to Apple what to do and where to go, there are far more pressing issues than letting skinning nuts with too much free time make Aqua look like rusted clockwork, or whathaveyou.
Just my $.02.
I'm happily typing this on a new white iBook 700MHz, rather decked out with a 40GB harddrive and 384MB of RAM. It may not have the raw horsepower of my roommate's Dell Inspiron 8200, but it also weighs a third of that behemoth, has more than twice the battery life, and most day-to-day operations feel faster, and the whole experience is more pleasurable. What do I mean by "pleasurable?" Example: as a longtime Linux user, I prayed for decent antialiasing system-wide (well, except for the terminal). OS X's PostScript-driven graphics layer makes everything look gorgeous, sharp and readable. It's like looking at a printed page, maybe better. And I can keep my terminal and anything under x-font size unantialiased if I so desire. That's pleasurable. It makes the machine I interact with hours a day enjoyable to use. Things just work, by and large. If I want to tinker, I can, but after years of spending hours and hours to get, well, ANYTHING working (somewhat self-inflicted: I used Gentoo, which I still love on the server side along with OpenBSD), it's amazing to just plug in devices and have them work the way they should. I forget who said it, but "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." With college, I don't have the time to tinker endlessly to get a printer working when I've got a paper due. There are tons of open source apps that have either been ported or are being natively developed for OS X. This is a slow transition for the Mac community, however, and you'll still find lots of shareware and commercial programs out there, particularly in the utilities/customization arena. But as someone who's learned to accept that commercial development works for some products and open source for others, I think the OS X community has the right idea in accepting and supporting both. I could go on for hours about how nice it is to have an OS that's actually integrated with its hardware, all the little aesthetic details and polish that Apple throws in, but most readers have heard it all before. I can safely say that as someone who's lived and breathed Linux (with forays into *BSD) for the last six years, I feel utterly satisfied with my switch, and I can reccomend it to anyone looking for a great desktop (or laptop) platform.
I am (was?) a more die-hard Linux user than most on Slashdot. I still love Linux on the server. But the split between GNOME and KDE, and therein between GNOME 1.x and 2.x, prompted me to drop Linux as a desktop platform in favor of Mac OS X. Without focusing on the platform I switched to, let me explain.
When actually trying to get work done, and not simply tinker around, having essentially three different widget sets and standards is a nightmare. I wasn't even using GNOME or KDE as a desktop; I used fluxbox. But some of my GNOME apps looked one way, the 2.x ones looked another, and the KDE apps yet another. Then comes trying to remember the keyboard shortcut conventions: do I shut this down with ctl-Q, ctl-x, alt-q, alt-x? On top of all this, there's the bloat of carrying around libraries for all three widget sets, and all their dependencies (and I still had a pretty stripped down install; I was running Gentoo).
Day-to-day, this made for a truly unpleasant, unproductive, and frustrating desktop experience, without even getting into issues of stability. Many will toot the horn of diversity and choice, but in this the GNOME/KDE split is simply a massive hassle for new and experienced users alike. I'm the secretary for my college's Linux User Group, and explaining the differences between all the desktop environments confuses new users into a catatonic state, leaving them so confused they don't know where to go for what.
I won't say that Linux can never succeed on the desktop. It just needs a shitload of work, and and the demolition of this KDE/GNOME barrier.
User Friendly, for as long as I've been aware of it, hasn't been funny. Obviousy I'm not the only one here with these sentiments. But why?
I believe it has something to do with the co-opting of geek culture. There's precious little difference between your average UF strip and any of the mediocre dead tree comics who made uninformed jokes about how much computers crash in your local paper's comics page. Most of their jokes aren't really that geeky - it seems like they simply pander to the wannabes, and there's nothing sadder than a wannabe geek. If you want some really geeky jokes, see the always-offensive Jerkcity for superb strips like this or this or even some of this.
Typical computer/office humor gets old real fast, just like Dilbert did. But from what I can see, UF never even had the biting humor and that Dilbert's heydays can claim.
Talking dog: "Homer, find your soul mate!"
Homer: "Wait, there's no such thing as a talking dog!"
Talking dog: "Arf arf!"
Homer: "Damn straight!"
While I hesitate to buy into the comparisons with martyrs of civil rights and women's suffrage, I understand and sympathize with RMS's views. I also agree that a miscommunication about his views on intellectual property occured, and clearly a well-written text can offer a much more cohesive explanation than five minutes of conversation on a hot DC sidewalk.
But perhaps this is exactly the point: I've recieved an outpour of sympathetic responses from red-blooded geeks from all parts, bemoaning our self-appointed representatives and their complex, often unrealistic viewpoints that can be explained only at length and implemented only in a closed system of their own design. However, the beautiful thing is: RMS, the NY Fair Use crowd, and their ilk have just as much right to their style of politicking as those of us who desire efficient and reasonable lobbying. And, as one Slashdotter enlightened me, it does take all kinds to really expose a tangled issue like this.
I am largely in agreement with RMS, with the GNU philosophy, and with the notion that 'intellectual property' is both a misnomer and a vile construct. But I've also been mired in enough DC politics from a young age to know that idealism lies well beyond the goal in sight, and as disheartening as that may be, it's the price of "majority rules" democracy. I appreciate RMS clearing up our misunderstanding, and I appreciate those of you who wrote in support of a more moderate geek political platform.
I apologize for taking a the view that what is unspoken is truth - the lawyer from the EFF explictly stated that they were denied a seat, having contacted well in advance and following procedure. The folks from NY Fair Use said no such thing at the time, and that's what I based that comment upon. However, I also placed a disclaimer forewarning that journalistic integrity is NOT the name of my game *grin* So there you go: listen to RMS. He would know.
...check out his disclaimer:
"One important caveat is necessary. I am not suggesting that peer-production will supplant markets or firms. I am not suggesting that it is always the more efficient model of production for information and culture. What I am saying is that this emerging third model is (a) distinct from the other two, and (b) has certain systematic advantages over the other two in clearing human capital/creativity. When these advantages will outweigh the advantages that the other two models may have in triggering or directing human behavior with relatively reliable and reasonably wellunderstood triggers of money and hierarchy is a matter for more detailed study. I offer some lines of understanding the limitations of this model of production in Part III, but do not attempt a full answer to these questions here."
So does your blustering comment about "the realities of the marketblah blah blah rabble rabble" seem so worthwhile now?
Heh, I debated a bit about my choice of words, but no offense was meant. Your comments were perfectly apt, I think some of us were just hoping for something more poignant while remaining reasonable, along the lines of Mr. Reid.
I would like to say that I support your organization's stances on these issues, and I do not disagree with your tactics. More power to you!
I'll post this comment in response to those who equate the actions of the sneering New Yorkers for Fair Use and ESR with the civil rights heros of the 1960s: it's time to return to Earth, you've been on another planet too long.
You might notice that you rarely see Martin Luther King in anything but a three piece suit, even in the heat of summer. You might notice that he was educated, eloquent, and able to converse with anyone from the working class to wealthy politicians.
The Black Panthers where the militant end of a civil rights fight that many claim they did more harm than good for with their unreasonable stances (freeing all black prisoners, regardless of their crimes, for example). And it was the media's coverage of the atrocities in Alabama that ultimately swayed the American public; what system is bigger than the media? They were working it.
And let's get real: as potentially chilling the effects of DRM are, they pale in comparison to the fights of the 1960s, and it's insulting to equate the two. Even more insulting, had you seen the behaviour of these "rambunctious ones." They were no Martin Luther Kings. They were no heros.
I'm not "charging" Stallman with anything. I'm a fan of the man's life work, the GPL first and foremost. You are correct on his take on intellectual property. I asked him explicitly if anything less than a total redefinition, or perhaps abolition, of intellectual property into his terms would be acceptable to him. He said "No."
I charge him with nothing. He's an opionated and provactive man, and a brilliant one at that. What I question is the worth of such militant opinions to the cause of reaching a solution that benefits consumers. That's all.
Sorry, it's the reasonable and informed folks who work hard to involve themselves in the decision making process and gain a position of authority and respect in their field who eventually allow a compromise. Not the "pain in the ass" who trapses in when it's convienient, makes a scene, and takes off to fume about how oppressed they are.
The very idea that we're so utterly oppressed and outnumbered in this situation is disgusting. A little hard work, and we could have had another table full of consumer representatives. But nobody but DigitalConsumer.org bothered to do that work, opting instead for the "Merry Prankster" approach.
You'll excuse me if I'm sick at the idea spawning yet another protest generation. Protesting is an easy, ego-boosting, self-indulgent and lazy activity. It takes years of hard work to get to a position of legitimacy where people take your views serious, and you have experiences to back them up. The representatives of the tech industry there had that legitimacy, and the protesters came no where close to it.
Good causes are undermined by bad representatives. Take the anti-globalization, anti-corporate folks: a great cause, undermined at every protest by goddamn puppets, hipster fashionistas with no coherent politics, and kids drinking Cokes while telling reporters about corporate evils. And don't get me started on how far the privledged, drugged-out, self-styled revolutionaries of the 1960s set back left wing causes for decades to come.
Boycotts, letter writing campaigns, protests, television commercials: cram 'em all. What we need are experts, professionals, and trained lobbiests who can beat the "opposition" at their own game. Period. I live in Washington, I've grown up around the people who make the decisions that affect the world. That's how things get done, like it or not.
I'll post this comment in response to those who equate the actions of the sneering New Yorkers for Fair Use and ESR with the civil rights heros of the 1960s: it's time to return to Earth, you've been on another planet too long.
You might notice that you rarely see Martin Luther King in anything but a three piece suit, even in the heat of summer. You might notice that he was educated, eloquent, and able to converse with anyone from the working class to wealthy politicians.
The Black Panthers where the militant end of a civil rights fight that many claim they did more harm than good for with their unreasonable stances (freeing all black prisoners, regardless of their crimes, for example). And it was the media's coverage of the atrocities in Alabama that ultimately swayed the American public; what system is bigger than the media? They were working it.
And let's get real: as potentially chilling the effects of DRM are, they pale in comparison to the fights of the 1960s, and it's insulting to equate the two. Even more insulting, had you seen the behaviour of these "rambunctious ones." They were no Martin Luther Kings. They were no heros.
AGGH! I never agreed with DRM, look at the damn text of the article! I'm vehemently opposed to it, just like the tech industry people! The people who were calmly and logically fighting for our rights!
I'll just say that you're the first person to interpret those lines that way. So take what I'm saying at face value: I don't like Jack Valenti, I don't think he's a good guy, and I don't think he's reasonable, nor was I trying to convey any of that. I was just goddamn surprised that he nodded in approval, with the rest of the group, that P2P wasn't inherently a bad thing.
Sheesh. Sometimes your allies take the most persuading.
That's the first I've ever been called timid, but I was a damn signt embarassed, though on the behalf of those making fools of themselves.
Get a clue. The folks participating legitimately in the discussion made some jokes, even Jack Valenti grinned when he was called out on his old VCR comments by a rep from Philips. Even though there were some greedy shits in the group, they were the exception. The "aim of the group," which you're obviously uninformed on, having neither been near this event nor availed yourself of transcript (which may or may not yet be available), was to come to a balance between all the sides represented.
The majority opposed DRM. Think about it: the tech industry can sell more machines at a lower cost if they don't have to integrate DRM, and they know DRM will stifle the commodity hardware market. So they were on your side. Just because the meeting is going on in a big, spooky government office doesn't mean it was a conspiritorial gestapo session.
Stop watching so many movies and get involved. These processes are open to the public and people with an under-represented viewpoint. You just gotta work for it.
Sorry. In the Real World of Washington, DC, these geektavists had the opportunity to formally request a presence on the panel. Only the EFF did, and they were likely denied their seat due to conflict with the MPAA. While this sucks, it leaves ample opportunity for motivated activists willing to play the game, lobby hard, and get heard. Nobody opens their ears automatically in Washington, but they will if you work for it.
That's the Real World.
I think you might wanna think about your paranoid vision above. It's not that they "didn't let the good guys speak," it's that the good guys didn't push hard enough to get to speak. We're talking Washington, where you have to lobby, make some calls, you know: work for what you want. Don't blame the evil empire, blame your rebel heros who were sitting around bitching about the evil MPAA on IRC or something.