I'm in the process of putting a debian mythtv box and perhaps the smartest thing I did was buy hauppauge's pvrusb2 device. (Not their tvusb2) It's got hardware mpeg decoding. The main reason being I use an old small form factor boxes. Some of them are very quiet and have 16:9 support.
If you go the way I went, starting with Debian Etch, it's an even longer road for sure. (lirc/BYO kernel package/sleep mode/keeping fans quiet/16:9) This is the price of freedom.
What no one has mentioned is the lack of a commercial mythtv pre-install on an OEM box. We all know the reason. No one is willing to pay for the _whole_ thing up front. Americans for the most part prefer getting nicked a few dollars a month not really caring that they end up pay much more than just paying less for a device in one swallow. American mobile phone industry is the perfect example.
What you fail to acknowledge is the truthiness of their claims. Simply because they don't pursue headling-grabbing patent litigation (yet) doesn't mean there isn't a document spewing litigation machine who's main purpose is to protect microsoft and generate revenue.
The outcome is the same, less innovation and more expensive equipment.
I like my former employers, all of whom are very small trying to sell innovative products I don't specifically want to call attention to their problems.
What you fail to acknowledge is the truthiness of their claims. Simply because they don't _specifically_ pursue patent litigation (yet) doesn't mean there isn't a document spewing litigation machine who's main purpose is to protect microsoft.
The outcome is the same, less innovation and more expensive equipment.
As a former employee of a Microsoft C&D'd target I promise you it's happening. Microsoft isn't alone that's for sure. I was at another company that was C&D'd by HP. The whole point of the exercise is to exhaust their smaller competitors.
Two semi-public pissing matches were Mike Rowe Soft and Lindows.
Please don't defend the 'truthiness' of a statement you appear to have no first-hand experience with.
It easily glides over the Cease and Desist letter factory they are running in Redmond.
Few, if anything ever makes it into the courts. If it does, it's because someone has DEEP pockets or is a fool for thinking they can out-lawyer Microsoft or even more foolishly believe the law is on their side.
I just hope that that mis-information doesn't get attributed as fact by the lazy media.
Q: Why doesn't the OSP apply to things that are merely referenced in the specification?
A: It is a common practice that technology licenses focus on the specifics of what is detailed in the specification(s) and exclude what are frequently called "enabling technologies."
Hmmm... So the specification alludes to closed and undocumented "enabling technologies" without specifying them OR licensing them. Same old Microsoft.
I know that it's desirable to have alternatives to the Microsoft crack pipe, but the reason your customer probably chose crackpoint was because they've got Microsoft desktops and domain controller. Whether you (or me) like it or not that's how they roll.
There is no "sharepoint killer."
Concentrating on being "better than product XYZ only GPL" is okay, but it won't ever overtake XYZ. Instead, concentrating on making the product insanely useful to many different niches, one niche at a time is generally a good plan. You aren't going to overtake crackpoint in this example, but you create something different where crackpoint stands as the clearly inferior choice in selected applications. Over time, the number of applications grows.
Your ideas about extensions and backend flexibility (unixodbc/win32odbc) are the way forward.
Finally, ActiveDirectory has an open counterpart that is excellent, it's called OpenLDAP. Many so-called identity management systems use LDAP as their authentication/identity management engine. They make money by putting a friendly GUI on top. If they don't use LDAP then they don't know what they are missing.
1. Create a falsified passport jacket capable of holding a chip and antenna. 2. You embed the _right_ chip with the _right_ number encoded (oh yeah, you need to encode the chip) AND the _right_ antenna required for the chip in your garage into the faked passport jacket. 3. Create secure paper used in passport. 4. You'll need to work up all of the print security features.
It's not trivial, it's not a silver bullet it's not a fake ID you used to buy beer in college. Stop expecting more from the new passport than the design requirements fulfill.
I know the average/.'er will be up in arms about how insecure the new passport is but it's simply not one of the design goals.
The primary goal is to have a document that's harder (it's never impossible) to forge and easier to collect and process entry/exits. That's it. End of story.
It's not a silver bullet. Treating it as such is demanding something you won't ever get.
The royal court of/. has proclaimed this device unsuitable for their needs! Reasons for are as follows.
My computer is faster! (crowd murmers) My computer is cheaper (more murmering) Does not keep the opposite sex away like being hunched over a keyboard. (crowd murmers)
Any notions that anyone needing something bigger and more useful than a crackberry, but easier to travel with than a laptop shall be sentenced to public humiliation in the town square!
I have an older version of Kerio's firewall and most recent "phone home" applications do so on port 80. Older apps use custom ports. Kerio's product is very good in this way.
I'm not sure why this is an issue _now_. It's been this way for years starting with Microsoft's MSI installers that phone home to certificate servers and certificate revocation list servers. I have screenshots to prove it should there be any doubt. It should be obvious by now they are slowly paving the way to a PC with their OS that is mostly like an Xbox.
Given the Microsoft fan boys/astroturfers typically don't post on stories where there is no opportunity to spin the story in a manner that enhances their image, I'm probably preaching to the choir when I state this is another reason users should choose another OS. Today.
Look at it from the typical corporate PHB mutual admiration/derision society perspective.
Firmware Engineering: Oh no! I've got HOW MANY new drivers to port? I need more money, more head count!
Q/A: Oh no! What's my schedule to test these new drivers? I need more money, more head count!
Product Management: Ugh! I have to SKU up these new products? Graphics design is going to have to give me new blah/blah/blah. What about all of our OEM software partners? They aren't linux compatible. We need new product managers that are Linux geniuses.
Software Dev: Wait none of our apps are Linux compatible. Need more head count. Need to hire linux experts to do this.
Marketing: We need to buy lots of market research! We need to hire linux market experts! We're doing so much already!
Manufacturing: You want what? You've got the wrong guy in your office. The server assembly manager is the guy you need to speak with. He does expensive-but-kind-of-free-Red-Hat, not me. Wait, you want Optiplex's and Dimensions to have Linux? It can't be done. I'm not set up for it. I need more people and more money to expand operations to accommodate your new-fangled production ideas.
Support: Our Indian support center doesn't have the scripts needed to support, wait you said MANY versions of Linux? No. No way. Too complicated.
Legal: We need to enter into a contract with these Linux people. Wait, many linux people? I thought there was only one Linux. Need more head count to manage these new contracts. We need to research if this conflicts with any agreements we already have. Need to hire legal consultants that are experts in Linux. Hmmm plus all this "free" software written for hippies hasn't been vetted by the courts.
Purchasing: Where do we buy this Linux from?
Sales: All right! Linux on Dell! Let's do it! Who's with me?!?
What you are asking for (lower priced, OS-free hardware they will support) they will not give you. Besides, you will force distro's into a winner/loser software monoculture of it's own making that is best avoided at all costs. This is where the little guy thrives. Hmm, let's see http://www.sub300.com/port.htm or maybe www.linspire.com, or http://system76.com/?
In stating these numbers is it puts a "market size" on Linux. This sets a dangerous precedent.
How can that be? Well you see, any corporation or trust-fund baby having the slightest relationship to operating systems buys market research. They know with a little confidence how much, how many and how often computer-things sell. This is the stuff that CEO's and their wanna-be brethren eat for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Once Linux distros are stuck into the "how much, how many, how often" blender, there will be a mixed-bag of consequences. For example:
1. What are the top 3 distro's. Winners and Losers (or is it loosers?) will be chosen. The depth and variety of distros will suffer.
2. How much money is the Linux market making? 3. How fast is the market for Linux products growing?
2+3 = dot-com bubble and all the baggage that went with it.
Remain out of reach of the CEO-class and there's no target, no winners, no losers, just an amorphous thing called Linux that's diverse, active and everywhere.
We're obviously missing something and it definitely isn't money. What most people (four "insightful" moderators) that follow this easy path to self righteous indignation about the poor state of educational affairs utterly fail to realize that, among other things, a super-educated population does not magically make a thriving utopia.
Spending less on education does not lead to certain nation-state collapse just as making education your number one spending priority does not ensure above-average GDP growth. Spend less? Spend more! It doesn't seem to help either way.
The "something missing" you allude to most likely has little to do with education because we, the voters who fund public education, are okay with the systems we have. We have been for decades.
Here is a perfect example of the utter and complete failure of the American free-market mantra. A select few people raising bees were made richer with no economic consideration for the risk to the food production chain by adopting a bee mono-culture.
Nearly every HID card out there is passive and will give anyone that passes the right kind of reader in front of it the numbers on the card. I'm not sure why this warrants its own talk or is viewed as a "breakthrough" of any kind.
I'm not smart enough to do it, but a very interesting project for those with the talent would be building a hardware device to spoof cards and brute force access control systems like most parking structures and numerous physical building access control systems. I'm not aware of any brute force detectors in those access control systems.
This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg for HID's (in)security. Though, most people who bought the systems had more secure options, they chose the least secure. It's hard to blame HID.
What amazes me is someone at HID has to pretend this is some kind of serious compromise. They probably sleep just fine after spending their workday spreading lies too. Sometimes I wish I could do that. I could make a heck of a lot more money lying.
The cost of $15/mo may not sound like much, but it's +/- 6% of the gross monthly wage of the average Romanian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania
Let's say my gross average monthly wage in the U.S. is $4000. (not even a decent salary in urban America) 6% is a whopping $240.
I won't ever deny Microsoft the capacity to make products/generate revenue despite my unfavorable attitude towards the company as a whole. But I don't see how they can make pay-as-you-go work at the prices they demand for their products. Much less the prices they are demanding for pay-as-you-go Office.
All of the harsh replies appear to have firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Namely, that Microsoft implements security perfectly. This conveniently ignores their consistent and very public record of high-profile failures on security matters.
Instead of just assuming that the AES-128 is the golden key that locks cached data, please consider that their implementation may be lacking.
For example, where are they storing the encryption key? It's certainly on the PC somewhere accessible to all for now.
Security programming is hard, really hard. I don't doubt that Microsoft has very gifted security programmers, but I very much doubt that they were given free reign. Most likely they were forced to implement managerial compromises that, well, compromise the system security.
Also consider the CPU cycles required to do the encrypting/decrypting and that this is just one of MANY tasks the OS is doing with encryption-bound services. Those are just two factors that hardly constitutes speedy/secure anything.
The current method of influencing voters/consumers when it comes to issues that slow the acceptance of an public servant/company is to make a public apology to effectively put the issue behind them.
It's important to note that in most cases, it doesn't change anything.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/14/121425 4
I'm in the process of putting a debian mythtv box and perhaps the smartest thing I did was buy hauppauge's pvrusb2 device. (Not their tvusb2) It's got hardware mpeg decoding. The main reason being I use an old small form factor boxes. Some of them are very quiet and have 16:9 support.
If you go the way I went, starting with Debian Etch, it's an even longer road for sure. (lirc/BYO kernel package/sleep mode/keeping fans quiet/16:9) This is the price of freedom.
What no one has mentioned is the lack of a commercial mythtv pre-install on an OEM box. We all know the reason. No one is willing to pay for the _whole_ thing up front. Americans for the most part prefer getting nicked a few dollars a month not really caring that they end up pay much more than just paying less for a device in one swallow. American mobile phone industry is the perfect example.
Good thing I've got my example right here! > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/11/ 1443211 [slashdot.org]
What you fail to acknowledge is the truthiness of their claims. Simply because they don't pursue headling-grabbing patent litigation (yet) doesn't mean there isn't a document spewing litigation machine who's main purpose is to protect microsoft and generate revenue.
The outcome is the same, less innovation and more expensive equipment.
Thanks for playing!
Good thing I've got my example right here! > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/11/ 1443211
I like my former employers, all of whom are very small trying to sell innovative products I don't specifically want to call attention to their problems.
What you fail to acknowledge is the truthiness of their claims. Simply because they don't _specifically_ pursue patent litigation (yet) doesn't mean there isn't a document spewing litigation machine who's main purpose is to protect microsoft.
The outcome is the same, less innovation and more expensive equipment.
As a former employee of a Microsoft C&D'd target I promise you it's happening. Microsoft isn't alone that's for sure. I was at another company that was C&D'd by HP. The whole point of the exercise is to exhaust their smaller competitors.
Two semi-public pissing matches were Mike Rowe Soft and Lindows.
Please don't defend the 'truthiness' of a statement you appear to have no first-hand experience with.
It easily glides over the Cease and Desist letter factory they are running in Redmond.
Few, if anything ever makes it into the courts. If it does, it's because someone has DEEP pockets or is a fool for thinking they can out-lawyer Microsoft or even more foolishly believe the law is on their side.
I just hope that that mis-information doesn't get attributed as fact by the lazy media.
It's kind of like .doc only with obfuscation and litigation clearly called out.
What you fail to realize is the published standard in this case is handcuffed to an arsenal of undocumented licensed components.
From http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
Q: Why doesn't the OSP apply to things that are merely referenced in the specification?
A: It is a common practice that technology licenses focus on the specifics of what is detailed in the specification(s) and exclude what are frequently called "enabling technologies."
Hmmm... So the specification alludes to closed and undocumented "enabling technologies" without specifying them OR licensing them. Same old Microsoft.
While I applaud the advocacy, the bad new is "intellectual development" is not what the telcos and media conglomerates have in mind.
I know that it's desirable to have alternatives to the Microsoft crack pipe, but the reason your customer probably chose crackpoint was because they've got Microsoft desktops and domain controller. Whether you (or me) like it or not that's how they roll.
There is no "sharepoint killer."
Concentrating on being "better than product XYZ only GPL" is okay, but it won't ever overtake XYZ. Instead, concentrating on making the product insanely useful to many different niches, one niche at a time is generally a good plan. You aren't going to overtake crackpoint in this example, but you create something different where crackpoint stands as the clearly inferior choice in selected applications. Over time, the number of applications grows.
Your ideas about extensions and backend flexibility (unixodbc/win32odbc) are the way forward.
Finally, ActiveDirectory has an open counterpart that is excellent, it's called OpenLDAP. Many so-called identity management systems use LDAP as their authentication/identity management engine. They make money by putting a friendly GUI on top. If they don't use LDAP then they don't know what they are missing.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
What you are advocating is a card approach which is not compatible with legacy passport systems still in use. The old ways die hard in gov't.
Here's the how-to on forging a new passport:
1. Create a falsified passport jacket capable of holding a chip and antenna.
2. You embed the _right_ chip with the _right_ number encoded (oh yeah, you need to encode the chip) AND the _right_ antenna required for the chip in your garage into the faked passport jacket.
3. Create secure paper used in passport.
4. You'll need to work up all of the print security features.
It's not trivial, it's not a silver bullet it's not a fake ID you used to buy beer in college. Stop expecting more from the new passport than the design requirements fulfill.
I know the average /.'er will be up in arms about how insecure the new passport is but it's simply not one of the design goals.
The primary goal is to have a document that's harder (it's never impossible) to forge and easier to collect and process entry/exits. That's it. End of story.
It's not a silver bullet. Treating it as such is demanding something you won't ever get.
The royal court of /. has proclaimed this device unsuitable for their needs! Reasons for are as follows.
My computer is faster! (crowd murmers)
My computer is cheaper (more murmering)
Does not keep the opposite sex away like being hunched over a keyboard. (crowd murmers)
Any notions that anyone needing something bigger and more useful than a crackberry, but easier to travel with than a laptop shall be sentenced to public humiliation in the town square!
Hear Yee. Hear Yee. That is all.
I have an older version of Kerio's firewall and most recent "phone home" applications do so on port 80. Older apps use custom ports. Kerio's product is very good in this way.
I'm not sure why this is an issue _now_. It's been this way for years starting with Microsoft's MSI installers that phone home to certificate servers and certificate revocation list servers. I have screenshots to prove it should there be any doubt. It should be obvious by now they are slowly paving the way to a PC with their OS that is mostly like an Xbox.
Given the Microsoft fan boys/astroturfers typically don't post on stories where there is no opportunity to spin the story in a manner that enhances their image, I'm probably preaching to the choir when I state this is another reason users should choose another OS. Today.
That's my point.
Every idiot that can shake money out of a vulture capitalist or his rich uncle will see dollar signs.
This time though, they will make a mockery out of Free Software and abuse the GPL kind of like Tivo has and other craziness yet to be discovered.
Look at it from the typical corporate PHB mutual admiration/derision society perspective.
Firmware Engineering: Oh no! I've got HOW MANY new drivers to port? I need more money, more head count!
Q/A: Oh no! What's my schedule to test these new drivers? I need more money, more head count!
Product Management: Ugh! I have to SKU up these new products? Graphics design is going to have to give me new blah/blah/blah. What about all of our OEM software partners? They aren't linux compatible. We need new product managers that are Linux geniuses.
Software Dev: Wait none of our apps are Linux compatible. Need more head count. Need to hire linux experts to do this.
Marketing: We need to buy lots of market research! We need to hire linux market experts! We're doing so much already!
Manufacturing: You want what? You've got the wrong guy in your office. The server assembly manager is the guy you need to speak with. He does expensive-but-kind-of-free-Red-Hat, not me. Wait, you want Optiplex's and Dimensions to have Linux? It can't be done. I'm not set up for it. I need more people and more money to expand operations to accommodate your new-fangled production ideas.
Support: Our Indian support center doesn't have the scripts needed to support, wait you said MANY versions of Linux? No. No way. Too complicated.
Legal: We need to enter into a contract with these Linux people. Wait, many linux people? I thought there was only one Linux. Need more head count to manage these new contracts. We need to research if this conflicts with any agreements we already have. Need to hire legal consultants that are experts in Linux. Hmmm plus all this "free" software written for hippies hasn't been vetted by the courts.
Purchasing: Where do we buy this Linux from?
Sales: All right! Linux on Dell! Let's do it! Who's with me?!?
What you are asking for (lower priced, OS-free hardware they will support) they will not give you. Besides, you will force distro's into a winner/loser software monoculture of it's own making that is best avoided at all costs. This is where the little guy thrives. Hmm, let's see http://www.sub300.com/port.htm or maybe www.linspire.com, or http://system76.com/?
In stating these numbers is it puts a "market size" on Linux. This sets a dangerous precedent.
How can that be? Well you see, any corporation or trust-fund baby having the slightest relationship to operating systems buys market research. They know with a little confidence how much, how many and how often computer-things sell. This is the stuff that CEO's and their wanna-be brethren eat for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Once Linux distros are stuck into the "how much, how many, how often" blender, there will be a mixed-bag of consequences. For example:
1. What are the top 3 distro's. Winners and Losers (or is it loosers?) will be chosen. The depth and variety of distros will suffer.
2. How much money is the Linux market making?
3. How fast is the market for Linux products growing?
2+3 = dot-com bubble and all the baggage that went with it.
Remain out of reach of the CEO-class and there's no target, no winners, no losers, just an amorphous thing called Linux that's diverse, active and everywhere.
We already spend a shit load of money on education
_ percap-expenditures-dollar-figure-per-capita
Oh really? #39 on % of GDP spent on education. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_dol_fig
We're obviously missing something and it definitely isn't money.
What most people (four "insightful" moderators) that follow this easy path to self righteous indignation about the poor state of educational affairs utterly fail to realize that, among other things, a super-educated population does not magically make a thriving utopia.
Spending less on education does not lead to certain nation-state collapse just as making education your number one spending priority does not ensure above-average GDP growth. Spend less? Spend more! It doesn't seem to help either way.
The "something missing" you allude to most likely has little to do with education because we, the voters who fund public education, are okay with the systems we have. We have been for decades.
Here is a perfect example of the utter and complete failure of the American free-market mantra. A select few people raising bees were made richer with no economic consideration for the risk to the food production chain by adopting a bee mono-culture.
Now what?
Nearly every HID card out there is passive and will give anyone that passes the right kind of reader in front of it the numbers on the card. I'm not sure why this warrants its own talk or is viewed as a "breakthrough" of any kind.
I'm not smart enough to do it, but a very interesting project for those with the talent would be building a hardware device to spoof cards and brute force access control systems like most parking structures and numerous physical building access control systems. I'm not aware of any brute force detectors in those access control systems.
This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg for HID's (in)security. Though, most people who bought the systems had more secure options, they chose the least secure. It's hard to blame HID.
What amazes me is someone at HID has to pretend this is some kind of serious compromise. They probably sleep just fine after spending their workday spreading lies too. Sometimes I wish I could do that. I could make a heck of a lot more money lying.
The cost of $15/mo may not sound like much, but it's +/- 6% of the gross monthly wage of the average Romanian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania
Let's say my gross average monthly wage in the U.S. is $4000. (not even a decent salary in urban America) 6% is a whopping $240.
I won't ever deny Microsoft the capacity to make products/generate revenue despite my unfavorable attitude towards the company as a whole. But I don't see how they can make pay-as-you-go work at the prices they demand for their products. Much less the prices they are demanding for pay-as-you-go Office.
Maybe the summary has the pricing wrong?
All of the harsh replies appear to have firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Namely, that Microsoft implements security perfectly. This conveniently ignores their consistent and very public record of high-profile failures on security matters.
[shrugs]
Instead of just assuming that the AES-128 is the golden key that locks cached data, please consider that their implementation may be lacking.
For example, where are they storing the encryption key? It's certainly on the PC somewhere accessible to all for now.
Security programming is hard, really hard. I don't doubt that Microsoft has very gifted security programmers, but I very much doubt that they were given free reign. Most likely they were forced to implement managerial compromises that, well, compromise the system security.
Also consider the CPU cycles required to do the encrypting/decrypting and that this is just one of MANY tasks the OS is doing with encryption-bound services. Those are just two factors that hardly constitutes speedy/secure anything.
The current method of influencing voters/consumers when it comes to issues that slow the acceptance of an public servant/company is to make a public apology to effectively put the issue behind them.
It's important to note that in most cases, it doesn't change anything.
[shrugs]