I've got his RSS feed in my RSS reader (http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/rss.xml). I enjoy reading about the details of what goes on inside of MS, and I really do enjoy getting the story straight from the horse's mouth. For example, the whole "playing a video kills my network performance" thing. Slashdot is, well, Slashdot. It'll spin it how it wants to.
Larry started doing this threat modeling bit a while back, as the first article is dated some time ago. He's taken his time, and demonstrated what to do and how to do it in great detail. It's perfectly clear that he actually knows how to program things, correctly. And securely. This series of posts on threat modeling was wonderfully insightful into how things should be done.
Just because it's MS doesn't mean that it needs to be senselessly bashed. This would be one of the reasons as to why it shouldn't be. This guy knows what he's doing, and he does it well. Gasp, he works for MS.
It sounds to me like the creators of the software you need to use have no clue how to write software for a multi-user environment.
Drivers and kernel aside, Vista changed one huge thing: through UAC, people can no longer write files to Program Files.
It's shocking how many programs did this in the first place. Almost every game in existence writes saves to their folder in program files. For work, I'm forced to maintain 10-15 different programs which allow the users to view "documents" (that's an entirely different story) - and half of them copy the file from the temp folder, to another temp folder... in Program Files.
Vista is trying to be secure. And, if you run Vista and Vista only, it is secure. Other big Microsoft products (MSSQL, Office, Visual Studio) all run happily - as a guest user. Admin to install, guest to use.
Sound familiar? It should. This is slashdot. We all use Linux, right?... right? This "admin to install, guest to use" is nothing new to the world. It's been doable on Microsoft products since NT.
So Microsoft comes around and says, "you know, enough of this, we're going to make the OS stable by preventing unauthorized programs from writing files where it shouldn't" - and everything dies. Dies horribly.
Microsoft has many sins upon their heads, in the software realm. However, countless program incompatibilities because software designers have no clue what "multi user" really is - is not Microsoft's (direct) fault. Vista was in beta for an extended period of time. Then they pushed an open beta. It's not like they made these changes behind closed doors and shipped it.
The day that the complaints will stop is the same day that the third party developers get a clue how to design a program around the fact that they can't always write files everywhere they please.
Sure, the CDs are sold. The documentation is sold. That box? You own it.
But to install the software located on the CD, you've gotta accept the EULA - End User License Agreement.
You own the physical medium, but you do not own the software it contains.
Er. Okay. What is "online" - does this mean on a server somewhere on the vast internet which you've purchased? Or would your personal computer - which is "online" - count?
"[..] the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company." Uploading music to a central server. So when the user has a networked place to store files, would this qualify? Assuming you were the owner or a business which had one other employee, if you uploaded your music to your server for your business, would this be a violation?
So many questions.. so many loopholes.. such broad legal decisions.
Firstly, your analogy sucks. You can't really compare murder to product activation. You... just can't. They are two, very different things. "Taking the law into your own hands" when someone you know was murdered is not even related to invasion of privacy. I can't even see how that would be remotely related.
Second, let's talk about the three things which are clearly irking you: product activation, Windows Genuine Advantage, and the numerous programs (say, Windows Media Player for example) that are locked with WGA.
Product activation... sends your product key in a secure fashion over the internet (or phone) and allows Microsoft to verify that you are actually using a legit copy of Windows. The only way I can see this as invasion of privacy and not being legal is in the sense that you feel any required contact with Microsoft shouldn't happen, when in reality, you clicked the "I Agree" button to the license, which in fact states that Microsoft can do anything they want to your computer running Windows, at any time they want. You may disagree with that, and many do, but you did push the "I Agree" button in the end.
WGA is another beast, which again, many people dislike. Fortunately, when you run windows update, you're given the option of installing it. Yup. Uncheck that little checkbox, and hey, it won't be installed. Good stuff. It even gives you an option to ignore that update in the future. Even if you do install this, it should be noted that it doesn't report back to Microsoft. So, again, no invasion of privacy. If you consider it to be one, don't install it.
Now, if you have many.wmas, all of which are DRM'd and playable only through Windows Media Player... it also doesn't matter. WMP11 won't install unless you pass it's built in WGA check, leaving you with... either a functional WMP11, or a functional WMP10.
Even if you install WGA and it flags your license as "Not Genuine" - all that it will do is annoy you. No fuctionality will be disabled - your computer will continue to function. It will not "get their computer shut down" and nor is it "spying on [you] by other vendors."
I'm really curious where you get this "invasion of privacy" bit, when A) you accepted the license in the first place, and B) the real problems you have with it, are not only easily circumvented, but Microsoft gives you the tools to "circumvent" it out of box.
Not to disappoint, but the WoW patcher has an option to disable P2P transfer, and use regular ol' HTTP. It's not nearly as fast as a properly configured BT client (which the Blizz Downloader can be), but it's also faster than 0.
So, worry not. You can still sell your souls at $15/month (as I do mine).
Just because IPv6 gives you a bigger address space doesn't mean that it can't be memorized.
For example, I operate three buildings of computers, all on the private 10.0.0.0/8 subnet. I use patterns for address assignment. Routers are always.1, database servers are always.9, windows servers are always.10, DHCP clients run from.11 through.199, printers/scanners/faxes get from.200 through.250, and managed switches get from.251 through.254. Each building has a/24 block dedicated to it. 10.0.0.0/24 is one building, 10.0.1.0/24 is another, and 10.0.2.0/24 is yet another. But, because I follow a specific pattern, I don't need to go out and scan subnets or zone databases to find my servers: I know where they are because I follow a consistent pattern.
"But you're using IPv4 as an example, not IPv6!"
Yes, yes I am. But the same principle applies. Just because you have a larger address space doesn't mean it's any less manageable. Just because your/24 subnet is suddenly massive doesn't make it any less manageable. Let's be honest: the chances of you, and you alone managing a IPv4/8 is pretty much zero. Let's jump back one to a/16. That's 65536 addresses. Are you going to memorize all of the computers attached to all of these addresses? Of course you're not.
The same applies to IPv6. You're not going to memorize them all. You're not doing that with IPv4 anyways. For every host you move to IPv6, you add a DNS record. DHCP is largely removed from the picture with IPv6. Apache isn't any harder to configure either. You're either going to tell it to accept connections on any local IP address, or a specific IP address. In both cases, seeing as you're either sitting at the box or talking to the box in question, it's a safe bet you already know how to contact it and in turn find out it's IP address.
Memorization is not necessary.
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6?
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you're going to flame, I'm going to flame. You're an idiot.
He never said that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary, he said that memorization of IP addresses is unnecessary.
New and different technology means new and different ways of management. Just because it means you have to re-think how you manage and impliment things doesn't mean that it's a bad thing or bad idea..
Once again: "Somehow, you are suggesting that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary on the administration and development side." <-- No, he really isn't.
People are people. People have the right to express their opinions about someone else.
So where, as far as the law is concerned, is "too much"? If it is one person's opinion that another person should be shot and raped, does that person have the right to express that opinion?
My personal opinion is that death threats and rape threats are far beyond the free speech line, simply because they infringe and threaten another person's right to life. Which, in my opinion, is a rather important right. I support her fully, and personally think that the posters of said comments need to have charges brought against them.
But to what degree do the law books say too much is too much? Where is the line as far as the books are concerned?
You know, I'd agree with you about it sounding like tin foil hat paranoia.
On the flip side, if all of these fancy, complex, DRM protection schemes that "protect the consumer by keeping prices down" and whatnot, actually, gasp, worked, and weren't broken with things such as linear algebra..
It's almost like they wanted it to be broken, you know?
Erm, exactly. Once the keys have been compromised, the keys will (in theory) be revoked and new ones will be put in place.
Problem is, there's nothing stopping people from finding additional keys, and then in combo with the "all it takes is one" thought process, it's really kind of pointless. Who cares if a future copy of the same movie has new keys? We already have the straight data!
Of similar interest, it turns out that HDCP, the DRM for these new-fangled HDMI ports, is fundamentally flawed. From the link: "This flaw is fundamental, and cannot be worked around."
The point of the DRM on the discs is to prevent people ripping and burning/torrenting them. Seeing as - somewhere, somehow, the key must be loaded into a computer's memory eventually, this is already broken.
The point of the DRM on the cable is to prevent people from plugging their fancy new HDDVD/Blu Ray player into a computer, and simply recording what comes over the wire. Turns out (reference above link), this can be defeated with basic linear algebra. Oops.
It reminds me of a post I made a while back, on a similar matter. As I posted that, I thought to myself, "the only way they could prevent someone from just plugging in a cable from audio out to line in, is by making brand new jacks for everything, which have DRM built in." Sadly, that's exactly what HDMI/HDCP is. Fortunately, they did an absolute crap job of implimenting it.
There's no secrets here. DRM isn't here to stop pirates, that's just what they tell the public. And, when you look at the facts on the matters, it's pretty blindingly obvious.
Only one person needs to "crack" the encryption once.
It doesn't matter, at all, that they (the "big evil guys") can revoke keys. Get one key, decrypt it, and you now have DRM free audio and video. It only takes one to fire up that BitTorrent client. Who cares if the key is revoked after that? Once you have the data, you have the data, plain and simple. All it takes is once to seed a torrent.
Put it that way, and you can tell it's not about stopping pirates. It is about stopping free usage of a media you have legally purchased through other methods, which it does perfectly.
Pirates just give them a "pubically acceptable" reason to DRM your house, down to the nails that hold it together.
You do have a good point about the TPM, though. However, seeing as nothing that I know of to date uses it, well, I for one am going to wait and see just what happens with it. It has a lot of potential, for good, and for bad...
Cool. Call me a troll. That's a first for me on slashdot, no joke.
Doesn't change the fact that I'm not releasing said binaries. If you really want them, go out there and find them. I've given sha1 hashes of everything (less the massive datafiles), and posted a shell script that would start the client. Also, please note that the UI developer over there has roots in SDL (google "slouken sdl").
Never mind the fact of the similarities between the OSX client and the linux client, compared to the OSX client and the windows client, anyways. Never mind the fact that Blizzard uses one central library (storm.dll) for all system-dependant calls (everything from audio to 3D to file I/O).
They know how to code... and likewise this "well crafted troll" is a lot closer to reality than you think.
Yes, please read my initial post on the matter (the one with the shell script). It was bundled in their MPQs (archives), and I just extracted it. The download itself came from fileplanet.
Still doesn't mean I'm going to distribute their binaries. Go back and find their EULA/ToS that was used for this promotion, and I'm quite sure it would viloate those to distribute them.
Sure I *could*. What's more, I even *want* to. But I won't. Can you say lawsuit? DMCA? Nasty phone calls? etc.?
Really? I intended to post AC, but as I went along padding the post to fit the character/letter ratio, I clicked submit instead of preview. Even posting that shell script was a stretch for me.
That they did. Well, no. It was distributed in an early beta over FilePlanet.
$ for a in *; do sha1sum $a; done;
c9affeeaff43d565513c1240c37d51efb61c0ff9 WowClient
dc288d9f7c88c1b0287387c3bb506ef30fd62b1f libSDL-1.3.so.0
a9178bcd629e3db58d9ca565ee75c0ce85373f70 libexpat.so.0
3c457e00bdbd4f39b547ff9ac8f67a76c7eb4a1d libfmod-3.72.so
dd1f45ca3466b2c77e738b54f7b55e858754181e libfreetype.so.6
56e16ad086c592848d1d53f0b4db2570bb60041e libgcc_s.so.1
3c137e3f7e29223f6535e8b61fabcfdb2340bca3 libstdc++.so.5
c8fae34ab919251d0af382f5557ca70ee9c143bf libz.so.1
a8de29b62f05a71b0fa3761f0441c29081e31cc0 uninstall
8a5670bbc67b6cb72805afdf28bc0c69fc573a3a uninstall.bin
cdd47ffc29bc129da0521da5b98a1af23bbb5f4c wow
I've got the binaries, libraries, and even shell scripts to start it around. No joke.
They have a functional WoW Linux client. I have no doubt of that.
They didn't ship it due to legal reasons.
#!/bin/sh
#
# Run World of Warcraft
# Function to find the real directory a program resides in.
FindPath()
{
fullpath="`echo $1 | grep/`"
if [ "$fullpath" = "" ]; then
oIFS="$IFS"
IFS=:
for path in $PATH
do if [ -x "$path/$1" ]; then
if [ "$path" = "" ]; then
path="."
fi
fullpath="$path/$1"
break
fi
done
IFS="$oIFS"
fi
if [ "$fullpath" = "" ]; then
fullpath="$1"
fi
# Is the awk/ls magic portable?
if [ -L "$fullpath" ]; then
fullpath=`ls -l "$fullpath" | awk '{ ORS=" "; i = 11; while ( i
fi
dirname "$fullpath"
}
# Unfortunate hack until we figure out why TLS glibc breaks us
if [ -d/lib/tls ]; then
LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19
export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL
fi
cd "`FindPath \"$0\"`"
LD_LIBRARY_PATH="`pwd`/lib" exec./WowClient $*
Apparently, "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 20.9)." Not that I'm surprised, after posting a bit of bash script. Even after adding that line, it's still not enough!
Huh, I'm up to 23.3 and even then that's still not enough. More meaningless text, just to bump it up a tad bit. I should probably drop the punctuation, but hey, oh well. It seems that even 24.5 isn't enough for it... how about 25? Maybe? Please? Okay, more than twenty-five. Time for copy/paste of random text to bump it up.
* Please try to keep posts on topic.
* Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
* Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
* Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
* Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
I understand based on market share vs. time to develop why Blizzard doesn't have a linux client, but considering that they've got an OSX client I can't imagine the hurdles for porting are that high.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got his RSS feed in my RSS reader (http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/rss.xml). I enjoy reading about the details of what goes on inside of MS, and I really do enjoy getting the story straight from the horse's mouth. For example, the whole "playing a video kills my network performance" thing. Slashdot is, well, Slashdot. It'll spin it how it wants to.
Larry started doing this threat modeling bit a while back, as the first article is dated some time ago. He's taken his time, and demonstrated what to do and how to do it in great detail. It's perfectly clear that he actually knows how to program things, correctly. And securely. This series of posts on threat modeling was wonderfully insightful into how things should be done.
Just because it's MS doesn't mean that it needs to be senselessly bashed. This would be one of the reasons as to why it shouldn't be. This guy knows what he's doing, and he does it well. Gasp, he works for MS.
s/Program Files/C:\Program Files/
Better?
Disagree.
/usr/local "because that's where the app is installed."
Come back when the default permissions on any sane *nix allows a normal user to write to
Never mind that allowing apps to write to their own folder can break both security models and file system quotas. See: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/11/22/267890.aspx
It sounds to me like the creators of the software you need to use have no clue how to write software for a multi-user environment.
... right? This "admin to install, guest to use" is nothing new to the world. It's been doable on Microsoft products since NT.
Drivers and kernel aside, Vista changed one huge thing: through UAC, people can no longer write files to Program Files.
It's shocking how many programs did this in the first place. Almost every game in existence writes saves to their folder in program files. For work, I'm forced to maintain 10-15 different programs which allow the users to view "documents" (that's an entirely different story) - and half of them copy the file from the temp folder, to another temp folder... in Program Files.
Vista is trying to be secure. And, if you run Vista and Vista only, it is secure. Other big Microsoft products (MSSQL, Office, Visual Studio) all run happily - as a guest user. Admin to install, guest to use.
Sound familiar? It should. This is slashdot. We all use Linux, right?
So Microsoft comes around and says, "you know, enough of this, we're going to make the OS stable by preventing unauthorized programs from writing files where it shouldn't" - and everything dies. Dies horribly.
Microsoft has many sins upon their heads, in the software realm. However, countless program incompatibilities because software designers have no clue what "multi user" really is - is not Microsoft's (direct) fault. Vista was in beta for an extended period of time. Then they pushed an open beta. It's not like they made these changes behind closed doors and shipped it.
The day that the complaints will stop is the same day that the third party developers get a clue how to design a program around the fact that they can't always write files everywhere they please.
It could be a while.
Sure, the CDs are sold. The documentation is sold. That box? You own it.
But to install the software located on the CD, you've gotta accept the EULA - End User License Agreement.
You own the physical medium, but you do not own the software it contains.
This is one story that I honestly feel could be deleted, and no one would care.
Because no one cares.
Get this off the front page.
This is a reoccurring copy/paste troll which has seen it's rounds on /.
Let's not give it any more thought or discussion, as that has been done many times before.
Holy redundant posts in seconds, batman.
smbfs has been dead for a long time. You should be using cifs instead.
Online?
Er. Okay. What is "online" - does this mean on a server somewhere on the vast internet which you've purchased? Or would your personal computer - which is "online" - count?
"[..] the ruling reasoned that the act of uploading music to a central server owned by a company is the equivalent of distributing music to that company." Uploading music to a central server. So when the user has a networked place to store files, would this qualify? Assuming you were the owner or a business which had one other employee, if you uploaded your music to your server for your business, would this be a violation?
So many questions.. so many loopholes.. such broad legal decisions.
Where to start..
.wmas, all of which are DRM'd and playable only through Windows Media Player... it also doesn't matter. WMP11 won't install unless you pass it's built in WGA check, leaving you with... either a functional WMP11, or a functional WMP10.
Firstly, your analogy sucks. You can't really compare murder to product activation. You... just can't. They are two, very different things. "Taking the law into your own hands" when someone you know was murdered is not even related to invasion of privacy. I can't even see how that would be remotely related.
Second, let's talk about the three things which are clearly irking you: product activation, Windows Genuine Advantage, and the numerous programs (say, Windows Media Player for example) that are locked with WGA.
Product activation... sends your product key in a secure fashion over the internet (or phone) and allows Microsoft to verify that you are actually using a legit copy of Windows. The only way I can see this as invasion of privacy and not being legal is in the sense that you feel any required contact with Microsoft shouldn't happen, when in reality, you clicked the "I Agree" button to the license, which in fact states that Microsoft can do anything they want to your computer running Windows, at any time they want. You may disagree with that, and many do, but you did push the "I Agree" button in the end.
WGA is another beast, which again, many people dislike. Fortunately, when you run windows update, you're given the option of installing it. Yup. Uncheck that little checkbox, and hey, it won't be installed. Good stuff. It even gives you an option to ignore that update in the future. Even if you do install this, it should be noted that it doesn't report back to Microsoft. So, again, no invasion of privacy. If you consider it to be one, don't install it.
Now, if you have many
Even if you install WGA and it flags your license as "Not Genuine" - all that it will do is annoy you. No fuctionality will be disabled - your computer will continue to function. It will not "get their computer shut down" and nor is it "spying on [you] by other vendors."
I'm really curious where you get this "invasion of privacy" bit, when A) you accepted the license in the first place, and B) the real problems you have with it, are not only easily circumvented, but Microsoft gives you the tools to "circumvent" it out of box.
From TFA: "It is generally not Apple's policy to trumpet our plans for the future; [...]"
Holy crap, get out! No way!
Not to disappoint, but the WoW patcher has an option to disable P2P transfer, and use regular ol' HTTP. It's not nearly as fast as a properly configured BT client (which the Blizz Downloader can be), but it's also faster than 0.
So, worry not. You can still sell your souls at $15/month (as I do mine).
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/1345 0/13450.html w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/if.mspx?mfr=true (search page for "nul")
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/
It exists.
Just because IPv6 gives you a bigger address space doesn't mean that it can't be memorized.
.1, database servers are always .9, windows servers are always .10, DHCP clients run from .11 through .199, printers/scanners/faxes get from .200 through .250, and managed switches get from .251 through .254. Each building has a /24 block dedicated to it. 10.0.0.0/24 is one building, 10.0.1.0/24 is another, and 10.0.2.0/24 is yet another. But, because I follow a specific pattern, I don't need to go out and scan subnets or zone databases to find my servers: I know where they are because I follow a consistent pattern.
/24 subnet is suddenly massive doesn't make it any less manageable. Let's be honest: the chances of you, and you alone managing a IPv4 /8 is pretty much zero. Let's jump back one to a /16. That's 65536 addresses. Are you going to memorize all of the computers attached to all of these addresses? Of course you're not.
For example, I operate three buildings of computers, all on the private 10.0.0.0/8 subnet. I use patterns for address assignment. Routers are always
"But you're using IPv4 as an example, not IPv6!"
Yes, yes I am. But the same principle applies. Just because you have a larger address space doesn't mean it's any less manageable. Just because your
The same applies to IPv6. You're not going to memorize them all. You're not doing that with IPv4 anyways. For every host you move to IPv6, you add a DNS record. DHCP is largely removed from the picture with IPv6. Apache isn't any harder to configure either. You're either going to tell it to accept connections on any local IP address, or a specific IP address. In both cases, seeing as you're either sitting at the box or talking to the box in question, it's a safe bet you already know how to contact it and in turn find out it's IP address.
Memorization is not necessary.
If you're going to flame, I'm going to flame. You're an idiot.
He never said that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary, he said that memorization of IP addresses is unnecessary.
New and different technology means new and different ways of management. Just because it means you have to re-think how you manage and impliment things doesn't mean that it's a bad thing or bad idea..
Once again: "Somehow, you are suggesting that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary on the administration and development side." <-- No, he really isn't.
People are people. People have the right to express their opinions about someone else.
So where, as far as the law is concerned, is "too much"? If it is one person's opinion that another person should be shot and raped, does that person have the right to express that opinion?
My personal opinion is that death threats and rape threats are far beyond the free speech line, simply because they infringe and threaten another person's right to life. Which, in my opinion, is a rather important right. I support her fully, and personally think that the posters of said comments need to have charges brought against them.
But to what degree do the law books say too much is too much? Where is the line as far as the books are concerned?
Just honest curiosity.
Diggtards.
Take that as you please.
You know, I'd agree with you about it sounding like tin foil hat paranoia.
On the flip side, if all of these fancy, complex, DRM protection schemes that "protect the consumer by keeping prices down" and whatnot, actually, gasp, worked, and weren't broken with things such as linear algebra..
It's almost like they wanted it to be broken, you know?
Erm, exactly. Once the keys have been compromised, the keys will (in theory) be revoked and new ones will be put in place.
Problem is, there's nothing stopping people from finding additional keys, and then in combo with the "all it takes is one" thought process, it's really kind of pointless. Who cares if a future copy of the same movie has new keys? We already have the straight data!
Of similar interest, it turns out that HDCP, the DRM for these new-fangled HDMI ports, is fundamentally flawed. From the link: "This flaw is fundamental, and cannot be worked around."
The point of the DRM on the discs is to prevent people ripping and burning/torrenting them. Seeing as - somewhere, somehow, the key must be loaded into a computer's memory eventually, this is already broken.
The point of the DRM on the cable is to prevent people from plugging their fancy new HDDVD/Blu Ray player into a computer, and simply recording what comes over the wire. Turns out (reference above link), this can be defeated with basic linear algebra. Oops.
It reminds me of a post I made a while back, on a similar matter. As I posted that, I thought to myself, "the only way they could prevent someone from just plugging in a cable from audio out to line in, is by making brand new jacks for everything, which have DRM built in." Sadly, that's exactly what HDMI/HDCP is. Fortunately, they did an absolute crap job of implimenting it.
There's no secrets here. DRM isn't here to stop pirates, that's just what they tell the public. And, when you look at the facts on the matters, it's pretty blindingly obvious.
You're forgetting one, key principle here.
Only one person needs to "crack" the encryption once.
It doesn't matter, at all, that they (the "big evil guys") can revoke keys. Get one key, decrypt it, and you now have DRM free audio and video. It only takes one to fire up that BitTorrent client. Who cares if the key is revoked after that? Once you have the data, you have the data, plain and simple. All it takes is once to seed a torrent.
Put it that way, and you can tell it's not about stopping pirates. It is about stopping free usage of a media you have legally purchased through other methods, which it does perfectly.
Pirates just give them a "pubically acceptable" reason to DRM your house, down to the nails that hold it together.
You do have a good point about the TPM, though. However, seeing as nothing that I know of to date uses it, well, I for one am going to wait and see just what happens with it. It has a lot of potential, for good, and for bad...
Cool. Call me a troll. That's a first for me on slashdot, no joke.
Doesn't change the fact that I'm not releasing said binaries. If you really want them, go out there and find them. I've given sha1 hashes of everything (less the massive datafiles), and posted a shell script that would start the client. Also, please note that the UI developer over there has roots in SDL (google "slouken sdl").
Never mind the fact of the similarities between the OSX client and the linux client, compared to the OSX client and the windows client, anyways. Never mind the fact that Blizzard uses one central library (storm.dll) for all system-dependant calls (everything from audio to 3D to file I/O).
They know how to code... and likewise this "well crafted troll" is a lot closer to reality than you think.
Yes, please read my initial post on the matter (the one with the shell script). It was bundled in their MPQs (archives), and I just extracted it. The download itself came from fileplanet.
Still doesn't mean I'm going to distribute their binaries. Go back and find their EULA/ToS that was used for this promotion, and I'm quite sure it would viloate those to distribute them.
Sure I *could*. What's more, I even *want* to. But I won't. Can you say lawsuit? DMCA? Nasty phone calls? etc.?
Really? I intended to post AC, but as I went along padding the post to fit the character/letter ratio, I clicked submit instead of preview. Even posting that shell script was a stretch for me.
I've got the binaries, libraries, and even shell scripts to start it around. No joke.
They have a functional WoW Linux client. I have no doubt of that.
They didn't ship it due to legal reasons.
Apparently, "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 20.9)." Not that I'm surprised, after posting a bit of bash script. Even after adding that line, it's still not enough!
Huh, I'm up to 23.3 and even then that's still not enough. More meaningless text, just to bump it up a tad bit. I should probably drop the punctuation, but hey, oh well. It seems that even 24.5 isn't enough for it... how about 25? Maybe? Please? Okay, more than twenty-five. Time for copy/paste of random text to bump it up. * Please try to keep posts on topic. * Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. * Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. * Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. * Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) I understand based on market share vs. time to develop why Blizzard doesn't have a linux client, but considering that they've got an OSX client I can't imagine the hurdles for porting are that high.