I recently bought a fountain pen to counteract the cramping I was getting when using a ballpoint. I'd become so unused to writing anything that I had to buy a more expensive instrument in order to do so comfortably!
yeah, i know that was a rather Clinton-esque statement. what i mean is: toys that are made using new/interesting/cutting-edge tech don't give kids a big advantage. who cares if your teddy bear can say 30 different phrases? toys that introduce new/interesting/cutting-edge tech to kids do give them an advantage. i think it's definitely possible to have too many of the first kind: over-priced gimmicks that pass as "tech toys". i don't think it's possible to have too many of the second kind.
make the battery user accessible, make it play mp3/aac/ogg/flac files from dirs instead of itunes databases - while we're at it, why not give it a built in radio and the ability to record from that radio . . . sounds like we're talking about one of the many competitors to the ipod. if you want something that does those things, buy something that does those things. apple is obviously taking their product in a different direction, and while i won't be buying one anytime soon (i like mp3 and ogg playback, radio, off-the-shelf batteries, etc), apple's idea is definitely working to the tune of a majority share in the marketplace.
Parent is not quite correct. I agree that "Principled" DRM is completely and utterly impossible, but that doesn't make the question moot, it makes the question simple to answer, because it makes the answer "I object based on principle". If DRM is inherently unprincipled, I object to DRM because it does not meet my principles.
Here's how I see the arguement. I object to DRM because its very nature goes against my principles. Unless I'm being sued or charged with a crime, for anyone to seize control (electronic or otherwise) over my media player of choice is intrinsically an invasion of my privacy. In order to secure a media player so that it will play digitally encrypted files without me being able to remove the encryption, some form of electronic control must be seized. So, I object to DRM that works (keeps me from unencrypting the files) because it doesn't meet my principles concerning privacy rights. I object to DRM that doesn't work (lets me unencrypt the files) because it doesn't meet my principles concerning stupidity.
Re:So let the flame wars begin!
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 5, Funny
screw you guys, I cat everything through sed, and I like it that way!
There are at least two reasons why there is little uproar about these machines using closed-source software.
most people (including judges, elected officials, and others who are in a position to directly change the situation) don't realize that having no access to the source code means votes cast using the machines are unverifiable
too many people (especially those who are only in a position to indirectly change the situation: voters) feel that the situation with these machines is no more broken than the rest of the system. Remember hanging chads?
Yeah, Damn Small Linux is good, but I prefer Puppy Linux because I've found it to be more easily customizable. Using Puppy Unleashed, I've made a custom version that includes the software I consider essential (vim, screen, sshfs, mplayer, mp3blaster, ratpoison, etc). Each of those is not available on the standard live-cd, but I added them to my custom version - and got them working the way I like - with a few hours of work. Most of that time was spent burning test CD-RW's to make sure that everything interacted correctly (elinks needs to know how to play nice with screen, ~/.bashrc needs to included vim specific variables, among other details).
Boot process (for my somewhat large ~85MB version) is under 1 min on the machine I most recently tested (a 1.4ghz athalon box with 512MB RAM). That is faster than the WinXP boot process for that machine. Several versions of Puppy fit on a 50MB buisiness card sized CD and load even faster.
The whole discussion is off-base, because people are talking about the wrong thing. Windows uptime is not 20% better than Linux uptime. It's 20% better than old Windows uptime: "The reliability and patch management of Windows servers has improved dramatically -- about 20% from Windows 2000 Server to Windows Server 2003."
There is no use. With no real information, this study is crap. It is just throwing more FUD on the pile. One of my favorite bits: I love that Linux is refered to as a less mature operating system. "Yankee Group determined a significant portion of this outage time is attributed to the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation compared to the more mature, established operating systems."
In some ways (support for 3D graphics HW, sound), Linux is not as developed as Windows or MAC, mostly due to proprietary vs open driver issues. In many other ways (portability, support for older/slower HW, virtualization, load sharing across machines, security, customization), Linux has far greater maturity.
UNIX is a totally different issue, but the Linux vs UNIX comparison is moot as far as I am concerned. For the most part, the kernels are the only fixed-in-stone aspects of these OS's. Some things don't exist in the Linux kernel, others don't exist in proprietary UNIX kernels. Choose your poison based on what you need.
In the end, the list of features unavailable in Linux is short and inconsequential when compared to the list of features unavailable in Windows or Sun/AIX/etc. OpenMosix, Xen, and User Mode Linux alone should be enough to overwhelm the Linux downside of making sure you buy a video card from a manufacturer who isn't an ass.
Just to round out my arguement: the other measure of maturity is time-based. Windows NT (follow-on from ideas developed in other versions of windows) was first released in July 1993. Linux (follow-on from ideas developed in UNIX and minix) was first released in August 1991.
4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code
The problem with this is that it isn't really open. In function, this is no different from the source code not being available, because you have to rely on the company to enact the changes. Your four steps are a good way to work within a less-than-ideal system: it's a compromise. The problem of course is when you can't use unsigned drivers if you accept the risks and losses - ok, I guess we agree in the end.
Torvalds has a good point that DRM really deals with content, and people should release content under some sort of creative commons license that prohibits DRMing the content. I agree that this is a good idea, but I think being able to prohibit code from being used in DRM set-ups is a valid option.
Yeah, I checked out CenterICQ as I was looking for a good ncurses IM client. When AOL took down their TOC servers, and naim quit working, I tried a bunch. I used Pork (http://dev.ojnk.net/) for a bit, but I kept thinking "it needs to be a little more like what I'm used to" and "it isn't quite customizable enough". Both are solved by using bitlbee through irssi. I use irssi for IRC already,and its perl script additions are great. I love to load follow.pl while I'm doing something else or away from the computer.
yes, responding to my own post bad and all. My command line reference makes no sense, unless I mention that my IRC client of choice is irssi. There, don't we all feel better now?
What makes him thing that anyone cares about updating? Even after the release of XP, look at all the 2000 and 98 boxes still in use. Why is the release of Vista going to have any more of an effect?
I support end-user connectivity and email problems for a national ISP (I'm looking for another job atm), and "all the 2000 and 98 boxes" are far fewer than the XP boxes. People don't understand what an OS is - if I ask what OS they run, many reply "Dell" or "Internet Explorer" - but they have had it drilled into their heads that their computer isn't good enough. So many people I talk to are trying to set up a new computer to replace a computer that was plenty for their purposes. All they want to do is check email and maybe sports scores - and they just bought a box with a 3.8 Ghz proc, 1 GB RAM, a $400 video card, a 160 GB HD, and a DVD burner. Oh, yes, and a gigabit LAN card "'cause it'll make ter interweb go faster" - I shit you not. People know they need to buy new computers, and a change of OS isn't even in their head when they do so. For these people, Vista won't change a thing. Linux would probably be great for them, but MS mindshare has too great a hold.
As many people have said before, corporations are different. OS upgrades are driven by needed application upgrades or transitions. Windows to Linux switches will only occur if the switch will be cost effective and use current applications or comperable/supirior applications with easy transition. I can see a few cases where upgrades to Vista (and, therefore, hardware upgrades) would make the Linux switch cheaper enough to be worth it.
So, Why is the release of Vista going to have any more of an effect? It won't. Other forces are much more powerful: mindshare, availability of pre-installed systems,
the ease of use of Linux, the percieved ease of use of Linux, admin and tech staff salaries, etc.
I still think the biggest driving force behind W2L switches is others who use Linux. "Oh, you're interested in Linux, here's how it works" got me into Linux 6 years ago. It really helps make the whole idea a lot less scary.
So, you're saying "It's not a good feature because I don't use it".
I realize you are saying that IE works for you, so you don't need firefox. That's great, but if you stack the two side-by-side for someone who is interested in choosing, firefox scores more points.
I'm "live and let live" to the extreem (wtf do I care if you use IE, and whether or not your system gets hosed in the process). That doesn't keep me from being able to look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of each option and discovering that if someone asks me what I think they should use, I'll tell them firefox in 95% of cases (really, you'd recomment firefox for the CLI only box I ssh into? No, that's why I said 95%). Similarly, I'd recommend linux to a lot of people, provided I think they have the mental capacity to learn new things, because I think it's a better overall system.
I agree. Why does anyone care what I run on my computer, unless my computer spams you or is used to attack your computer? I run linux on every computer I have (duel with windows on one for games), but most people I know use windows. I'm not trying to convert them, because it really doesnt matter to me unless they need help. At that point, I may try to help, but I'll be a lot more useful if they happen to be running linux.
You broke my brain. Y < Y makes all kinds of fundamental concepts I've grown to count on crumble to the ground. Euclidian geometry, calculus, the comedic value of Carrot Top . ...
You will NEVER have a solid unique identity for your problematic players. They essentially have complete anonymity because of the Internet. Even addresses, credit cards, and so on can be faked--and will be.
While this is obviously a problem, doesn't a subscription system mostly limit this? If I'm a jerk, I get banned and have to pony up another fee, right? I guess I go away pretty quick (or make the company a lot of money).
I don't play mainstream MMOG's (mangband is more my style), so I'm wondering what others think about this. The only people I 'band with are friends or friends of friends, so "problematic players" haven't been an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently bought a fountain pen to counteract the cramping I was getting when using a ballpoint. I'd become so unused to writing anything that I had to buy a more expensive instrument in order to do so comfortably!
yeah, i know that was a rather Clinton-esque statement. what i mean is: toys that are made using new/interesting/cutting-edge tech don't give kids a big advantage. who cares if your teddy bear can say 30 different phrases? toys that introduce new/interesting/cutting-edge tech to kids do give them an advantage. i think it's definitely possible to have too many of the first kind: over-priced gimmicks that pass as "tech toys". i don't think it's possible to have too many of the second kind.
make the battery user accessible, make it play mp3/aac/ogg/flac files from dirs instead of itunes databases - while we're at it, why not give it a built in radio and the ability to record from that radio . . . sounds like we're talking about one of the many competitors to the ipod. if you want something that does those things, buy something that does those things. apple is obviously taking their product in a different direction, and while i won't be buying one anytime soon (i like mp3 and ogg playback, radio, off-the-shelf batteries, etc), apple's idea is definitely working to the tune of a majority share in the marketplace.
Woo-hoo! He's being a dumbass, and insulting wikipedia in his sig. I've got myself a new foe!
Parent is not quite correct. I agree that "Principled" DRM is completely and utterly impossible, but that doesn't make the question moot, it makes the question simple to answer, because it makes the answer "I object based on principle". If DRM is inherently unprincipled, I object to DRM because it does not meet my principles.
Here's how I see the arguement. I object to DRM because its very nature goes against my principles. Unless I'm being sued or charged with a crime, for anyone to seize control (electronic or otherwise) over my media player of choice is intrinsically an invasion of my privacy. In order to secure a media player so that it will play digitally encrypted files without me being able to remove the encryption, some form of electronic control must be seized. So, I object to DRM that works (keeps me from unencrypting the files) because it doesn't meet my principles concerning privacy rights. I object to DRM that doesn't work (lets me unencrypt the files) because it doesn't meet my principles concerning stupidity.
screw you guys, I cat everything through sed, and I like it that way!
There are at least two reasons why there is little uproar about these machines using closed-source software.
Yeah, Damn Small Linux is good, but I prefer Puppy Linux because I've found it to be more easily customizable. Using Puppy Unleashed, I've made a custom version that includes the software I consider essential (vim, screen, sshfs, mplayer, mp3blaster, ratpoison, etc). Each of those is not available on the standard live-cd, but I added them to my custom version - and got them working the way I like - with a few hours of work. Most of that time was spent burning test CD-RW's to make sure that everything interacted correctly (elinks needs to know how to play nice with screen, ~/.bashrc needs to included vim specific variables, among other details).
Boot process (for my somewhat large ~85MB version) is under 1 min on the machine I most recently tested (a 1.4ghz athalon box with 512MB RAM). That is faster than the WinXP boot process for that machine. Several versions of Puppy fit on a 50MB buisiness card sized CD and load even faster.
The whole discussion is off-base, because people are talking about the wrong thing. Windows uptime is not 20% better than Linux uptime. It's 20% better than old Windows uptime: "The reliability and patch management of Windows servers has improved dramatically -- about 20% from Windows 2000 Server to Windows Server 2003."
There is no use. With no real information, this study is crap. It is just throwing more FUD on the pile. One of my favorite bits: I love that Linux is refered to as a less mature operating system. "Yankee Group determined a significant portion of this outage time is attributed to the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation compared to the more mature, established operating systems."
In some ways (support for 3D graphics HW, sound), Linux is not as developed as Windows or MAC, mostly due to proprietary vs open driver issues. In many other ways (portability, support for older/slower HW, virtualization, load sharing across machines, security, customization), Linux has far greater maturity.
UNIX is a totally different issue, but the Linux vs UNIX comparison is moot as far as I am concerned. For the most part, the kernels are the only fixed-in-stone aspects of these OS's. Some things don't exist in the Linux kernel, others don't exist in proprietary UNIX kernels. Choose your poison based on what you need.
In the end, the list of features unavailable in Linux is short and inconsequential when compared to the list of features unavailable in Windows or Sun/AIX/etc. OpenMosix, Xen, and User Mode Linux alone should be enough to overwhelm the Linux downside of making sure you buy a video card from a manufacturer who isn't an ass.
Just to round out my arguement: the other measure of maturity is time-based. Windows NT (follow-on from ideas developed in other versions of windows) was first released in July 1993. Linux (follow-on from ideas developed in UNIX and minix) was first released in August 1991.
echo hell yes > /tmp/temp_a.txt; /tmp/temp_a.txt; /tmp/temp_a.txt;
echo hell no >>
grep -v no
"Sure, it all seems like fun and games -- until someone gets killed."
. . . and then it's a sport!
4) original author of signed/DRM'd driver sees said fixed version
5) original author ports your fixes to original release and gives you credit
6) original author signs/DRM's new driver
7) original author releases new code
The problem with this is that it isn't really open. In function, this is no different from the source code not being available, because you have to rely on the company to enact the changes. Your four steps are a good way to work within a less-than-ideal system: it's a compromise. The problem of course is when you can't use unsigned drivers if you accept the risks and losses - ok, I guess we agree in the end.
Torvalds has a good point that DRM really deals with content, and people should release content under some sort of creative commons license that prohibits DRMing the content. I agree that this is a good idea, but I think being able to prohibit code from being used in DRM set-ups is a valid option.
whoever rated this flamebait should lighten up.
. . . and now, you're at -1, Flamebait, and he's at +4, Funny.
Yeah, I checked out CenterICQ as I was looking for a good ncurses IM client. When AOL took down their TOC servers, and naim quit working, I tried a bunch. I used Pork (http://dev.ojnk.net/) for a bit, but I kept thinking "it needs to be a little more like what I'm used to" and "it isn't quite customizable enough". Both are solved by using bitlbee through irssi. I use irssi for IRC already,and its perl script additions are great. I love to load follow.pl while I'm doing something else or away from the computer.
yes, responding to my own post bad and all. My command line reference makes no sense, unless I mention that my IRC client of choice is irssi. There, don't we all feel better now?
yes, I'm a command line nut, but my favorite is actualy bitlbee, available at http://www.bitlbee.org/. It's an irc gateway for AOL, ICQ, jabber etc.
What makes him thing that anyone cares about updating? Even after the release of XP, look at all the 2000 and 98 boxes still in use. Why is the release of Vista going to have any more of an effect?
I support end-user connectivity and email problems for a national ISP (I'm looking for another job atm), and "all the 2000 and 98 boxes" are far fewer than the XP boxes. People don't understand what an OS is - if I ask what OS they run, many reply "Dell" or "Internet Explorer" - but they have had it drilled into their heads that their computer isn't good enough. So many people I talk to are trying to set up a new computer to replace a computer that was plenty for their purposes. All they want to do is check email and maybe sports scores - and they just bought a box with a 3.8 Ghz proc, 1 GB RAM, a $400 video card, a 160 GB HD, and a DVD burner. Oh, yes, and a gigabit LAN card "'cause it'll make ter interweb go faster" - I shit you not. People know they need to buy new computers, and a change of OS isn't even in their head when they do so. For these people, Vista won't change a thing. Linux would probably be great for them, but MS mindshare has too great a hold.
As many people have said before, corporations are different. OS upgrades are driven by needed application upgrades or transitions. Windows to Linux switches will only occur if the switch will be cost effective and use current applications or comperable/supirior applications with easy transition. I can see a few cases where upgrades to Vista (and, therefore, hardware upgrades) would make the Linux switch cheaper enough to be worth it.
So, Why is the release of Vista going to have any more of an effect? It won't. Other forces are much more powerful: mindshare, availability of pre-installed systems, the ease of use of Linux, the percieved ease of use of Linux, admin and tech staff salaries, etc.
I still think the biggest driving force behind W2L switches is others who use Linux. "Oh, you're interested in Linux, here's how it works" got me into Linux 6 years ago. It really helps make the whole idea a lot less scary.
So, you're saying "It's not a good feature because I don't use it".
I realize you are saying that IE works for you, so you don't need firefox. That's great, but if you stack the two side-by-side for someone who is interested in choosing, firefox scores more points.
I'm "live and let live" to the extreem (wtf do I care if you use IE, and whether or not your system gets hosed in the process). That doesn't keep me from being able to look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of each option and discovering that if someone asks me what I think they should use, I'll tell them firefox in 95% of cases (really, you'd recomment firefox for the CLI only box I ssh into? No, that's why I said 95%). Similarly, I'd recommend linux to a lot of people, provided I think they have the mental capacity to learn new things, because I think it's a better overall system.
I agree. Why does anyone care what I run on my computer, unless my computer spams you or is used to attack your computer? I run linux on every computer I have (duel with windows on one for games), but most people I know use windows. I'm not trying to convert them, because it really doesnt matter to me unless they need help. At that point, I may try to help, but I'll be a lot more useful if they happen to be running linux.
not if apple comes out with the iCondom to protect your iPod when you connect to an insecure (ie windows) computer . . ..
don't you mean iKid, iKid?
You broke my brain. Y < Y makes all kinds of fundamental concepts I've grown to count on crumble to the ground. Euclidian geometry, calculus, the comedic value of Carrot Top . . ..
You will NEVER have a solid unique identity for your problematic players. They essentially have complete anonymity because of the Internet. Even addresses, credit cards, and so on can be faked--and will be.
While this is obviously a problem, doesn't a subscription system mostly limit this? If I'm a jerk, I get banned and have to pony up another fee, right? I guess I go away pretty quick (or make the company a lot of money).
I don't play mainstream MMOG's (mangband is more my style), so I'm wondering what others think about this. The only people I 'band with are friends or friends of friends, so "problematic players" haven't been an issue.
OMGLOL, Dude, u mispelled compewtir!!!