In context, that reads to me like a typo -- like he meant to say ".NET and C#," but for some reason said ".NET and Java" instead. I note that you didn't use a quote to put it back in context, you just supplied your own interpretation, which is, in honesty, quite a stretch. Okay, so he noted that"C# and Java are astonishingly similar" some six paragraphs earlier, but it's still a leap from this comparison to that odd substitution right at the end.
And you completely sidestepped my point about referring to Java as "buggy": Sun's Java compiler, platform, and virtual machine are not buggy. That even his claim was so generic simply draws attention the point that it was completely unsupported.
And you've done nothing to help support it (hint: sarcastically calling Java "the all-powerful edifice" doesn't count).
What a horrid column. Cringely just gets worse and worse. For example:
When Java came to market five years ago, it was bulky, slow, and buggy. Today, five years later, Java is still bulky slow, and buggy.
Java is buggy? A language is buggy? What's that supposed to mean? Perhaps he means that Sun's Java compiler is buggy or their JRE is buggy, but neither is true. As software goes, both are extremely un-buggy. Unless he actually has some evidence to the contrary. No, I'm just kidding; I realize evidence would be completely out of place in that column.
In other words, McNealy isn't willing to bet the company on either Sun ONE or Java, while Gates and Ballmer are happy to bet their company (have ALREADY bet their company) on.NET and Java.
I'm sorry, Gates and Ballmer have bet their company on Java? I guess since he doesn't actually research his writing, why should he check it over afterwards?
Seriously, I've read more insightful comments browsing slashdot at -1.
Wrong. Sony wants to sell the "Aibo Licks His Balls" expansion pack, not have some deviant terrorist hacker commie give it away for free.
So Sony still hasn't learned any of the lessons of Betamax?
Re:Major Roadblock to using Mozilla
on
Mozilla Bug Week
·
· Score: 1
Cool.
For those who don't use WindowMaker, does anyone know if it possible to include the X selection in the command of a GNOME launcher? How?
Re:Oh good, a slashdot article on the release of X
on
Windows XP Has Arrived
·
· Score: 2
I noticed that line, too. I found it *quite* insightful.
Especially considering that, just two weeks ago, when I tried to delete a large directory tree on Windows 2000, the progress meter stopped moving at about 2/3 of the way through, the time estimate started oscillating wildly (between 40 seconds and 175 minutes remaining), and instances of Internet Explorer started freezing.
Eventually, I killed the process, and the OS survived the experience just fine (no reboot required). But, come on...deleting files? Yeah, so I was deleting LOTS of files, but it's still a really simple operation. No reason to go wonky like that. And who knows...maybe if I had left it going a little longer, the system would have gone south...
So, maybe the author of the article knew more than we give him credit for.
Although the article starts with "technology companies including Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Compaq Computer held a coming-out press conference Monday to oppose a broad copyright protection proposal," it later lists some of the members of the trade group, the Computer Systems Policy Project: "IBM, Intel, Dell Computer, Motorola and others."
No Microsoft.
Wondering if maybe Microsoft was one of the "others," I checked the web site for this group. Down the left side of the page are its members: Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, NCR, Unisys, and Motorola.
Still no Microsoft.
Now, that's not to say that Microsoft definately isn't opposed to the SSSCA, just that the story gives us no actual reason to believe that it is.
Have they already made some kind of statement, either on their own or as part of another organization? If not, perhaps we should still consider them silent on the issue?
I found the legalese to be particularly challenging (maybe I'm just really tired?).
If someone could translate the rest of it for the legal laymen among us, that would be wonderful. It seems to me that IBM is very sincere in their support for open source (for example, IBM HTTP Server is based on Apache, and Apache SOAP is based on IBM's SOAP4J), and from what I've read about RAND, it means that open-source can't play.
So, I'm very interested to understand what is motivating their stance.
I've finished testing out the CD, and found absolutely no problems with it.
I was able to play it (cdplay) and rip it (cdparanoia) using both drives on my Linux box (an IDE CD-ROM drive and a SCSI CD-RW drive).
I also was able to play it (Windows Media Player) using both drives on my Window box (a DVD-ROM drive and a CD-RW drive, both IDE). I didn't try ripping, since I don't have any appropriate Windows software.
There were no delays in playing or ripping; cdparanoia didn't report having to do any jitter correction at all.
This CD was bought in Canada. If it is the same as the American edition, then this is some piddling protection! The New Scientist article claims that "copying using home CD recorders is variable." It would be interesting to have some reports from people with such devices.
It would also be interesting to hear from some people in Germany about the degree to which the CD is broken there.
Anyway, I'm quite disappointed -- it looks like I won't be able to buy and return this CD.
I do know someone who own this CD (shame!). I will be borrowing it tonight, and testing it to see whether I can play it, rip it, etc. on both a Windows and a Linux box.
I will post my findings here.
If it is any way defective, I will buy a copy just so that I can return it; I'd encourage others to do the same.
Why on earth is a story about the OSI under the heading of "GNU's Not UNIX"?
I know that a lot of people consider RMS's requests to not confuse Free Software and Open Source to be pedantic, and that confusion is possible because so much software is both Free and Open Source.
But, come on! When you're talking about the organizations themselves, there's really no excuse for mixing them up. If slashdot can't even get this basic stuff right, how can we expect the mainstream media not to screw it up?
May I suggest either an "Open Source" or a "Licensing" category.
If you're not careful, you'll be sorry when RMS starts using the term GNOSI/Linux.:)
As a sidenote, shouldn't there be a way for the ground control to override the controls of a hijacked plane?
That struck me as a good idea when I first read it. Then, I read all of the replies: that would make it easier to hijack planes; why not have an emergency auto-landing mechanism triggered by the captain?
Good points. My idea is to combine those suggestions: all that ground control can do is initiate this emergency sequence. That way, the pilot wouldn't have to do anything, but if (when) someone did crack it, all they would be able to do is make the plane land, not crash it.
Sure, let them sue him for saying that the technology is crackable. Then next time, they can sue for saying that the technology may have an exploitable weakness. After that, they can sue the guy who thought about potential weaknesses.
Eventually, some judge somewhere along the line and, perhaps more importantly, the public are going to realize how absurd this law is.
Terry Jones wrote a novel, published in 1997, based on Douglas Adams' computer game Starship Titanic. He tries to immitate Adams' writing style, but comes up short.
Frequently there are updated/new device drivers. In the cases of.3,.4 and.5 the big one would be lots of additions/changes/fixes to various things USB.
One USB fix that I really appreciated: devmode, devuid and devgid mount options for usbdevfs had no effect in 2.4.4 (I hadn't used previous 2.4 releases, so I don't know about them). They work again in 2.4.5, and I'm very happy that I no longer need to su to get the photos out of my camera.
The anti-act of circumvention exemptions that lack corresponding anti-device counterparts constitute one of the most signficant deficiencies in that law.
It NEEDS to be challenged in court. I'm extremely disappointed in the paper's authors.
...I think it's text based installation is a pain in the ass (and I'm not even a newbie - I started with slackware many years ago).
If you find that the instructions are unclear, the choices ambiguous, the order illogical, or something like that, I could see the problem. But, the only "problem" you describe is that it's text based.
Why is that a problem? What is so intimidating about a text interface? It's still got buttons and menus -- it's not like you have to edit configuration files. Does the average new user even know what the difference between text mode and graphics mode is?
I've always thought that this obsession with installers that run in graphics mode has been a red herring.
Please, just read the DMCA and some of the trial documentation, and it will quickly become clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
From Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's Finding of Fact and Law in Universal City Studios, Inc, et al. v. Shawn C. Reimerdes, et al.:
Late last year, computer hackers devised a computer program called DeCSS that circumvents the CSS protection system and allows CSS-protected motion pictures to be copied and played on devices that lack the licensed decryption technology. Defendants quickly posted DeCSS on their Internet web site, thus making it readily available to much of the world. Plaintiffs promptly brought this action
under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA) to enjoin defendants from posting DeCSS and to prevent them from electronically linking their site to others that post DeCSS.
It is only the section 1201(a)(1) prohibition on the act of circumvention that did not take effect for two years after the passage of the DMCA. The anti-device regulations of sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) were in effect at the time of the lawsuit. It is section 1201(a)(2) that 2600 is said to have violated.
It is you and the other AC (assuming you're not the same person) who are clueless.
Thse court cases are all squarely centerred around a click-wrap violation and acusations of theft of a 40 bit player key.... the Xing key.
After all, the DVD CSS was not patented, nor was it trulY a trade secret violation by an employee.
It was legally reverse engineered fair and square.
Sorry, AC, but it really has nothing to do with patents, trade secrets or click-wrap licenses.
It's all about section 1201, one of the DMCA's ammendments to the Copyright Act.
1201(a)(2) states:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effictively controls access to a work protected under this title...
The Xing key and the authentication code together form a device that that circumvents a technnological access control measure. Therefore, it's a crime to have anything to do with them. That's it.
It doesn't matter how they were obtained or created.
Oh, that DMCA thingy, section 1201(a)(1)...yeah. "Circumvention of an access control." Not "copy control", because you can still copy DVDs even with CSS enabled. Interoperability apparently isn't a defense. I thought there was a provision for reverse-engineering something to let a piece of media be used on platforms the vendor doesn't support, but I recall Judge Kaplan throwing out that defense during the original case against 2600 and the others.
Actually, you came up with the whole answer. Three years ago DeCSS would have been perfectly legal. It just took a little lobbying (read, "money") from the MPAA to make it a crime to access information that you have purchased.
The exemption that you mention allows...
...a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
In other words, it allows for circumvention for the purposes of enabling interoperability between two programs, but Judge Kaplan decided that it does not apply to interoperability between one program and one piece of recorded media.
THe recent RPM port of APT (it was originally designed to be portable) by Connective means that Connectiva now uses this system and Linux Mandrake 7.3 will in the future.
Really? That's a bold move; if it works, it would really move them out of Red Hat's shadow. apt-get is such a wonderful tool, but I wonder if their packages and dependencies will be constructed well enough for it to work like it does on Debian.
Unfortunately, based on the hash they made of update-menus, I'm not overly optimistic.
Slashdot Mirror
In context, that reads to me like a typo -- like he meant to say ".NET and C#," but for some reason said ".NET and Java" instead. I note that you didn't use a quote to put it back in context, you just supplied your own interpretation, which is, in honesty, quite a stretch. Okay, so he noted that"C# and Java are astonishingly similar" some six paragraphs earlier, but it's still a leap from this comparison to that odd substitution right at the end.
And you completely sidestepped my point about referring to Java as "buggy": Sun's Java compiler, platform, and virtual machine are not buggy. That even his claim was so generic simply draws attention the point that it was completely unsupported.
And you've done nothing to help support it (hint: sarcastically calling Java "the all-powerful edifice" doesn't count).
What a horrid column. Cringely just gets worse and worse. For example:
Java is buggy? A language is buggy? What's that supposed to mean? Perhaps he means that Sun's Java compiler is buggy or their JRE is buggy, but neither is true. As software goes, both are extremely un-buggy. Unless he actually has some evidence to the contrary. No, I'm just kidding; I realize evidence would be completely out of place in that column.
I'm sorry, Gates and Ballmer have bet their company on Java? I guess since he doesn't actually research his writing, why should he check it over afterwards?
Seriously, I've read more insightful comments browsing slashdot at -1.
Your link says that Netscape 4 does support PNG, but not PNG transparency.
Transparency is probably not a significant issue for screenshots.
They're still supporting the SSSCA.
No they're not.
Wrong. Sony wants to sell the "Aibo Licks His Balls" expansion pack, not have some deviant terrorist hacker commie give it away for free.
So Sony still hasn't learned any of the lessons of Betamax?
Cool.
For those who don't use WindowMaker, does anyone know if it possible to include the X selection in the command of a GNOME launcher? How?
I noticed that line, too. I found it *quite* insightful.
Especially considering that, just two weeks ago, when I tried to delete a large directory tree on Windows 2000, the progress meter stopped moving at about 2/3 of the way through, the time estimate started oscillating wildly (between 40 seconds and 175 minutes remaining), and instances of Internet Explorer started freezing.
Eventually, I killed the process, and the OS survived the experience just fine (no reboot required). But, come on...deleting files? Yeah, so I was deleting LOTS of files, but it's still a really simple operation. No reason to go wonky like that. And who knows...maybe if I had left it going a little longer, the system would have gone south...
So, maybe the author of the article knew more than we give him credit for.
when /. and Msft are both against it!!
You sure about that?
Although the article starts with "technology companies including Intel, IBM, Microsoft and Compaq Computer held a coming-out press conference Monday to oppose a broad copyright protection proposal," it later lists some of the members of the trade group, the Computer Systems Policy Project: "IBM, Intel, Dell Computer, Motorola and others."
No Microsoft.
Wondering if maybe Microsoft was one of the "others," I checked the web site for this group. Down the left side of the page are its members: Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, NCR, Unisys, and Motorola.
Still no Microsoft.
Now, that's not to say that Microsoft definately isn't opposed to the SSSCA, just that the story gives us no actual reason to believe that it is.
Have they already made some kind of statement, either on their own or as part of another organization? If not, perhaps we should still consider them silent on the issue?
I found the legalese to be particularly challenging (maybe I'm just really tired?).
If someone could translate the rest of it for the legal laymen among us, that would be wonderful. It seems to me that IBM is very sincere in their support for open source (for example, IBM HTTP Server is based on Apache, and Apache SOAP is based on IBM's SOAP4J), and from what I've read about RAND, it means that open-source can't play.
So, I'm very interested to understand what is motivating their stance.
Can anyone help?
I've finished testing out the CD, and found absolutely no problems with it.
I was able to play it (cdplay) and rip it (cdparanoia) using both drives on my Linux box (an IDE CD-ROM drive and a SCSI CD-RW drive).
I also was able to play it (Windows Media Player) using both drives on my Window box (a DVD-ROM drive and a CD-RW drive, both IDE). I didn't try ripping, since I don't have any appropriate Windows software.
There were no delays in playing or ripping; cdparanoia didn't report having to do any jitter correction at all.
This CD was bought in Canada. If it is the same as the American edition, then this is some piddling protection! The New Scientist article claims that "copying using home CD recorders is variable." It would be interesting to have some reports from people with such devices.
It would also be interesting to hear from some people in Germany about the degree to which the CD is broken there.
Anyway, I'm quite disappointed -- it looks like I won't be able to buy and return this CD.
I do know someone who own this CD (shame!). I will be borrowing it tonight, and testing it to see whether I can play it, rip it, etc. on both a Windows and a Linux box.
I will post my findings here.
If it is any way defective, I will buy a copy just so that I can return it; I'd encourage others to do the same.
Why on earth is a story about the OSI under the heading of "GNU's Not UNIX"?
:)
I know that a lot of people consider RMS's requests to not confuse Free Software and Open Source to be pedantic, and that confusion is possible because so much software is both Free and Open Source.
But, come on! When you're talking about the organizations themselves, there's really no excuse for mixing them up. If slashdot can't even get this basic stuff right, how can we expect the mainstream media not to screw it up?
May I suggest either an "Open Source" or a "Licensing" category.
If you're not careful, you'll be sorry when RMS starts using the term GNOSI/Linux.
As a sidenote, shouldn't there be a way for the ground control to override the controls of a hijacked plane?
That struck me as a good idea when I first read it. Then, I read all of the replies: that would make it easier to hijack planes; why not have an emergency auto-landing mechanism triggered by the captain?
Good points. My idea is to combine those suggestions: all that ground control can do is initiate this emergency sequence. That way, the pilot wouldn't have to do anything, but if (when) someone did crack it, all they would be able to do is make the plane land, not crash it.
Which is why it's a clever move, not a mistake.
Sure, let them sue him for saying that the technology is crackable. Then next time, they can sue for saying that the technology may have an exploitable weakness. After that, they can sue the guy who thought about potential weaknesses.
Eventually, some judge somewhere along the line and, perhaps more importantly, the public are going to realize how absurd this law is.
Terry Jones wrote a novel, published in 1997, based on Douglas Adams' computer game Starship Titanic. He tries to immitate Adams' writing style, but comes up short.
And yet...
Hardware description languages like Verilog and VHDL make designing hardware more and more like writing software.
You can actually describe the behaviour of the hardware algorithmically, and let the tools synthesize the structure.
Frequently there are updated/new device drivers. In the cases of .3, .4 and .5 the big one would be lots of additions/changes/fixes to various things USB.
One USB fix that I really appreciated: devmode, devuid and devgid mount options for usbdevfs had no effect in 2.4.4 (I hadn't used previous 2.4 releases, so I don't know about them). They work again in 2.4.5, and I'm very happy that I no longer need to su to get the photos out of my camera.
Thank you kernel developers. You rock!
Why be so specific?
It seems like it would be a good idea to forbid disclosing the details of the dealings to anyone without the legal authority to access them.
The anti-act of circumvention exemptions that lack corresponding anti-device counterparts constitute one of the most signficant deficiencies in that law.
It NEEDS to be challenged in court. I'm extremely disappointed in the paper's authors.
Cool, so if you live in canada, feel free to copy as many CDs as you want, since you paid for that right.
For personal use, yes.
I love this country.
If you find that the instructions are unclear, the choices ambiguous, the order illogical, or something like that, I could see the problem. But, the only "problem" you describe is that it's text based.
Why is that a problem? What is so intimidating about a text interface? It's still got buttons and menus -- it's not like you have to edit configuration files. Does the average new user even know what the difference between text mode and graphics mode is?
I've always thought that this obsession with installers that run in graphics mode has been a red herring.
Please, just read the DMCA and some of the trial documentation, and it will quickly become clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.
From Judge Lewis A. Kaplan's Finding of Fact and Law in Universal City Studios, Inc, et al. v. Shawn C. Reimerdes, et al.:
It is only the section 1201(a)(1) prohibition on the act of circumvention that did not take effect for two years after the passage of the DMCA. The anti-device regulations of sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) were in effect at the time of the lawsuit. It is section 1201(a)(2) that 2600 is said to have violated.
It is you and the other AC (assuming you're not the same person) who are clueless.
Thse court cases are all squarely centerred around a click-wrap violation and acusations of theft of a 40 bit player key.... the Xing key.
After all, the DVD CSS was not patented, nor was it trulY a trade secret violation by an employee.
It was legally reverse engineered fair and square.
Sorry, AC, but it really has nothing to do with patents, trade secrets or click-wrap licenses.
It's all about section 1201, one of the DMCA's ammendments to the Copyright Act.
1201(a)(2) states:
The Xing key and the authentication code together form a device that that circumvents a technnological access control measure. Therefore, it's a crime to have anything to do with them. That's it.
It doesn't matter how they were obtained or created.
That's why this law is so scary.
Oh, that DMCA thingy, section 1201(a)(1)...yeah. "Circumvention of an access control." Not "copy control", because you can still copy DVDs even with CSS enabled. Interoperability apparently isn't a defense. I thought there was a provision for reverse-engineering something to let a piece of media be used on platforms the vendor doesn't support, but I recall Judge Kaplan throwing out that defense during the original case against 2600 and the others.
Actually, you came up with the whole answer. Three years ago DeCSS would have been perfectly legal. It just took a little lobbying (read, "money") from the MPAA to make it a crime to access information that you have purchased.
The exemption that you mention allows...
In other words, it allows for circumvention for the purposes of enabling interoperability between two programs, but Judge Kaplan decided that it does not apply to interoperability between one program and one piece of recorded media.
Overly narrow exceptions, anyone? You betcha!
THe recent RPM port of APT (it was originally designed to be portable) by Connective means that Connectiva now uses this system and Linux Mandrake 7.3 will in the future.
Really? That's a bold move; if it works, it would really move them out of Red Hat's shadow. apt-get is such a wonderful tool, but I wonder if their packages and dependencies will be constructed well enough for it to work like it does on Debian.
Unfortunately, based on the hash they made of update-menus, I'm not overly optimistic.