This is what was formerly (or internally, whatever) called "East Fork". The Inquirer explained how everything that goes thru it gets converted to Windows Media with DRM.
So you're better off building your own - except some new-generation discs won't play, or will get downgraded, in anything that lacks this sort of anti-user tech.
I've been trying to kick the habit too. 2000 is fine, but will be unsupported before too long. XP is too glitzy, and begins the trend of taking control away from the hardware owner. Vista, with its DRM and *even more* visual fluff, is not for me.
The surprising, and obstinate problem for me has been the fonts on Linux. Apparently most people actually *like* anti-aliasing. Whenever I'm web-searching to find out how to get rid of it, I'm always seeing people praising it and saying it's "beautiful".
For me the anti-aliasing makes the whole system utterly unusable. No matter how it's adjusted, or what fonts are used, the fuzziness is intolerable within a few minutes.
This is not a troll! I'm getting to the point.
Yes, I know how to research and generally solve my own computer problems. I even found a page on "how to get fonts looking nice on Linux without aa" - Franklin's post on linuxquestions.org. Following these instructions has led me to discover how to compile applications from source and other interesting things. Yet after many hours I still haven't managed to get rid of the a-a.
This one issue alone has taken me more than a week already, allowing for work, social life and other projects.
Yes, I'll solve it sooner or later, and then make more progress more quickly, and write it up for others. But how many would even spend as much time as I have already?
Windows has succeeded because of (a) coopting all the major OEMS (b) other ruthless tactics and (c) solving UI problems long ago. (c) is underappreciated! I certainly didn't realize its importance until I ran into this font issue.
So what do the Linux vendors do? They constantly add more clever, tricky features (I'm thinking of KDE), while never fixing these very basic, subtle GUI issues. Fonts are just one example. Look at the greater consistency and attention to detail that make people admire the Mac UI.
Well, sorry, I'm not sure what my point is. Maybe just that Linux needs more work on basic GUI stuff to be ready for the mainstream.
Like many others here, I hesitate to even bring this up because anyone who points out these things gets bounced between "you're a MS shill!" and "fix it yourself!" with a bit of "be grateful for all the devs have done!". Well, I am grateful, and I have no time for hobby coding, and my employer won't sponsor it, and yes, I give money.
I *want* Linux to be ready for the desktop. I want it to happen to happen before the "trusted computing" DRM / lock-in scheme takes hold too widely. Everyone needs it for the this reason, though most don't even realize that freedom of uncensored communication in the future depends on it.
Today you can find out about this by seeing the site on another connection or proxying around the block.
In a few years most computers will have "trusted computing" hardware enabling a "protected mode" where only signed programs will run. If this takes hold and ISPs start requiring "protected mode" as a condition of getting online, you will never know whether a site is really there or not, or whether what you're seeing is the genuine version of a web page (intended by the authors), or an altered version.
With the TC scheme fully in place, if the holders of the keys of the "trusted" browsers so chose, they could make any content disappear from everyone's point of view, or falsify it undetectably. In this example, you'd have to resort to offline sources for the information the union was trying to get out.
Seriously, I hope SCO, and their bogus case, last long enough to be conclusively defeated (preferably with sanctions, etc.). This would give Linux a significant boost in the eyes of the business world, and discourage this sort of thing in the future.
I second the question - is it illegal in Germany to write a worm or virus? Or only to release it?
Same questions regarding the USA... ?
In all the news reports and discussion of these cases, references to "writing" or "creating", and to releasing or spreading, are used interchangeably. It seems to me there is a big ethical difference and there ought to be a legal difference as well.
Consider the following series - at what point does the actor go wrong (a) ethically (b) legally?
Plan a worm, virus or other exploit
Write code
Compile and test it locally
Explain to others how to write one
Share source with friends or colleagues
(a) for research/ POC?
(b) for them to use any way they want?
(c) with malicious intent?
Make binary available passively, others have to request it, as on a web page, with notice (not forced on anyone)
Someone other than the creator spreads it "in the wild"
" Having a licence required would cause the PC/Internet access industry to plummet."
That's not even the worst effect of a licence requirement. Not by far.
It would almost immediately become a means for government (U.S.? State? LOcal? any licence issuer) to stomp on freedom of speech. Put up computerlicencingsucks.com, and they find some pretext to yank your licence. Critcise GWB, and "oops, your test score was miscalculated!".
Oh, and then the vendors would get into it. Makers of $expensive_proprietary_junkware would lobby to get their progs required as part of "responsible computer use" and then you're having to pay for it and having to run all kinds of treacherous junk on your PC. ANd certain OS, of course! Next would be hucksters of exam-passing courses, and having to parrot all kinds of stupidity to pass the exam, etc..
Oh, and the fees! They'd have to pay for the licencing. And when did any fee ever go down? You'd be paying by the month to not have your computer taken away, or your internet connection, whichever.
It would be a nightmare for any reasonable users who knows what they're doing. But it would stop abuses, advocates say? Yeah right. It would be administered by a combination of scoundrels and the computer-illiterate.
Yeah, what a great scheme. It would be a mighty engine of censorship, vendor lock-in, political oppression, and other evils.
Probably the only reason Microsoft isn't already pushing it is the evils are obvious enough for even the cyber-dummies to perceive.
Slashdot Mirror
Vorondil28: "Not to mention DRM'd to hell?"
Affirmative.
This is what was formerly (or internally, whatever) called "East Fork". The Inquirer explained how everything that goes thru it gets converted to Windows Media with DRM.
So you're better off building your own - except some new-generation discs won't play, or will get downgraded, in anything that lacks this sort of anti-user tech.
I've been trying to kick the habit too. 2000 is fine, but will be unsupported before too long. XP is too glitzy, and begins the trend of taking control away from the hardware owner. Vista, with its DRM and *even more* visual fluff, is not for me.
The surprising, and obstinate problem for me has been the fonts on Linux. Apparently most people actually *like* anti-aliasing. Whenever I'm web-searching to find out how to get rid of it, I'm always seeing people praising it and saying it's "beautiful".
For me the anti-aliasing makes the whole system utterly unusable. No matter how it's adjusted, or what fonts are used, the fuzziness is intolerable within a few minutes.
This is not a troll! I'm getting to the point.
Yes, I know how to research and generally solve my own computer problems. I even found a page on "how to get fonts looking nice on Linux without aa" - Franklin's post on linuxquestions.org. Following these instructions has led me to discover how to compile applications from source and other interesting things. Yet after many hours I still haven't managed to get rid of the a-a.
This one issue alone has taken me more than a week already, allowing for work, social life and other projects.
Yes, I'll solve it sooner or later, and then make more progress more quickly, and write it up for others. But how many would even spend as much time as I have already?
Windows has succeeded because of (a) coopting all the major OEMS (b) other ruthless tactics and (c) solving UI problems long ago. (c) is underappreciated! I certainly didn't realize its importance until I ran into this font issue.
So what do the Linux vendors do? They constantly add more clever, tricky features (I'm thinking of KDE), while never fixing these very basic, subtle GUI issues. Fonts are just one example. Look at the greater consistency and attention to detail that make people admire the Mac UI.
Well, sorry, I'm not sure what my point is. Maybe just that Linux needs more work on basic GUI stuff to be ready for the mainstream.
Like many others here, I hesitate to even bring this up because anyone who points out these things gets bounced between "you're a MS shill!" and "fix it yourself!" with a bit of "be grateful for all the devs have done!". Well, I am grateful, and I have no time for hobby coding, and my employer won't sponsor it, and yes, I give money.
I *want* Linux to be ready for the desktop. I want it to happen to happen before the "trusted computing" DRM / lock-in scheme takes hold too widely. Everyone needs it for the this reason, though most don't even realize that freedom of uncensored communication in the future depends on it.
Today you can find out about this by seeing the site on another connection or proxying around the block.
In a few years most computers will have "trusted computing" hardware enabling a "protected mode" where only signed programs will run. If this takes hold and ISPs start requiring "protected mode" as a condition of getting online, you will never know whether a site is really there or not, or whether what you're seeing is the genuine version of a web page (intended by the authors), or an altered version.
With the TC scheme fully in place, if the holders of the keys of the "trusted" browsers so chose, they could make any content disappear from everyone's point of view, or falsify it undetectably. In this example, you'd have to resort to offline sources for the information the union was trying to get out.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.htmlSeriously, I hope SCO, and their bogus case, last long enough to be conclusively defeated (preferably with sanctions, etc.). This would give Linux a significant boost in the eyes of the business world, and discourage this sort of thing in the future.
I second the question - is it illegal in Germany to write a worm or virus? Or only to release it?
Same questions regarding the USA ... ?
In all the news reports and discussion of these cases, references to "writing" or "creating", and to releasing or spreading, are used interchangeably. It seems to me there is a big ethical difference and there ought to be a legal difference as well.
Consider the following series - at what point does the actor go wrong (a) ethically (b) legally?
That's not even the worst effect of a licence requirement. Not by far.
It would almost immediately become a means for government (U.S.? State? LOcal? any licence issuer) to stomp on freedom of speech. Put up computerlicencingsucks.com, and they find some pretext to yank your licence. Critcise GWB, and "oops, your test score was miscalculated!".
Oh, and then the vendors would get into it. Makers of $expensive_proprietary_junkware would lobby to get their progs required as part of "responsible computer use" and then you're having to pay for it and having to run all kinds of treacherous junk on your PC. ANd certain OS, of course! Next would be hucksters of exam-passing courses, and having to parrot all kinds of stupidity to pass the exam, etc..
Oh, and the fees! They'd have to pay for the licencing. And when did any fee ever go down? You'd be paying by the month to not have your computer taken away, or your internet connection, whichever.
It would be a nightmare for any reasonable users who knows what they're doing. But it would stop abuses, advocates say? Yeah right. It would be administered by a combination of scoundrels and the computer-illiterate.
Yeah, what a great scheme. It would be a mighty engine of censorship, vendor lock-in, political oppression, and other evils.
Probably the only reason Microsoft isn't already pushing it is the evils are obvious enough for even the cyber-dummies to perceive.