It would probably be broken if you tried to make an encrypted one, but couldn't you just create one sans encryption? Players must allow for straight video, don't they? If not, I would be pissed. That would mean you couldn't make your own, ever (think home video... on DVD!).
No, you can download the.vob files without decrypting them. Have you actually played with css-auth? There are two relevent programs in this tarball: tstdvd, which you use to retrieve the title keys and unlock the disc with them; and css-cat, which actually decrypts it. If you just used tstdvd to unlock the disc, you could download the encrypted.vob files. Normally, you're supposed to run them thorugh css-cat to decrypt them after the disc is unlocked. They are two seperate programs and you could not do the second step; therefore, theoretically, you could create an encrypted DVD.
For those of you of the opinion that it's their fault we cracked it 'cause of the encryption, that's a dumb argument. You're still at fault for stealing, even if it was easy.
The point is, though, that we're not stealing! We (we as in Open Source community) cracked it 'cause it has to be cracked in order to gain fair use privilages. It is our right to be able to play it on anything we want, it is our right to make backup copies, and it is our right to convert it to other media if we want to, as shown in several case precendents. CSS prevents people from exercizing fair use, and that is why the CCA are idiots for prosecuting people for cracking it. If anything they will make tons of money because of it; we're attempting to broaden their market for them.
Linux never evolves, it just gets better and better at copying what Unix does.
Linux is a UNIX clone. Duh, of course it copies UNIX.
The security system is pretty much sound if you don't run as root. Running a virus infected program as a user will only destroy that which you have access to... a far cry better than DOS to be sure. Besides, even the most secure NOS can be defeated by an incompetent user. Good security habits are just as important as a good security model.
"Oh no! They used Redhat's distro, and removed reference to Redhat in the installer". The GPL allows that, no?
Well, sure, it allows it... but that's not the point. Not giving credit where it is due is kinda low, even if it is allowed.
The Linux sites have already declared Redhat, Caldera, Debian, SuSe and Mandrake the winners and LinuxOne to be the loser.
That's because they actually contribute something to the user community. All LinuxOne has done is take someone else's product, rip their name out of it and slap their own sticker on it. Why use a cheap knock-off when you can own the original, made by a company that is committed to serving the community? From all appearances, LinuxOne is just trying to cash in on the Linux hype, and there's really no way to respect that.
You sound as if you're under the impression it's the successor to Win98. It's not, it's the next iteration of NT. The next version of Win9x will be Windows Millennium, and it's anyones guess as to when that'll be around. It'll likely have some tidbits of the tech used in Win2k, but without the security.
Uh yeah, it's kinda important for e-commerce, ya know, maybe you've heard of it. Then again, since nobody uses Linux for e-commerce, maybe zealots like you really haven't heard of it.
Considering that Apache has a 61% marketshare of webservers... yeah, I think that poeple do.
True, although I think the way they implemented it was completely inane. Instead of simply denying access, it replaces it with a backup. Is it just me, or is that completely backwards?
I've also realized that many of the new features in Win2K are really just old UNIX features. Active Directory is really nothing more than NT implementing $HOME directories; and it even does mount points!
Yeah, though the LinuxPPC box was only hacked 'cause whoever set it up was stupid and installed a closed-source CGI script with a security hole. Linux's security was fine.
Microsoft's excuses as to why their server was down so much, however, was rather suspicous, I think. Blaming it on the weather sounds rather odd to me, and they did say it wasn't behind a firewall and then added one later anyways, without telling anyone.
Yeah, but what are you doing with it? Just playing around in various programs? No wonder it hasn't crashed! If it were running as a webserver taking a decent hit count, oh my how the tables would turn.
Go ahead and show me a Windows box on which a Blue Screen doesn't take down the OS.
I was at a Microsoft tech conference recently, and they were demoing Win2K. Halfway through the demonstration, it froze up and he had to reboot it.:)
The reboot had to have taken in excess of ten minutes, too.
The point is not necessarily how stable Windows 2000 is, but the fact that they are running beta version software on a mission critical server. Not smart, even on Linux.
No one's trying to turn Linux into a "clubhouse" for geeks. I think that Linux should be made to be user friendly, but I also think you should have the option to use a "pure" techie version. The reason is not to feel exclusive. A more difficult version of Linux is harder for a reason: it's built so that you have a much higher level of control over what goes on. There's nothing wrong with wanting to micromanage a server; in fact, sometimes it's neccessary.
Here's an example: The Corel version, during installation, won't install make by default because there are few newbies who would want to compile. For those of us who hack code, however, it's very useful. (Sure, there's always gcc--but who has the time for that?)
Corel can have the newbie market, and I encourage them to file out the rough edges for them. But don't tell me they all have to be like that. Sometimes complete control is important.
Please, please tell me this is a prank. They actually have a patent on an interactive programming guide?
Okay, lemme see if I understand this right:
Company gets patent on obvious idea. Competitor company used similar idea in an obvious fashion--since no one smart enough to find their ass with both hands would otherwise believe such a patent was granted, they obviously don't check for one. Company uses patent to sue the competitor--not to protect their IP, but to stifle competition.
This is exactly the same as the Amazon/Barnes&Noble lawsuit, only even more idiotic. I have half a mind to move to Mars. Or, even better, Mir;)
Re:Don't blame open source for browser stagnancy
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
I don't search for Open Software because I see the benefits in having the source. I probably wouldn't expand it or enhance it anyway. I look for a free lunch when I search freshmeat.
Well, there will always be people in it for the wrong reasons. Not much anyone can do.
There is a flavour of gcc called mingw32 which does _most_ of the stuff that Borland compilers do. Get FLTK or GTK+ for free and you have a similar development environment. Not as polished as the commercial offerings but good enough for students to fiddle with.
Well, what's wrong with that? It seems to me that students (most of whom are probably broke like me:) wouldn't shell out the money for the commercial alternatives in the first place, so most times the companies aren't losing any money. The same can be said for a lot of the piracy going on... most of them wouldn't pay for it anyway. If I want to learn how to program, I shouldn't have to get reamed by some big corporation to do so.
This is insulting. I develop commercial software for living and we DO NOT stick bugs in it do get people to buy upgrades and we are always honest about our bugs and shortcomings.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I meant is, it is commonplace for software vendors to ship software with hundreds of known bugs without fixing them. This is well documented, just check out BugNet. If you havn't read The Software Conspiracy by Mark Minasi, I'd recommend checking it out. He does a very good job of pointing out just how fsck'ed the commercial software world can get.
We are very quality oriented and have some of the best developers on the team I ever had a chance to work with. No commercial software needn't be bad or expensive. It is all a matter of managers' attitudes.
Well, good for you. Allow me to clarify: of course not all companies are like that, but it is business as usual, sadly.
Hmm... I wonder what we'll do when DVD Audio comes out? Would it even be feasible to brute force it, say, over the Internet with a distributed processing project? I dunno... 128 bits. Is that even crackable?
esr posted a rather scathing rebuttal to the DVD CCA on OpenDVD.org here. He even went so far as calling them frauds and liars. True, though. Check it out, deffinately a good read.
Well perhaps I'm a little behind the times then... when I tried it out yes, there were many utilities available, but other than some cheesy shareware, I couldn't find many more quality programs for it. Perhaps that's lessened; it's been a little while:)
I may be wrong about this (not a cryptographic expert...), but 40 bit encryption keys can be brute-forced in seconds on an average PC, can't they? I'm sure they wouldn't have had any trouble setting up a distributed processing thing otherwise, anyways (I'd join:).
Re:Don't blame open source for browser stagnancy
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
It is illegal to use a monopoly to leverage other markets. Bell was not allowed to do anything other than telephony until they were broke up. I may be a little fuzzy on the details of this (IANAL), but I do not appreciate being called a liar.
And even if it wasn't illegal, it was deffinately foul play. They used an unfair advantage, a monopoly in the desktop market, by not allowing users to uninstall IE. They also threatened any OEMs who preloaded NS on their machines. This may not be illegal per se, but it was one of the examples against MS in the FoF, so one would be led to believe it is illegal.
Re:Don't blame open source for browser stagnancy
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Oh, come on. I'm not going to accept your supposition that free software is greedy and wrong. It has been proven to yeild far better results in many circumstances (read: many, not all). I, too, search for Open software before I even consider commercial. There's nothing wrong with that; you and I are under no obligation to buy commercial software. If a commercial vendor can't compete against an Open alternative, then that means they are attempting to sell an inferior product--if a software suite were *that* much better, I would consider it.
MS did not neccessarily beat Netscape by giving away their browser. They beat them by unfairly using their monopoly on the desktop market against them by integrating IE into Windows and preventing the users from uninstalling it. They also threatened any OEM that preloaded NS on their machines. Microsoft beat Netscape by misusing their monopoly to smother them. Giving away the IE browser only contributed to that.
I use both Borland and g++. How could you possibly compare these two? Borland is for Windows. G++ is for Linux. Two completely different platforms; they aren't in competition. Now, sometimes commercial software is better. I'll probably pick up a copy of Code Fusion sometime--because there really isn't an Open alternative that's better.
The vital difference between commercial and open source software is that the latter is dedicated to code quality, while the former is dedicated to their bottom line. Commercial venders knowingly ship software with hundreds of bugs--and they usually never intend to fix them. If you report a bug to an open Source project, it will eventually be fixed.
The point I am finally meandering to is that open source will not be the death of commercial software. Not likely. But for certain types of programs, you just can't trust closed source. Esr puts it better than I.
Slashdot Mirror
It would probably be broken if you tried to make an encrypted one, but couldn't you just create one sans encryption? Players must allow for straight video, don't they? If not, I would be pissed. That would mean you couldn't make your own, ever (think home video... on DVD!).
No, you can download the .vob files without decrypting them. Have you actually played with css-auth? There are two relevent programs in this tarball: tstdvd, which you use to retrieve the title keys and unlock the disc with them; and css-cat, which actually decrypts it. If you just used tstdvd to unlock the disc, you could download the encrypted .vob files. Normally, you're supposed to run them thorugh css-cat to decrypt them after the disc is unlocked. They are two seperate programs and you could not do the second step; therefore, theoretically, you could create an encrypted DVD.
The point is, though, that we're not stealing! We (we as in Open Source community) cracked it 'cause it has to be cracked in order to gain fair use privilages. It is our right to be able to play it on anything we want, it is our right to make backup copies, and it is our right to convert it to other media if we want to, as shown in several case precendents. CSS prevents people from exercizing fair use, and that is why the CCA are idiots for prosecuting people for cracking it. If anything they will make tons of money because of it; we're attempting to broaden their market for them.
Linux is a UNIX clone. Duh, of course it copies UNIX.
The security system is pretty much sound if you don't run as root. Running a virus infected program as a user will only destroy that which you have access to... a far cry better than DOS to be sure. Besides, even the most secure NOS can be defeated by an incompetent user. Good security habits are just as important as a good security model.
Is it just me, or does he sound really bitter?
Well, sure, it allows it... but that's not the point. Not giving credit where it is due is kinda low, even if it is allowed.
The Linux sites have already declared Redhat, Caldera, Debian, SuSe and Mandrake the winners and LinuxOne to be the loser.
That's because they actually contribute something to the user community. All LinuxOne has done is take someone else's product, rip their name out of it and slap their own sticker on it. Why use a cheap knock-off when you can own the original, made by a company that is committed to serving the community? From all appearances, LinuxOne is just trying to cash in on the Linux hype, and there's really no way to respect that.
You sound as if you're under the impression it's the successor to Win98. It's not, it's the next iteration of NT. The next version of Win9x will be Windows Millennium, and it's anyones guess as to when that'll be around. It'll likely have some tidbits of the tech used in Win2k, but without the security.
Considering that Apache has a 61% marketshare of webservers... yeah, I think that poeple do.
Windows has the best benchmarks money can buy :)
I've also realized that many of the new features in Win2K are really just old UNIX features. Active Directory is really nothing more than NT implementing $HOME directories; and it even does mount points!
How so? That would require breaking into the system and changing the source code to the page, would it not?
Microsoft's excuses as to why their server was down so much, however, was rather suspicous, I think. Blaming it on the weather sounds rather odd to me, and they did say it wasn't behind a firewall and then added one later anyways, without telling anyone.
You may not realize this, but a lot of professors (especially the computer ones) really do practice what they teach out in the real world.
Yeah, but what are you doing with it? Just playing around in various programs? No wonder it hasn't crashed! If it were running as a webserver taking a decent hit count, oh my how the tables would turn.
I was at a Microsoft tech conference recently, and they were demoing Win2K. Halfway through the demonstration, it froze up and he had to reboot it. :)
The reboot had to have taken in excess of ten minutes, too.
The point is not necessarily how stable Windows 2000 is, but the fact that they are running beta version software on a mission critical server. Not smart, even on Linux.
I thought the number of active contributers to the Linux kernel was somewhere around 10,000 (!)
Here's an example: The Corel version, during installation, won't install make by default because there are few newbies who would want to compile. For those of us who hack code, however, it's very useful. (Sure, there's always gcc--but who has the time for that?)
Corel can have the newbie market, and I encourage them to file out the rough edges for them. But don't tell me they all have to be like that. Sometimes complete control is important.
Okay, lemme see if I understand this right:
Company gets patent on obvious idea. Competitor company used similar idea in an obvious fashion--since no one smart enough to find their ass with both hands would otherwise believe such a patent was granted, they obviously don't check for one. Company uses patent to sue the competitor--not to protect their IP, but to stifle competition.
This is exactly the same as the Amazon/Barnes&Noble lawsuit, only even more idiotic. I have half a mind to move to Mars. Or, even better, Mir ;)
Well, there will always be people in it for the wrong reasons. Not much anyone can do.
There is a flavour of gcc called mingw32 which does _most_ of the stuff that Borland compilers do. Get FLTK or GTK+ for free and you have a similar development environment. Not as polished as the commercial offerings but good enough for students to fiddle with.
Well, what's wrong with that? It seems to me that students (most of whom are probably broke like me :) wouldn't shell out the money for the commercial alternatives in the first place, so most times the companies aren't losing any money. The same can be said for a lot of the piracy going on... most of them wouldn't pay for it anyway. If I want to learn how to program, I shouldn't have to get reamed by some big corporation to do so.
This is insulting. I develop commercial software for living and we DO NOT stick bugs in it do get people to buy upgrades and we are always honest about our bugs and shortcomings.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I meant is, it is commonplace for software vendors to ship software with hundreds of known bugs without fixing them. This is well documented, just check out BugNet. If you havn't read The Software Conspiracy by Mark Minasi, I'd recommend checking it out. He does a very good job of pointing out just how fsck'ed the commercial software world can get.
We are very quality oriented and have some of the best developers on the team I ever had a chance to work with. No commercial software needn't be bad or expensive. It is all a matter of managers' attitudes.
Well, good for you. Allow me to clarify: of course not all companies are like that, but it is business as usual, sadly.
Hmm... I wonder what we'll do when DVD Audio comes out? Would it even be feasible to brute force it, say, over the Internet with a distributed processing project? I dunno... 128 bits. Is that even crackable?
esr posted a rather scathing rebuttal to the DVD CCA on OpenDVD.org here. He even went so far as calling them frauds and liars. True, though. Check it out, deffinately a good read.
Well perhaps I'm a little behind the times then... when I tried it out yes, there were many utilities available, but other than some cheesy shareware, I couldn't find many more quality programs for it. Perhaps that's lessened; it's been a little while :)
I may be wrong about this (not a cryptographic expert...), but 40 bit encryption keys can be brute-forced in seconds on an average PC, can't they? I'm sure they wouldn't have had any trouble setting up a distributed processing thing otherwise, anyways (I'd join :).
And even if it wasn't illegal, it was deffinately foul play. They used an unfair advantage, a monopoly in the desktop market, by not allowing users to uninstall IE. They also threatened any OEMs who preloaded NS on their machines. This may not be illegal per se, but it was one of the examples against MS in the FoF, so one would be led to believe it is illegal.
MS did not neccessarily beat Netscape by giving away their browser. They beat them by unfairly using their monopoly on the desktop market against them by integrating IE into Windows and preventing the users from uninstalling it. They also threatened any OEM that preloaded NS on their machines. Microsoft beat Netscape by misusing their monopoly to smother them. Giving away the IE browser only contributed to that.
I use both Borland and g++. How could you possibly compare these two? Borland is for Windows. G++ is for Linux. Two completely different platforms; they aren't in competition. Now, sometimes commercial software is better. I'll probably pick up a copy of Code Fusion sometime--because there really isn't an Open alternative that's better.
The vital difference between commercial and open source software is that the latter is dedicated to code quality, while the former is dedicated to their bottom line. Commercial venders knowingly ship software with hundreds of bugs--and they usually never intend to fix them. If you report a bug to an open Source project, it will eventually be fixed.
The point I am finally meandering to is that open source will not be the death of commercial software. Not likely. But for certain types of programs, you just can't trust closed source. Esr puts it better than I.