"Countries across the world have managed for centuries with both a reasonable level of security and a strong standard of liberty, without blatantly violating basic human rights laws. No-one has yet demonstrated that the threat today is somehow greater than what we have faced in the past."
Really? You must have had different history books than I had in school.
You are absolutely right. If they wanted to be truly transparent they would follow all laws. But are yuo willing to pay for the security you want, the liberty you demand, and still having them following all laws?
There are a lot more rabid M$ zealots... just look at the corporate IT department. They win by numbers alone. And are far more stupid than the Linux zealots.
Don't try to pick a fight on Linux vs Microsoft and think for one monent it's all a few extreme OSS nerd's faults for everything in the computing world. Dumb people are the fault... both sides have plenty of them.
I've seen the very same attitude problems in the Windows community as well. Go talk to a Windows only IT shop and just say the word "Linux" and run outta there as fast as you. You know what I'm talking about.
It's really no different than the massive political idiots that simply pick a team they are comfortable with.
I've been using Unix's and Windows since before the web, and have been using Linux at home as a server for almost 7 years. I'm a strong Linux and OSS supporter yet 4 out of 5 computers in my home run Windows. I tried several times to use Linux as my primary desktop and it wasn't good enough for me. The reason isn't necessarily all familiarity and learning curve issues. It's that all distros are poorly integrated. This is where M$ is kicking butt. Every app has a different look and feel. If you want to change the look and feel of the desktop you gotta change it in four different places. It gets even worse if you want to download a new color them. How do I configure my device? I dunno.. try one of the three "System Admin" menus scattered in different places. I'm sure it makes great sense to the person that knows how and why the distro was assembled, but it is useless to how a user uses a computer.
The problem isn't even the quality and availability of OSS applications or the capability of the OS. It's really an issue of poor ownership of the final product you ship to the end user. I got excited when I heard Apple was going to use an OSS operating system. I thought they'd return their great integration work back to the world. They don't have to and it's fine that they didn't. But for a moment I thought, "Apple is the one company that really knows how to produce exactly what common users want." I was really excited they were going to pull together the best Linux distro ever... or should I say the first?:)
Scott
Actually.. DVI does *not* support HDCP. HDMI support DVI + HDCP.
And DVI and HDMI are not the exact same standard. HDMI allows or permits the DVI signal to be carried on it. It's a technical nit.. but HDMI is much more than DVI.
I'm not familiar with UDI. COuld you post a link to the spec or an overview of it?
HDMI is a superset of DVI. You lost nothing by going to DVI, but potentially gain more by going to HDMI.
Here's the history. DVI is the hardware physically interface for flat panel displays that grew out of laptops. HDMI is a new interface that grew out of the home theater industry. It includes an insane bandwidth to support DVI signals that are not even conceivable today and 8 full studio quality channels of uncrompressed audio. The intent of HDMI is to replace the huge mess of analog cables in our home theater equipment. DVI is a computer standard for flat panel displays only.
HDMI does not inherently include HDCP. The specific is a bit loose in the way people interpret it. HDMI is the physical standard, HDCP is essentially a data layer standard. It's the same as wondering why you only get two channel audio if you use an SPDIF interface (AC-3/Dolby Digital). Sure, SPDIF can carry full 5.1 audio, but that doesn't mean it has to. This is the same with HDMI and HDCP.
What I think most people are confused or frustrated with is some displays say HDMI support, and don't tell you that they require HDPC as well. You gotta figure that one out by visiting forums.
There are things that are harder to measure. Like guaranteeing the company will be around for X number of years, buying bulk support up front for your needs, etc. Those are the biggest reasons that most products are chosen on the projects I work on.
I'm certain there are others. But my real point, as you also supported, is that there are reasons that don't make sense when taken in isolation, but make great sense when looking at the whole. Which many times really irks the nerds (like me) when we gotta deal with junky software when much better OSS is out there.
What bugs me most though, is that you can pay for the same things with OSS. They just choose not to because they don't understand the business model. Which is OK I guess.
We have been burned hard before by too loose adoption of OSS. I still strongly support the use of OSS when I can sneak it in, but I believe in wise choice and applicaition of it.
Anyway.. there is no absolute right answer to this argument. Each organization needs to choose on their own what works best for them. If you are changing quickly and don't have a huge deployment or long support cycle, go with tons of OSS.
I used to think that way for a long time, and still partly do. But as I deploy more enterprises for our customers I've learned that an engineer's motivations and how business really work do not align very well. I used to get all bent out of shape when a certain development product was decided by upper management with absolutely no consideration for that product's ability to solve the problem the engineers are charged with solving. As I get greater insight into the real motivations for these decisions I'm starting to agree with them. I just accept the tools provided, and do the best I can. We've never failed to deploy because a tool sucked, we just grumble loudly and that's about it.
This may sound like a tangent, but it's really related to the same reason why OSS is avoided. Things like Jakarta are great, but other OSS's projects really do suck from a deployment perspective. How many times do we have to rework things because another latest and greatest OSS thing comes out that looses all steam and support a year or two later? Our customers have no problem dumping huge $$ on a company to make sure the product stays supported for years to come. It's actually cheaper, much easier to manage, and significantly reduces operational risks. Although immensely frustrating at times being one of the engineers that has to deal with a crappy product when significantly better OSS exists.
The real reason why OSS isn't used is more to do with making sure you have someone that will be there to continue supporting the product for the full lifecycle of your deployment.
You're absolutely right. In the fear of not making instantaneous progress, we should not attempt progress at all.
It's easy to buy the car you drive that took a century to develop.
Slashdot Mirror
"Countries across the world have managed for centuries with both a reasonable level of security and a strong standard of liberty, without blatantly violating basic human rights laws. No-one has yet demonstrated that the threat today is somehow greater than what we have faced in the past." Really? You must have had different history books than I had in school.
You are absolutely right. If they wanted to be truly transparent they would follow all laws. But are yuo willing to pay for the security you want, the liberty you demand, and still having them following all laws?
There are a lot more rabid M$ zealots... just look at the corporate IT department. They win by numbers alone. And are far more stupid than the Linux zealots. Don't try to pick a fight on Linux vs Microsoft and think for one monent it's all a few extreme OSS nerd's faults for everything in the computing world. Dumb people are the fault... both sides have plenty of them.
I've seen the very same attitude problems in the Windows community as well. Go talk to a Windows only IT shop and just say the word "Linux" and run outta there as fast as you. You know what I'm talking about. It's really no different than the massive political idiots that simply pick a team they are comfortable with.
I've been using Unix's and Windows since before the web, and have been using Linux at home as a server for almost 7 years. I'm a strong Linux and OSS supporter yet 4 out of 5 computers in my home run Windows. I tried several times to use Linux as my primary desktop and it wasn't good enough for me. The reason isn't necessarily all familiarity and learning curve issues. It's that all distros are poorly integrated. This is where M$ is kicking butt. Every app has a different look and feel. If you want to change the look and feel of the desktop you gotta change it in four different places. It gets even worse if you want to download a new color them. How do I configure my device? I dunno.. try one of the three "System Admin" menus scattered in different places. I'm sure it makes great sense to the person that knows how and why the distro was assembled, but it is useless to how a user uses a computer. The problem isn't even the quality and availability of OSS applications or the capability of the OS. It's really an issue of poor ownership of the final product you ship to the end user. I got excited when I heard Apple was going to use an OSS operating system. I thought they'd return their great integration work back to the world. They don't have to and it's fine that they didn't. But for a moment I thought, "Apple is the one company that really knows how to produce exactly what common users want." I was really excited they were going to pull together the best Linux distro ever... or should I say the first? :)
Scott
Actually.. DVI does *not* support HDCP. HDMI support DVI + HDCP. And DVI and HDMI are not the exact same standard. HDMI allows or permits the DVI signal to be carried on it. It's a technical nit.. but HDMI is much more than DVI. I'm not familiar with UDI. COuld you post a link to the spec or an overview of it?
HDMI is a superset of DVI. You lost nothing by going to DVI, but potentially gain more by going to HDMI. Here's the history. DVI is the hardware physically interface for flat panel displays that grew out of laptops. HDMI is a new interface that grew out of the home theater industry. It includes an insane bandwidth to support DVI signals that are not even conceivable today and 8 full studio quality channels of uncrompressed audio. The intent of HDMI is to replace the huge mess of analog cables in our home theater equipment. DVI is a computer standard for flat panel displays only.
This is a very interesting concept. Before I make any decisions about using this technique in the future, I better sleep on it.
HDMI does not inherently include HDCP. The specific is a bit loose in the way people interpret it. HDMI is the physical standard, HDCP is essentially a data layer standard. It's the same as wondering why you only get two channel audio if you use an SPDIF interface (AC-3/Dolby Digital). Sure, SPDIF can carry full 5.1 audio, but that doesn't mean it has to. This is the same with HDMI and HDCP. What I think most people are confused or frustrated with is some displays say HDMI support, and don't tell you that they require HDPC as well. You gotta figure that one out by visiting forums.
There are things that are harder to measure. Like guaranteeing the company will be around for X number of years, buying bulk support up front for your needs, etc. Those are the biggest reasons that most products are chosen on the projects I work on. I'm certain there are others. But my real point, as you also supported, is that there are reasons that don't make sense when taken in isolation, but make great sense when looking at the whole. Which many times really irks the nerds (like me) when we gotta deal with junky software when much better OSS is out there. What bugs me most though, is that you can pay for the same things with OSS. They just choose not to because they don't understand the business model. Which is OK I guess. We have been burned hard before by too loose adoption of OSS. I still strongly support the use of OSS when I can sneak it in, but I believe in wise choice and applicaition of it. Anyway.. there is no absolute right answer to this argument. Each organization needs to choose on their own what works best for them. If you are changing quickly and don't have a huge deployment or long support cycle, go with tons of OSS.
I used to think that way for a long time, and still partly do. But as I deploy more enterprises for our customers I've learned that an engineer's motivations and how business really work do not align very well. I used to get all bent out of shape when a certain development product was decided by upper management with absolutely no consideration for that product's ability to solve the problem the engineers are charged with solving. As I get greater insight into the real motivations for these decisions I'm starting to agree with them. I just accept the tools provided, and do the best I can. We've never failed to deploy because a tool sucked, we just grumble loudly and that's about it. This may sound like a tangent, but it's really related to the same reason why OSS is avoided. Things like Jakarta are great, but other OSS's projects really do suck from a deployment perspective. How many times do we have to rework things because another latest and greatest OSS thing comes out that looses all steam and support a year or two later? Our customers have no problem dumping huge $$ on a company to make sure the product stays supported for years to come. It's actually cheaper, much easier to manage, and significantly reduces operational risks. Although immensely frustrating at times being one of the engineers that has to deal with a crappy product when significantly better OSS exists.
The real reason why OSS isn't used is more to do with making sure you have someone that will be there to continue supporting the product for the full lifecycle of your deployment.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I'd like to see a rebate from M$ for all the damage in the IT world because of their crappy software.
You're absolutely right. In the fear of not making instantaneous progress, we should not attempt progress at all. It's easy to buy the car you drive that took a century to develop.