they have forced enough stuff to the i.t. world already, its time they adapt their ways to what majority wants. Does the majority want ODF support though? It doesn't seem that way.
I love 'paid Microsoft shill' comments. Ignoring the fact that the GP merely asked a simple question and didn't actually make a defense of any part of Microsoft, it kind of ignores the reality of the situation which is that the only reason that Linux doesn't have paid shills is because everything about Linux is free.
Thanks for reminding us how easy it is to be physically threatening when you're hiding behind a computer screen.
I'd say grow up, but I've seen kids with more mature attitudes than yours. Instead, if I were you I would go see a psychiatrist about those violent tendencies. Oddly enough, buying something you don't like isn't a good reason to attack someone.
He's just pointing out how his wife has formed her opinion on what more secure alternatives there are to Windows based on the Apple advertising she has seen. Quite right.
The point is that his wife perceives that Microsoft Vista has difficulty of use due to its security band-aids (all those dialogs) and that the Mac is much simpler Aren't you contradicting yourself? She's only seen that advertisement, not used Vista - so surely she's forming her opinion on the former and not the latter?
So why, oh being of infinite wisdom, can I not buy games for Linux?
If Linux is so obviously superior, and all the major makers are on board, and Microsoft is all about 'intentional waste', why is Assassin's Creed not coming to a distro near you?
how hard is it to type "sudo apt-get install xxxxxx" How hard is it to realise that not every problem on Linux can be solved be installing vetted software?
It's even hosted on Microsoft's site! How much more of an authoritative source do you need? How about some actual tests instead? I love how your absolute proof that DRM causes global warming and cripples Vista's security is that Vista's DRM implementation uses CPU cycles. Holy fuck! A program that runs and has to use CPU cycles! It's the end of the world I tell you!
Where's the technical data that this happens at any point that the appropriate media is not being played? Where's the proof? Since when did anybody on Slashdot take a Microsoft PR presentation as technical proof of anything?
Now, quit acting like a four year old. Pull your fingers out of your ears and quit singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala." Wow... just wow. Just in case you actually forgot what you were arguing was true: "This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that... nothing continues to happen." Now point to me where in any of the items you linked you proved that assertion. Anywhere. So far we have "encryption uses CPU cycles", "DRM is always broken in the end" and "ATI passes the cost of implementing DRM on video cards to the consumer". You have failed, over and over, to link directly to the paragraphs and papers that prove that point, instead trying to lead the conversation on a merry dance in order to continually accuse me of not reading any of Guttman's papers.
So, for the final time - link me to the research that has been done, by you or Guttman, that proves that Vista's DRM implementation polls your equipment 30 times per second even when DRMed content isn't being played, or shut the hell up.
Next time, do some honest research before shooting off your mouth. Irony - not just for ironmongers.
I've got the Powerpoint Gutmann links to open right now. Except it's not linked at all, hence why I couldn't find it. I note that you couldn't be bothered to link to it either, which was very kind of you. It's not surprising that people like myself are having trouble sourcing his information. So, yes, we have a source for this, and thank you very much for the 'help'. So ATI are passing the cost of implementing the DRM solution to their consumers - so apparently we have yet another reason why DRM in Vista is insecure and badly implemented.
Oh no, wait, we don't.
Ugh. No, it's not. Gutmann simply cites both specific examples and expert opinions why Microsoft's DRM simply does not and cannot work. Except he says he's arguing cost analysis, load analysis, and other technical analyses and therefore whether DRM should be implemented or not, or whether it works or not, isn't actually relevant. At all. This is the problem - the entire paper is "Someone said this, someone said that, DRM doesn't work" which is suddenly transformed into a technical argument as to why DRM bogs down Vista, is insecure, and causes more issues than it fixes. The argument isn't even remotely congruous. There is still zero evidence in either paper for any technical reason why the DRM in Vista causes any problem to users of the operating system other than preventing the play of DRMed content at high quality unless a certain set of conditions is met.
Your failure to recognize the difference between wishful thinking and the reality of what has happened historically leads me to believe that you might just be a Microsoft shill. This is where I stopped reading. If it's that hard for you to make the mental distinction between "paid shill" and "someone who happens to disagree with you" then you're not worth the effort of teaching you the apparently more difficult difference between "shouldn't be implemented" and "is implemented poorly".
Hey, give him a break - I don't agree with some of his views, so I'm pretty sure I must be some vile Microsoft-employed fuck who only comes on Slashdot to lie repeatedly in order to debunk his insightful words. Therefore, I am deserving of his disdain and insults!
Twitter! Erris! Whichever one you are today! Come hither and molest me with your Mighty Free Software Penis(tm)! Or you know, that other thing, the shutting up and dying thing. Actually, definitely that one.
I'll try this again - it doesn't matter what Gutmann's updated paper says. He cited his original, poorly-researched paper up for 9 months, a paper that was written from no Vista experience whatsoever, a paper that he wrote citing blog and forum posts as evidence. However, just to humour you, I read the updated presentation.
"These costs are passed on to the consumer" What strikes me is that he quotes this ATI PR man but he fails to cite where he gets this quote from. In fact, the top 20 Google searches all reference back to his paper, or people who quote his paper. Can you give me a link to where this was supposedly said, because Gutmann doesn't supply it.
Strange, don't you think?
In fact, he relentlessly hammers home the fact that/all/ efforts to protect the distribution of content have broken down sooner rather than later. Which is still argument from a moral perspective faked as a technical viewpoint.
Worse, Vista's DRM model actually actively cripples its security model in key ways. Details in the paper. There's no detail in the paper. It links to a debate on an MSDN blog about driver certification and what it achieves, and describes a completely theoretical attack where someone fools the OS in to thinking a video is DRMed content, meaning content degradation is applied to it.
Having read through this 'updated' presentation, it is still practically starved of any technical information about how MFPMP.exe works and which parts of it are vulnerable or heavy. He provides Microsoft presentation slides as 'illustration only', then uses them to try and prove a point, thus failing to understand what 'illustration only' actually means. Ou and others actually go ahead and provide real, documented evidence of the DRM system working exactly how Microsoft have said it does, to which Gutmann replies "Oh, they're working from an outdated paper". The news for him here is his new paper provides nothing new or concrete whatsoever to prove his claims.
The sooner people move on from the bumph that this 'professional paranoid' (his words, not mine) peddles, the better.
I have been through all Gutmanns material. At the time of writing the paper he had zero experience of Vista use, instead relying on comments made on websites and in forums to base his entire paper. The fact that he modified his paper 9 months later seems a little like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, don't you?
As for the list of 'key quotes', Gutmann fails to address any of the points that Ou actually raised, instead claiming he was working from an outdated edition of his presentation. This is irrelevant as he well knows - he needs to address why he's uses blog postings from Karel Donk and others, as a basis to make horrendously inaccurate claims about the DRM technology. A large proportion of the claims he's made have been proven false by Ou and others, but Gutmann is more prepared to attack Ou's method of arguing his points than the actual points themselves.
I have no qualms about Gutmann arguing against DRM from a moral/ethical standpoint, if he so wishes. However, from a technical standpoint his points are almost totally baseless.
To clarify to be completely accurate, if you play MP3s using Windows Media Player, it sets off the path but doesn't protect the content unless the flag is enabled, and average CPU usage is less than 1%.
If you play an MP3 using any other software, the path doesn't trigger at all.
I didn't knew it was such an issue, sounds weird that it would fuck things up when not needed. It's not and it doesn't. GP is probably sourcing all his 'knowledge' from the Peter Guttman affair which was inaccurate from the start.
I'm actually running Vista and it doesn't set off the media path when you just play an MP3.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you post a link to something that is debunked in the very first reply?
That's right - because nobody who loves Linux could ever think you're wrong!
Of course he does, because political issues can only be seen in terms of absolutes - there's no middle ground whatsoever.
That was sarcasm, in case you need that explained to you too.
There's actually a line between exercising your politics and just being a cunt, and I'd wager you haven't the faintest idea where it is.
To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
I love 'paid Microsoft shill' comments. Ignoring the fact that the GP merely asked a simple question and didn't actually make a defense of any part of Microsoft, it kind of ignores the reality of the situation which is that the only reason that Linux doesn't have paid shills is because everything about Linux is free.
Especially the shilling.
Thanks for reminding us how easy it is to be physically threatening when you're hiding behind a computer screen.
I'd say grow up, but I've seen kids with more mature attitudes than yours. Instead, if I were you I would go see a psychiatrist about those violent tendencies. Oddly enough, buying something you don't like isn't a good reason to attack someone.
So why, oh being of infinite wisdom, can I not buy games for Linux?
If Linux is so obviously superior, and all the major makers are on board, and Microsoft is all about 'intentional waste', why is Assassin's Creed not coming to a distro near you?
No, really. You're the same person.
Give up.
Gah, I need more sleep!
It's forced down your throat because you couldn't be bothered to source a laptop from anywhere but CC?
Give me a break.
...but you must be new here.
I think you missed this.
Where's the technical data that this happens at any point that the appropriate media is not being played? Where's the proof? Since when did anybody on Slashdot take a Microsoft PR presentation as technical proof of anything? Now, quit acting like a four year old. Pull your fingers out of your ears and quit singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala." Wow... just wow. Just in case you actually forgot what you were arguing was true: "This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that... nothing continues to happen." Now point to me where in any of the items you linked you proved that assertion. Anywhere. So far we have "encryption uses CPU cycles", "DRM is always broken in the end" and "ATI passes the cost of implementing DRM on video cards to the consumer". You have failed, over and over, to link directly to the paragraphs and papers that prove that point, instead trying to lead the conversation on a merry dance in order to continually accuse me of not reading any of Guttman's papers.
So, for the final time - link me to the research that has been done, by you or Guttman, that proves that Vista's DRM implementation polls your equipment 30 times per second even when DRMed content isn't being played, or shut the hell up. Next time, do some honest research before shooting off your mouth. Irony - not just for ironmongers.
Oh no, wait, we don't. Ugh. No, it's not. Gutmann simply cites both specific examples and expert opinions why Microsoft's DRM simply does not and cannot work. Except he says he's arguing cost analysis, load analysis, and other technical analyses and therefore whether DRM should be implemented or not, or whether it works or not, isn't actually relevant. At all. This is the problem - the entire paper is "Someone said this, someone said that, DRM doesn't work" which is suddenly transformed into a technical argument as to why DRM bogs down Vista, is insecure, and causes more issues than it fixes. The argument isn't even remotely congruous. There is still zero evidence in either paper for any technical reason why the DRM in Vista causes any problem to users of the operating system other than preventing the play of DRMed content at high quality unless a certain set of conditions is met. Your failure to recognize the difference between wishful thinking and the reality of what has happened historically leads me to believe that you might just be a Microsoft shill. This is where I stopped reading. If it's that hard for you to make the mental distinction between "paid shill" and "someone who happens to disagree with you" then you're not worth the effort of teaching you the apparently more difficult difference between "shouldn't be implemented" and "is implemented poorly".
Hey, give him a break - I don't agree with some of his views, so I'm pretty sure I must be some vile Microsoft-employed fuck who only comes on Slashdot to lie repeatedly in order to debunk his insightful words. Therefore, I am deserving of his disdain and insults!
Twitter! Erris! Whichever one you are today! Come hither and molest me with your Mighty Free Software Penis(tm)! Or you know, that other thing, the shutting up and dying thing. Actually, definitely that one.
(I shouldn't post when I've had 3 hours sleep)
Got anything relevant to add, Twitter, or did you just want to throw a tantrum?
Strange, don't you think? In fact, he relentlessly hammers home the fact that
Having read through this 'updated' presentation, it is still practically starved of any technical information about how MFPMP.exe works and which parts of it are vulnerable or heavy. He provides Microsoft presentation slides as 'illustration only', then uses them to try and prove a point, thus failing to understand what 'illustration only' actually means. Ou and others actually go ahead and provide real, documented evidence of the DRM system working exactly how Microsoft have said it does, to which Gutmann replies "Oh, they're working from an outdated paper". The news for him here is his new paper provides nothing new or concrete whatsoever to prove his claims.
The sooner people move on from the bumph that this 'professional paranoid' (his words, not mine) peddles, the better.
I have been through all Gutmanns material. At the time of writing the paper he had zero experience of Vista use, instead relying on comments made on websites and in forums to base his entire paper. The fact that he modified his paper 9 months later seems a little like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, don't you?
As for the list of 'key quotes', Gutmann fails to address any of the points that Ou actually raised, instead claiming he was working from an outdated edition of his presentation. This is irrelevant as he well knows - he needs to address why he's uses blog postings from Karel Donk and others, as a basis to make horrendously inaccurate claims about the DRM technology. A large proportion of the claims he's made have been proven false by Ou and others, but Gutmann is more prepared to attack Ou's method of arguing his points than the actual points themselves.
I have no qualms about Gutmann arguing against DRM from a moral/ethical standpoint, if he so wishes. However, from a technical standpoint his points are almost totally baseless.
To clarify to be completely accurate, if you play MP3s using Windows Media Player, it sets off the path but doesn't protect the content unless the flag is enabled, and average CPU usage is less than 1%.
If you play an MP3 using any other software, the path doesn't trigger at all.
I'm actually running Vista and it doesn't set off the media path when you just play an MP3.