It seems like Linux is now becoming a major competitor to Windows and Mac on the desktop. It hac come a long way. With the advancment of binaries like.deb,.rpm,.bin, and scripts it is getting easier and easier to install things on linux. Wine has gotten so that most Windows software with exception to some games and programs that need drivers will run. I can easily run IE, WMP, Shockwave, the latest Flash, Outlook Express, Office, and the like. More and more hardware vendors have been supporting linux. The winmodem problem seems to have been solved not by the development of drivers (though that has happened) but by the spread of broadband and ethernet. WiFi support has improved. Gaim has IM covered. Firefox's spread has helped linux be able to read more web pages by discouraging IE only pages. OOo has goten good at dealing with office documents. iPods work. Flash and Java and MP3 and Real are all supported. The only real problems are legal DVD support and legal WMA and Quicktime support. There are games on linux. What is missing, we need OEMs.
I have put Firefox on my grandmothers PC, my parents PC, my brothers PC, and a few friend's PCs. They all liked it. I use it myself. One day, my teacher at school brought in a laptop that had a horrible case of spyware on it and asked me to fix it. I tried but Windows kept crashing. I told her I could format and reinstall, but we would need the disk. She decited that would be OK, and I put Ubuntu on it as "something to use while we wait for MS to send a new CD." She though Ubuntu would work just the same and since she didn't have any windows only items. I showed her how to use Thunderbird, Firefox, OOo, Gimp, Gaim, VLC, Gedit, Synaptic, the media players, and put a copy of WMP, IE, Outlook Express, DCOM98, Flash 9, Shockwave, Quicktime, and other stuff on there with Wine and told her I could try to install other windows stuff if she needed it. I put Java, Flash, and multimedia stuff on there. She used it for a while and said her son also used it when he went on vacations.
I also have been advocating the use of Firefox, OOo, and Linux itself on the school's computers. I just tell them that FF is less likely to get hijacked and nobody will really care if you switch. I tell them OOo is almost the same as office, and they can spend that money on other stuff (hell, if all their new computers saved on the cost of licensing by using OOo instead, they could buy more RAM so that we wouldn't have to suffer with 256 MB.) I have asked for GIMP on the PCs because paint seems to have issues with any non-BMP format on their PCs. Our school is upset because kids mess with the computer settings (sure they're limited acounts, but when has that ever stopped anyone) and they want all new PCs to be thin clients. I try to tell them that with Ubuntu, they wouldn't have to worry about kids messing with stuff because all they are allowed to modify is stuff in the home folder. I also tell them they wont need to pay money for Windows and that a Samba server could suite their needs as well as the pricy Windows server would. They don't listen, but our district is in debt and a tad understaffed in the tech area, so they just might.
It is funny. Everyone in the world hates XP but everyone uses it. From a technical perspective, it is inferior to Linux and Mac by a long shot, and it is an antique in the software world, yet everyone uses it. It is like the station wagon of OS's. Nobody really thinks it looks good, but most think they need one. I personally use Linux for most of my work, but I have a windows partion.
NOt that MS cares that everyone hates their software. They know most will either use it and the few that don't will buy a PC with a license to it and just not use it (though you can tell a computer store that you refuse to accept the MS EULA and they will sometimes refund it.) I imagine some of them also hate their own software, but uglyness sells. People won't use MacOS because it requires them to purchase a Mac computer which is a lot more expensive, and Mac tends to decide to kill backwards compatability every 10 minutes. Also, Mac has more competition with the other hardware vendors than it has with MS. Until it unlocks its software, OSX will not compeate with XP. As for linux, people just haven't heard of it. Linux now is "desktop ready" with distros like Ubuntu, Linspire, Freespire, XandrOS, SuSE, Fedora, MEPIS, PC-BSD, and Madrivia all being easy to use. The one thing that prevents it is so few have heard of Linux and those that have still have the whole "it is hard to use" myth in their heads. Canoical, Linspire, Red Hat, Xandros, Novel, and Madrivia all need to advertise or something as word of mouth just won't work.
I am a linux user, and I hope linux does make it big. We could handle the responcibilty of being the dominant OS better than MS.
Well, what is the point of education? To make you employeeable. India's economy is very weak, America's is very strong. Why? Because Indea spends what little money it has on education or on regulations. America certainly has little to learn from a 3rd world country. Can you think of much use for education other than to have a job? It is worthless otherwise.
And if you think about it, linux will kill the tech support section of their tech industry, it is so reliable.:)
Microsoft is intending to make Vista an impulse purchase. They are banking on people seeing it run on new high end PCs and thinking "that looks better than what I have" and buying an upgrade. They hope people don't notice until they buy it that it provides crappy performance on their old high end graphics chip. MS needs to learn from Apples mistakes, pretty doesn't sell. The Mac GUI is prettier than XP, but it tends to do obnoxious things with eye candy and people like the familiar windows feel. Perhaps linux has learned from this, as most of their desktop environments like KDE and Gnome do plenty well on resonable hardware, and you have Xgl and Looking Glass for those that just want eye candy.
Just like the NSA spying program, if this gets results, who cares? I can tell you who doesn't, the general public. The general public cares more about child abuse then they care about privacy. In truth, Shashdot users are a minority. most people don't care so much about themselves. This actually could stop child porn. We know the NSA terrorist servalence did assist in stopping that transatlantic plain bombing and has thus far prevented any attacks on US soil, so it will continue while it is still working. If it works, then it will continue.
Doesn't NetBSD still use the old "advertising clause?" In that case it is not compatable. Why not use FreeBSD instead? Well, the biggest issue with this is people "know" what linux is. People don't know BSD as well. We can't just call it "Linux" as that name is trademarked. Loosing the word linux is actually a huge loss for the GNU project. It might be easier to just relicense everything else besides the kernel under GPL 3. How important is the license of the kernel if the rest of the OS is GPL 3. RMS may be a bit overzelous when it comes to FOSS, but he is certainly right on DRM. It cannot be tolerated.
Even though I imagine an RPM or DEB package could do the same thing, linux still has repositories. You can assume if it is in the origional repos it is safe.
It seems that Google has gotten more attention for doing rather minor things just because they have the motto "Don't be evil". Google really does a good job of not being evil. Look at it this way. Google's summer of code has tremendously helped both new programers and FOSS alike. They helped several linux projects (famously for doing so with Ubuntu) along. They ported Google earth to linux. They ported picasa and helped Wine out a lot. They support the open Jabber protocol. They help Gaim. They have several webified apps. They support Firefox and ported their toolbar to Linux. They have encouraged the use of nonobnoxious text ads. They clearly disclose privacy information. They even fought with the government over disclosing this information (for those of you who are obsesivly parinoid, I though I would mention that). They have been a famous example of the power of Linux in buisness. Even their deals with China aren't evil. What do you think China would have done if Google refused to compromise. Would they have been like "OMG we much change to suit Google" or could they possibly have just said, "Hell, screw Google, just block em"? At least they get some information throught Google and MSN and Yahoo sure as hell did it too. WHat "evil" have they done? They hired a questionable company? So what? Guess what they are probably doing with this lobbying firm? They are probably fighting for net neutrality with this firm.
Do you have any evidence that your privacy was violated? It is at best foolish and at worst parinoid to think that just because the government has said that they wiretap terrorist that it means they wiretap you. Personnaly, I doubt special agents have been assigned by the NSA to track my conversations with my Grandmother. I imagine if I called up Osama right now they might get curious as to what we are chatting about, but how many of you need to comunicate with mass murderers in secrecy? As for your right to life, if you haven't noticed, why the fuck do you thing the government wiretaps. If it hasn't occoured to you, they wiretap to protect your right to life. Now which do you prefere, to risk having your conversation with a known terrorist tapped, or to be blown to billions of tiny peaces by the real "bad guys". Hell, the Bush administration certainly isn't the most unconstitutional administration ever. It is nowere close to FDR. If you read history, you will know FDR's administration had several of their bills declared unconstitutional. After a while of this happening, FDR tried a "courtpacking" bill that would allow him to put more democrate judges into the court to stop the supreame court from killing various ND programs. That is a hugely unconstitutional thing. Then there was the Japaniese camps that were created by his administration during WWII. Unconstitutional. Government censorship of what troops can say? Possibly unconstitutional. The only thing that is even possibly unconstitutional thing Bush has does is wiretap. FDR made him look rather minor by comparison.
Oh, and the Clinton administration passed the DMCA didn't they? Really, on this issue, I doubt Bush cares.
I often hear of the Chicken and the Egg analogy used to explain why companies don't develop software for Linux. Perhaps this is the egg being laid. Trueth is, web apps, even those made by MS are good for Linux because they are always cross platform. Not to mention the fact that over the past few years linux has gone from being a difficult to use OS with little software avalible to it to becoming a high powered, easy to use OS with thousands and thousands of apps avalible for it. Years ago, I wouldn't have been able to play music, read office documents, browse SMB shares, watch DVDs, dial in a modem, use wifi or possably even print stuff. Now that is easily accomplished. Open Office, Gaim, Firefox, VLC, Libdvdcss2, and thousands of other programs have helped linux beyond belief. Interestingly enough, FOSS and open standards are actually helped by being used by people on Windows and Mac. Take Open Office, if more people use it, ODT gets more popular. Firefox has been a huge example of this. When I started using FF nobody seemed to support it because it had a low market share. Once it gained market share most web sites started to support it. Because FF is natively on Lin and Win it helped lin to have more people support a nonIE browser. Keep in mind, unlike windows, Linux is noncommercial. Linux doesn't need the desktop market to servive. It doesn't need to be good enough for you and me. It needs to be good enough for those who write it. This may sound bad, but it is actually good. It means it will give us a realistic chance to develop and we can't go out of buisness. In adition to all the Web apps, native ports, and alternativeware, we have wine. Wine can run most windows stuff pretty well and it is a nice option to have. It also helps people port software to linux.
Umm, isn't inovation suppossed to help people do things in a new, better, or quicker way? Digital Restrictions Managment is in a sense intended to be anti-inovative. It is not new (record and music companies have been trying to prevent duplication of art for years), it is not a better way of doing things (in my opinion, the best way of putting music on an MP3 player would be you plug it in, the PC sees it as a USB drive and mounts it, you drag and drop stuff on that you want. Far easier than syncing licenses), it tends to be buggy and require people to download licesnes, thus it is not quicker. DRM is the exact opposite of inovation.
Come to think of it, when was the last time the DRM companies (Apple and Microsoft) actually did anything truely "innovative" with any of their products? Very few companies inovate in that sense. It seemse like companies don't inovate any more.
Coming from a country where most of the major infrastructure (electricity, telephone, water... etc) is owned by the goverment,
I can tell you one thing for certain - Capitalism is an increadible proccess optimizer. A competitive market's benifits overcome it's limitations by several orders of a magnitude.
Hell, in America, a ton of crap is provided by the government. We pay for people's healthcare when they refuse to, we pay for people who refuse to get a job. We are pretty damn sociallistic. Imagine how effective America would be if we were a lasse faire with a free , nonsubsadized economy.
As for companies, all that needs to be done is for them to be liable for any security breaches that occoure if they are offering a commercial product (it would hurt FOSS if the no liability clause of nearly all FOSS licenses were usless) could be held liable for say 20x the price paid for the product that was deffective if a breach occoured. That damn well would encourage companies to not allow your privacy to be broken.
Yes, he has even registered a domain to support DeAACS the name of the planned hack. What is needed to keep the movie industry at bay is for DeACSS to break ACSS and have old players blacklisted so much that consumers will be furious. I on the other hand will probably resort to bittorrent, which should quickly become avalible as AACS seems like it is going to just be the music industry taking a massive shit on consumers.
if this patch were to open up a real security hole (as in hacker taking over PC security hole, not as in people being able to use their music in legal ways security hole) in Windows. That would rock if they were actually screwing consumers over even more by being the music industries bitch.
How come the concentration of wealth hasn't become a problem in the world's freeest market, The Special Administrative District of Hong Kong, often considered to have the world's only lasse faire economy does quite well and I have not heard of people starving their en mass even though their government doesn't deal with things like welfare and the like. They don't restrict their economy much at all and they are sucessful for it.
the key to me seems less regulation. Remove that pain in the ass DMCA regulation, and you would have many programmers who spent a lot of time defeating DRM until it totally died.
At some point, it starts to make more sense to buy a TV and use a TV cord for a computer. Put a turner card on it while your at it. Now that is a true media center computer.
Continues to fade away.
It won't be long before no one other than Apple and shareware are putting out native Mac apps.
Fire your Mac engineers and replace them with a README.TXT for Mac users directing them to run their app with BootCamp,Parallels, or Codeweavers. And pocket the savings.
Unless the opposite happens. CrossOver is based off of Darwine and Wine. Wine is licensed under the GNU Lesser Public License meaning unlike normal GPL stuff, you can link wine to closed sourced apps (or nonGPL open sourced) without having to license them under the GPL. That means that a company could use bits of Wine and Darwine code to port their Windows only apps to both Mac and Linux easily. Google used this method to port Picasa to Linux and I think a few other apps have been ported to Linux this way as well. CodeWeavers also will do this for programmers (in exchange for cash) as well. In the past, the Darwine version of Mac were limited to running on emulation software. This caused slowness. When Mac moved to x86, Darwine was able to run without QEMU. This is not a bad thing. It is obvious that Mac will never be the king of the desktop due to Apple locking their hardware (Mac doesn't just compeate with MS, in fact they probably compeate more with HP, Dell, IBM, Sony, Sun, Voodoo PC, Alienware, Koobox, AMD, Toshiba, and all the other hardware companies that OS 10 wont work on. The hardware market is a tought buisness, Be, Amiga, Atari, Commadore, and alot of other companies have already lost in it) but Mac still has plenty of potential.
Mac has more potential if it can run Windows software though, so does linux. Mac and Linux are "alternative" OS's, and alternatives are never a bad thing. Cross Over Mac gives you a choice, so does Darwine. Without them, you don't have the option to use Windows Apps unless you buy windows.
While native ports are best, and Darwine and Wine ease the creation of native ports, if there isn't a native port, a program on wine is better than no program.
I use Linux and I use Wine. Even though Wine exist, I dont rely on it for much as I normally have a native port of the app I want (Skype, Real Player, Flash, Java, AIM, Yahoo Messager, ect) or I have a superior alternative (OOo, Gimp, Gaim). Wine covers the rest (IE for testing pages, and I suppose if I needed MS Access, Quicken or another app I could use it for that).
This same debate occoured within the Linux camp. People critisized Wine claiming it would mean developers would not port things to Linux if it meant it already worked on wine. The reverse seemed to be true, a few companies have used Wine code (Google recently did so for Picasa) to port their apps to Linux. Linux seems to have far more software avalible to it than Mac though (true, Mac has more commercial software, but when you count all the nativly avalible FOSS software for Linux, Linux has more). Plus most devs know not everyone will buy a $100 copy of Windows just to run their software. I imagine most x86 Macs only run OSX, Boot Camp just gives them the choice to run something else too.
I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.
Do you really care how it works? Darwine has been avalible for Mac for a while now, the difference is since Macs now use X86 processors, Darwine can run at native speed. The only thing that will cause Mac devs to avoid Mac is the lack of backwards compatability. OS9 apps would not run on OS10 without the "classic" environment, and OS 10 PPC apps would not run on OS x86 and it is a pain for devs to compile for both. All boot camp does it give Mac users the ability to use Windows if they choose, and there are GASP, some people who recently switched to Macs because they can try Mac and switch back to Windows if they so choose.
Also I have been multibooting Linux and Windows for a while now, and thousands of people who switch from Windows to Linux multiboot. This has not stopped devs from porting apps to Linux, and there are thousands and thousands of Linux programs avalible. People do not just wake up one day and decide "you know what, I want to drop $1000 on pricy Mac hardware and never be able to do Windows stuff on it." They are much more likely to say "I guess I will pay more for this PC because even though Mac hardware cost a lot more, I can always still use my Windows software on it too." In order to get people to switch over to something, especially when it cost more money like Macs do, you have to be able to say "this can do everything the other PCs can and more!" you can't just say "This can do most of what the other stuff can do but it can do a few things the others can't."
There also will always be the people who don't like Mac and want to go back to Windows. At my school there are a few Macs (most computers are PCs though) and I decided to try one of them out. It had OSX on it and I did not really like it. I found the GUI for Mac obnoxious. It had way too much eye candy for my liking (and I am used to KDE so I like a little eye candy). It's little eye candy seemed to get in the way when I tried to browse the web or write a document. I also hated the lack of a second mouse button. I can see how someone might really like having a Mac. I know there is tons of image editing software and artistic stuff for Mac, and if I were into that I would get one. Mac reminded me of it's BSD cousins. Like most BSD stuff, Mac seemed to be specialized for specific task. Look at the other BSDs. FreeBSD can have increadible amounts of uptime, but it is lacking in the rate of upgrades to it. OpenBSD has better security than most OS's but most stuff has to manually be enabled. PC-BSD has the easiest installer I have ever seen, but there is so little software avalible for it. In Mac's case, it seems like it is really good with video and image editing, but I wouldn't want to do day to day work on one. Of course, I suppose Macs are the only computers that can tri-boot and have Windows, Mac, and Linux on the same platform.
Talk to a classical musician: ask her the price of a fine solo instrument, a piano, a violin. The basic tools of her profession.
True, for a small artist, music can be pricy. But do you really think that U2, Fallout Boy, and the like spend most of that on their instraments. I am guessing they spend more on their convertables that on their amps and guitars. Plus do you think it really cost the RIAA more money and time than the artist to make an album? A band can make a decent recording with a few thousand dollars, and they don't need to sell each CD for $20. If they are any good, they could sell a CD for $5 (if the RIAA didnt take a portion) and make well enough to live off of and record things. Add in concert cash and you have money.
Also, DRM cost a massive amount of cash to impliment. Which do you think cost, say Sony more, paying thousands and thousands of dollars to produce a rootkit based DRM and then get the crap sued out of you because it is spyware or piracy? Which do you think also cost Sony more, if they sell Blu-ray drives that will be unable to ever play Blu-Ray movies as they haven't created DRM for them yet, which will probably kill the Blu-Ray format too, or just sucking up any losses due to piracy and possibly beating HD-DVD in exchange and making money of of disk sales (remember, Sony is a media and hardware company).
Also, you can prevent piracy without DRM! Yahoo recently sold a few "watermarked" tunes. Instead of using DRM, they embeded a few bytes of code inside a standard MP3 file. This code wouldn't strip your rights from you, instead, it would simply allow them to trace the file to you if it was found on a P2P network.
DRM is also breakable, Windows DRM, iTunes DRM, DVD CSS, certain e-book DRM, rip guard DRM, Sony Rootkits, the XBox copy protection (and the 360's sort of has), the PS2 drm, the PS1 drm, and others have been broken. AACS will probably be defeated too. My grandma could learn to decrypt a DVD, it is very easy to do. You have a few media developers vs. millions of users, somebody in the millions will figure it out. It only takes time and skill. As for TC, would it ever be possible to either crack the TC checks that software does or to emulate the TC chip? I suppose it would.
Films don't have to have millions and millions of dollars in their budget. Look at the movies 16 Candles, The Breakfast Club, Napoleon Dynamite, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, as well as many others, they didn't spend insane amounts of money, but were very profitable. (Even if you don't like one of them, they made a profit dispite their resonably low budget.)
Well, of course, there are always theators and concerts, you cannot duplicate the experience of going on a date with your girlfriend to the movies or going and seeing your favorite band live in concert.
Paying for home desktop Linux just strikes me as....bizarre....Unless there is some significant advantage to this distribution
Well, keep in mind, Linspire is reasonably common (for Linux anyways) on OEM boxes. Koobox and other small PC manufacturers sell PCs with Linspire on them. It really isn't all that pricy (compaired to Windows) and it does have benefits. Legal DVD playback, MP3 support, WMA support, Flash, Java, graphics drivers, Winmodem stuff, Wi-Fi stuff, and other stuff comes out of the box (oddly, so does KQEMU I think). Freespire is similar, only it is free, community supported, and doesn't have some of the commercial stuff (though most is there). Keep in mind, most/. users could figure out how to install ATI drivers, libdvdcss, and MP3 codecs, but most non-geeks could not (and many wouldn't know what a driver or codec is). Freespire is also a Free (as in beer) distro that has proprietary stuff out of the box. True, I use Ubuntu, but that is because I know how to set up my graphics card and install codecs, but this may surprise some of you, not everyone wants to learn to use linux. Most people want their PC to check e-mail, IM friends, write documents, look at pictures, play music, and play games on. Few people want to do much else. Linspire accomplishes this just as well as any other OS or distro. Also, Linspire does support Open Source projects. As for them making a free distro, it is in no way new. Red Hat started Fedora, and in adition to Linspire, Novel Suse, Xandros, and Mandrivia all have community editions. As for money, OEM support ensures that if Koobox (and the Wal-Mart boxes with Linspire) stay in business then so will Linspire. They also make money via commission for Click N Buy, selling Linspire OS, and of course, tech support. They also have CNR Gold for discounts on Click N Buy and upgrading the regular Linspire OS requires you either buy an upgrade or have CNR gold for a full distribution upgrade (such as when 6.0 arrives).
Well, and of course, if you don't think spire is worth your money, don't buy it, if you think it is, do so.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like Linux is now becoming a major competitor to Windows and Mac on the desktop. It hac come a long way. With the advancment of binaries like .deb, .rpm, .bin, and scripts it is getting easier and easier to install things on linux. Wine has gotten so that most Windows software with exception to some games and programs that need drivers will run. I can easily run IE, WMP, Shockwave, the latest Flash, Outlook Express, Office, and the like. More and more hardware vendors have been supporting linux. The winmodem problem seems to have been solved not by the development of drivers (though that has happened) but by the spread of broadband and ethernet. WiFi support has improved. Gaim has IM covered. Firefox's spread has helped linux be able to read more web pages by discouraging IE only pages. OOo has goten good at dealing with office documents. iPods work. Flash and Java and MP3 and Real are all supported. The only real problems are legal DVD support and legal WMA and Quicktime support. There are games on linux. What is missing, we need OEMs.
I also have been advocating the use of Firefox, OOo, and Linux itself on the school's computers. I just tell them that FF is less likely to get hijacked and nobody will really care if you switch. I tell them OOo is almost the same as office, and they can spend that money on other stuff (hell, if all their new computers saved on the cost of licensing by using OOo instead, they could buy more RAM so that we wouldn't have to suffer with 256 MB.) I have asked for GIMP on the PCs because paint seems to have issues with any non-BMP format on their PCs. Our school is upset because kids mess with the computer settings (sure they're limited acounts, but when has that ever stopped anyone) and they want all new PCs to be thin clients. I try to tell them that with Ubuntu, they wouldn't have to worry about kids messing with stuff because all they are allowed to modify is stuff in the home folder. I also tell them they wont need to pay money for Windows and that a Samba server could suite their needs as well as the pricy Windows server would. They don't listen, but our district is in debt and a tad understaffed in the tech area, so they just might.
NOt that MS cares that everyone hates their software. They know most will either use it and the few that don't will buy a PC with a license to it and just not use it (though you can tell a computer store that you refuse to accept the MS EULA and they will sometimes refund it.) I imagine some of them also hate their own software, but uglyness sells. People won't use MacOS because it requires them to purchase a Mac computer which is a lot more expensive, and Mac tends to decide to kill backwards compatability every 10 minutes. Also, Mac has more competition with the other hardware vendors than it has with MS. Until it unlocks its software, OSX will not compeate with XP. As for linux, people just haven't heard of it. Linux now is "desktop ready" with distros like Ubuntu, Linspire, Freespire, XandrOS, SuSE, Fedora, MEPIS, PC-BSD, and Madrivia all being easy to use. The one thing that prevents it is so few have heard of Linux and those that have still have the whole "it is hard to use" myth in their heads. Canoical, Linspire, Red Hat, Xandros, Novel, and Madrivia all need to advertise or something as word of mouth just won't work.
I am a linux user, and I hope linux does make it big. We could handle the responcibilty of being the dominant OS better than MS.
And if you think about it, linux will kill the tech support section of their tech industry, it is so reliable. :)
Microsoft is intending to make Vista an impulse purchase. They are banking on people seeing it run on new high end PCs and thinking "that looks better than what I have" and buying an upgrade. They hope people don't notice until they buy it that it provides crappy performance on their old high end graphics chip. MS needs to learn from Apples mistakes, pretty doesn't sell. The Mac GUI is prettier than XP, but it tends to do obnoxious things with eye candy and people like the familiar windows feel. Perhaps linux has learned from this, as most of their desktop environments like KDE and Gnome do plenty well on resonable hardware, and you have Xgl and Looking Glass for those that just want eye candy.
Just like the NSA spying program, if this gets results, who cares? I can tell you who doesn't, the general public. The general public cares more about child abuse then they care about privacy. In truth, Shashdot users are a minority. most people don't care so much about themselves. This actually could stop child porn. We know the NSA terrorist servalence did assist in stopping that transatlantic plain bombing and has thus far prevented any attacks on US soil, so it will continue while it is still working. If it works, then it will continue.
Doesn't NetBSD still use the old "advertising clause?" In that case it is not compatable. Why not use FreeBSD instead? Well, the biggest issue with this is people "know" what linux is. People don't know BSD as well. We can't just call it "Linux" as that name is trademarked. Loosing the word linux is actually a huge loss for the GNU project. It might be easier to just relicense everything else besides the kernel under GPL 3. How important is the license of the kernel if the rest of the OS is GPL 3. RMS may be a bit overzelous when it comes to FOSS, but he is certainly right on DRM. It cannot be tolerated.
Even though I imagine an RPM or DEB package could do the same thing, linux still has repositories. You can assume if it is in the origional repos it is safe.
It seems that Google has gotten more attention for doing rather minor things just because they have the motto "Don't be evil". Google really does a good job of not being evil. Look at it this way. Google's summer of code has tremendously helped both new programers and FOSS alike. They helped several linux projects (famously for doing so with Ubuntu) along. They ported Google earth to linux. They ported picasa and helped Wine out a lot. They support the open Jabber protocol. They help Gaim. They have several webified apps. They support Firefox and ported their toolbar to Linux. They have encouraged the use of nonobnoxious text ads. They clearly disclose privacy information. They even fought with the government over disclosing this information (for those of you who are obsesivly parinoid, I though I would mention that). They have been a famous example of the power of Linux in buisness. Even their deals with China aren't evil. What do you think China would have done if Google refused to compromise. Would they have been like "OMG we much change to suit Google" or could they possibly have just said, "Hell, screw Google, just block em"? At least they get some information throught Google and MSN and Yahoo sure as hell did it too. WHat "evil" have they done? They hired a questionable company? So what? Guess what they are probably doing with this lobbying firm? They are probably fighting for net neutrality with this firm.
Do you have any evidence that your privacy was violated? It is at best foolish and at worst parinoid to think that just because the government has said that they wiretap terrorist that it means they wiretap you. Personnaly, I doubt special agents have been assigned by the NSA to track my conversations with my Grandmother. I imagine if I called up Osama right now they might get curious as to what we are chatting about, but how many of you need to comunicate with mass murderers in secrecy? As for your right to life, if you haven't noticed, why the fuck do you thing the government wiretaps. If it hasn't occoured to you, they wiretap to protect your right to life. Now which do you prefere, to risk having your conversation with a known terrorist tapped, or to be blown to billions of tiny peaces by the real "bad guys". Hell, the Bush administration certainly isn't the most unconstitutional administration ever. It is nowere close to FDR. If you read history, you will know FDR's administration had several of their bills declared unconstitutional. After a while of this happening, FDR tried a "courtpacking" bill that would allow him to put more democrate judges into the court to stop the supreame court from killing various ND programs. That is a hugely unconstitutional thing. Then there was the Japaniese camps that were created by his administration during WWII. Unconstitutional. Government censorship of what troops can say? Possibly unconstitutional. The only thing that is even possibly unconstitutional thing Bush has does is wiretap. FDR made him look rather minor by comparison.
Oh, and the Clinton administration passed the DMCA didn't they? Really, on this issue, I doubt Bush cares.
I often hear of the Chicken and the Egg analogy used to explain why companies don't develop software for Linux. Perhaps this is the egg being laid. Trueth is, web apps, even those made by MS are good for Linux because they are always cross platform. Not to mention the fact that over the past few years linux has gone from being a difficult to use OS with little software avalible to it to becoming a high powered, easy to use OS with thousands and thousands of apps avalible for it. Years ago, I wouldn't have been able to play music, read office documents, browse SMB shares, watch DVDs, dial in a modem, use wifi or possably even print stuff. Now that is easily accomplished. Open Office, Gaim, Firefox, VLC, Libdvdcss2, and thousands of other programs have helped linux beyond belief. Interestingly enough, FOSS and open standards are actually helped by being used by people on Windows and Mac. Take Open Office, if more people use it, ODT gets more popular. Firefox has been a huge example of this. When I started using FF nobody seemed to support it because it had a low market share. Once it gained market share most web sites started to support it. Because FF is natively on Lin and Win it helped lin to have more people support a nonIE browser. Keep in mind, unlike windows, Linux is noncommercial. Linux doesn't need the desktop market to servive. It doesn't need to be good enough for you and me. It needs to be good enough for those who write it. This may sound bad, but it is actually good. It means it will give us a realistic chance to develop and we can't go out of buisness. In adition to all the Web apps, native ports, and alternativeware, we have wine. Wine can run most windows stuff pretty well and it is a nice option to have. It also helps people port software to linux.
As for companies, all that needs to be done is for them to be liable for any security breaches that occoure if they are offering a commercial product (it would hurt FOSS if the no liability clause of nearly all FOSS licenses were usless) could be held liable for say 20x the price paid for the product that was deffective if a breach occoured. That damn well would encourage companies to not allow your privacy to be broken.
if this patch were to open up a real security hole (as in hacker taking over PC security hole, not as in people being able to use their music in legal ways security hole) in Windows. That would rock if they were actually screwing consumers over even more by being the music industries bitch.
the key to me seems less regulation. Remove that pain in the ass DMCA regulation, and you would have many programmers who spent a lot of time defeating DRM until it totally died.
At some point, it starts to make more sense to buy a TV and use a TV cord for a computer. Put a turner card on it while your at it. Now that is a true media center computer.
Mac has more potential if it can run Windows software though, so does linux. Mac and Linux are "alternative" OS's, and alternatives are never a bad thing. Cross Over Mac gives you a choice, so does Darwine. Without them, you don't have the option to use Windows Apps unless you buy windows.
While native ports are best, and Darwine and Wine ease the creation of native ports, if there isn't a native port, a program on wine is better than no program.
I use Linux and I use Wine. Even though Wine exist, I dont rely on it for much as I normally have a native port of the app I want (Skype, Real Player, Flash, Java, AIM, Yahoo Messager, ect) or I have a superior alternative (OOo, Gimp, Gaim). Wine covers the rest (IE for testing pages, and I suppose if I needed MS Access, Quicken or another app I could use it for that).
Do you really care how it works? Darwine has been avalible for Mac for a while now, the difference is since Macs now use X86 processors, Darwine can run at native speed. The only thing that will cause Mac devs to avoid Mac is the lack of backwards compatability. OS9 apps would not run on OS10 without the "classic" environment, and OS 10 PPC apps would not run on OS x86 and it is a pain for devs to compile for both. All boot camp does it give Mac users the ability to use Windows if they choose, and there are GASP, some people who recently switched to Macs because they can try Mac and switch back to Windows if they so choose.
Also I have been multibooting Linux and Windows for a while now, and thousands of people who switch from Windows to Linux multiboot. This has not stopped devs from porting apps to Linux, and there are thousands and thousands of Linux programs avalible. People do not just wake up one day and decide "you know what, I want to drop $1000 on pricy Mac hardware and never be able to do Windows stuff on it." They are much more likely to say "I guess I will pay more for this PC because even though Mac hardware cost a lot more, I can always still use my Windows software on it too." In order to get people to switch over to something, especially when it cost more money like Macs do, you have to be able to say "this can do everything the other PCs can and more!" you can't just say "This can do most of what the other stuff can do but it can do a few things the others can't."
There also will always be the people who don't like Mac and want to go back to Windows. At my school there are a few Macs (most computers are PCs though) and I decided to try one of them out. It had OSX on it and I did not really like it. I found the GUI for Mac obnoxious. It had way too much eye candy for my liking (and I am used to KDE so I like a little eye candy). It's little eye candy seemed to get in the way when I tried to browse the web or write a document. I also hated the lack of a second mouse button. I can see how someone might really like having a Mac. I know there is tons of image editing software and artistic stuff for Mac, and if I were into that I would get one. Mac reminded me of it's BSD cousins. Like most BSD stuff, Mac seemed to be specialized for specific task. Look at the other BSDs. FreeBSD can have increadible amounts of uptime, but it is lacking in the rate of upgrades to it. OpenBSD has better security than most OS's but most stuff has to manually be enabled. PC-BSD has the easiest installer I have ever seen, but there is so little software avalible for it. In Mac's case, it seems like it is really good with video and image editing, but I wouldn't want to do day to day work on one. Of course, I suppose Macs are the only computers that can tri-boot and have Windows, Mac, and Linux on the same platform.
Interesting, our brain is the way it is because of some DUF genes. Perhaps if one modified these genes enough, our brain could run lin... never mind.
Also, DRM cost a massive amount of cash to impliment. Which do you think cost, say Sony more, paying thousands and thousands of dollars to produce a rootkit based DRM and then get the crap sued out of you because it is spyware or piracy? Which do you think also cost Sony more, if they sell Blu-ray drives that will be unable to ever play Blu-Ray movies as they haven't created DRM for them yet, which will probably kill the Blu-Ray format too, or just sucking up any losses due to piracy and possibly beating HD-DVD in exchange and making money of of disk sales (remember, Sony is a media and hardware company).
Also, you can prevent piracy without DRM! Yahoo recently sold a few "watermarked" tunes. Instead of using DRM, they embeded a few bytes of code inside a standard MP3 file. This code wouldn't strip your rights from you, instead, it would simply allow them to trace the file to you if it was found on a P2P network.
DRM is also breakable, Windows DRM, iTunes DRM, DVD CSS, certain e-book DRM, rip guard DRM, Sony Rootkits, the XBox copy protection (and the 360's sort of has), the PS2 drm, the PS1 drm, and others have been broken. AACS will probably be defeated too. My grandma could learn to decrypt a DVD, it is very easy to do. You have a few media developers vs. millions of users, somebody in the millions will figure it out. It only takes time and skill. As for TC, would it ever be possible to either crack the TC checks that software does or to emulate the TC chip? I suppose it would.
Films don't have to have millions and millions of dollars in their budget. Look at the movies 16 Candles, The Breakfast Club, Napoleon Dynamite, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, as well as many others, they didn't spend insane amounts of money, but were very profitable. (Even if you don't like one of them, they made a profit dispite their resonably low budget.)
Well, of course, there are always theators and concerts, you cannot duplicate the experience of going on a date with your girlfriend to the movies or going and seeing your favorite band live in concert.
Well, and of course, if you don't think spire is worth your money, don't buy it, if you think it is, do so.