Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:15 UTC
Linux Linus Torvalds, the Finnish programmer and leader of Linux, is leaving his job with Transmeta and taking a position with a consortium developing the Linux operating system for corporations.
Order by: Score:
re:
by sujan on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:19 UTC

This is good news. Now, he'll have plenty of time to hack the kernel.

YES! Great decision!
by Alex on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:25 UTC

This is really very cool news =)

v Its always Linus...
by Joe on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:32 UTC
Wow,
by Abri on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:33 UTC

great news ;)

Yeah, right Joe
by Alex on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:34 UTC

I'm sure it would of leaked way before now if you show off on web forums. Besides, I would be happy if any kernel hacker could work full time on linux.

Anyway, where is your proof?

v RE: Its always Linus...
by Eugenia on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:35 UTC
I fear the worst for Linux
by Michael on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:36 UTC

I fear the worst. That this so-called "Linux for corporations" will include all the people-control and monitoring anti-freedom technologies that Windows does and is planning to incorporate.

Linus has already perverted the philosophy of Robert Oppenheimer in his quest for DRM in Linux. Now with the ability to do Linux full time, we'll see that DRM Linux OS that much sooner.

Just for those unfamiliar with Oppenheimer, he realized that access to information must remain open for there to be any hope for man in the face of overwhelmingly powerful technology:

"The open society, the unrestricted access to knowledge, the unplanned and uninhibited association of men for its furtherance - these are what may make a vast, complex, ever growing, ever changing, ever more specialized and expert technological world, nevertheless a world of human community." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Unfortunately Linus, like many engineers, is woefully ignorant of any realm outside of writing code. For instance, he has not the wisdom of an Einstein in how the world works.

"I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker. The example of great and pure individuals is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus or Ghandi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?" - Albert Einstein

When Linus adds DRM to Linux it will be just another appeasement to those wealthy individuals and corporations that run the world today. It will turn Linux from a noble movement to another greed-driven people-control OS.

This is my fear. Hopefully Linus will take the time to study history, sociology, politics and important things other than code so that he can be a great leader, a gifted and noble benefactor to humanity and not an oppressor of the people.

v RE: Its always Linus...
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:37 UTC
RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Eugenia on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:38 UTC

I replied here about your points:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3377#94355
Linus is a programmer, a hacker, not a politician. All a programmer wants is to see his programs getting used, with one way or another. So, let Linus out of your political wars.

v It was just a joke....
by Joe on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:42 UTC
RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:43 UTC

Oh jeez. Michael, can you tell me why the word "DRM" turns you and your ilk into raving lunatics? DRM is not good or bad. Linus is *not* a leader. He is a practical man, and a coder. Have you read his mailing list posts? He specifically says that you'd have to enable it yourself for it to have any effect (and "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy).

By the way, I am an ardent supporter of RMS and everything he stands for. Here, however, you are being a mindless fanatic.

v re: It was just a joke....
by sujan on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:44 UTC
v RE: Its always Linus
by Joe on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:51 UTC
RE: RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by mmu_man on Tue 17th Jun 2003 06:56 UTC

> Linus out of your political wars.
It's not about politics, it's about people freedom, way different.

> DRM is not good or bad
DRM _IS_ BAD.
As long as the final control of it gets to those who implement it instead of the artist who would want to use it. Nothing will stop Bill Gates to say one day "so now noone will be able to read any file". <Scott Hacker>He who controls people's data</Scott Hacker> (and believe me this is way more dangerous than a boot sector issue).

RE: RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Jason on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:03 UTC

Oh jeez. Michael, can you tell me why the word "DRM" turns you and your ilk into raving lunatics? DRM is not good or bad. Linus is *not* a leader. He is a practical man, and a coder. Have you read his mailing list posts? He specifically says that you'd have to enable it yourself for it to have any effect (and "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy).

By the way, I am an ardent supporter of RMS and everything he stands for. Here, however, you are being a mindless fanatic.


Agreed.

RE: RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Eugenia on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:03 UTC

>It's not about politics, it's about people freedom, way different.

I am sorry, but it is. If you do not like his program, don't use it. Same with MS software. If you don't like their software, don't use it. Or is it because this is Linux has to be "ethical", or that if you don't like its DRM stuff you don't know what to use?

Thing is, Linus is the project leader and copyright holder of Linux and also decides what gets in and what stays out of his code. It is HIS, no matter how you like to think of the current Linux. If he had "tips" that in order his program to work well without legal or other problems in the future, he will add DRM and sh*t-RM and _whatever_ else is needed to make his program work.

Again, if you don't agree with this, don't use his program. Fork it, or use another OS. The fact that this is "Linux" and not Windows doesn't make it any different. It is Linus' decision at the end, and he is not a politician. He is a hacker who wants his program to work on as many as possible PCs.

Thank you Eugenia
by Jason on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:11 UTC

I think you summed up what I was thinking.

RE: RE: RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Jason on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:13 UTC

mmu_man said:
It's not about politics, it's about people freedom, way different.

I dunno...that statement sounds fairly political to me.

re: Linus, politics and DRM and being a full human being
by Michael on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:14 UTC

"Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -- George Bernard Shaw

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin

It is not a "political war" to support old-fashioned American values, the Bill of Rights, or the original spirit of America.

To object to the development of technology which enables the abuse of the rights of human beings is the duty of anyone who believes in humanity and moral principles.

I guess I am the only one on this forum, at least so far.

The people who support the use of technology (DRM) in computers to monitor and control what people do on their own machine -- impinging on the liberties of others -- do not deserve liberty themselves that is certain.

When it comes to Linus, he is the media figurehead. He is the defacto "leader" of Linux by virtue of being its original creator. Oftentimes, we do not choose our fates, rather fate chooses us.

I would ask any person (not just Linus) to step up from being one-dimensional to be a full human being. And through stepping up, to care what his or actions mean to the rest of the world, to consider his or her actions more carefully and thoughtfully, and to accept responsibility for his or her actions, not just say "I'm just a coder" and opt-out of personal responsibility.

Throwing quotes and pithy phrases around does not make you right. DRM is not controlling anybody. Unix's very structure disallows that sort of thing, unless you were to use AES encryption and all that stuff to protect DRM. Otherwise, a simple cat and whatever will work. To Linus, DRM is verifying the authenticity of the kernel, something I would agree with--trojans are an all too common sight these days. Don't worry, you can still play mp3z and download warez. Linus's DRM is not yours.

re: michael's blurb
by ret on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:22 UTC

It is not a "political war" to support old-fashioned American values, the Bill of Rights, or the original spirit of America. <=== Linus is Finnish ;) and btw i'm a Filipino

Michael
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:27 UTC

I also really like that juicy tidbit..

The people who support the use of technology (DRM) in computers to monitor and control what people do on their own machine -- impinging on the liberties of others -- do not deserve liberty themselves that is certain.


In fact, they deserve DEATH! DIE! You tried to take my MP3Z AWAY! You must pay. It's to the showers with you!

Seriously, Michael. Calm down. It's just ones and zeroes.

RE: RE: RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Corey on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:32 UTC

"If you do not like his program, don't use it. Same with MS software. If you don't like their software, don't use it."

How is that supposed to work? If I want to access my bank online, I have to use Internet Explorer. Online voting? Bill Gates seems to understand politics and he doesn't care about lots of platforms. He wants only one and he wants to control it.

Knowledge and it's control/management is all about Politics. Just because you're a "hacker" doesn't mean you can opt out of the 21st Century or ignore the uses/abuses of your creation.


in this day and age, all i ask is for people to think about it
by Michael on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:35 UTC

I am not trying to be "right". Each person must make up their own mind about what they believe in. However, I did offer words on liberty from esteemed people so that readers might *think* about liberty and how computers and software do or do not support maintaining the liberties of the people of America and the world.

To equate the topic of DRM and "mp3z" and "warez" is simplistic and does not do justice to what DRM is. Linus has certainly talked about *one use* of DRM in verifying the kernel. However, DRM once put into Linux enables much more, namely the monitoring of what the owner of a computer can or cannot run. And yes, I know this is dependent on the particular implementation of DRM on that computer.

This is the important point. If DRM technology is put into Linux, it becomes a simple matter for a government to pass legislation that makes its use mandatory. And as you know, most governments, including America's, are highly influenced by special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate donors. So why put the technology in Linux? There are many ways of verifying a kernel that are not DRM. If there is no real need for DRM to be in Linux, why have it?

So genuinely think about it. Carefully, considerately, thoroughly. That is all I am asking. I realize it is something that is almost un-PC in this day and age, but we each must be who we are. And I care about computers and software remaining implements of liberty and freedom, not restriction and slavery.

What I am talking about is not "mp3z" and "warez". It is about whether or not you believe you should be able to use *your* computer without being monitored by external agencies, for that is what DRM is all about -- your rights on your computer being controlled by someone else other than you.

*yawns
by Datschge on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:38 UTC

If working at all, DRM would only be a tool which can be used in good or bad ways, nothing political about that.

Now let's take a popular example for what DRM could be used for: Enforcing existing copyright laws. That's neither really political since those laws already exist for quite some time but to this day they were hard to be enforced due to the missing tools.

So here is where the political stuff starts: Do you agree with the current copyright laws (and, if you are outside of the US, that they are applied in your country as well)?

The tool, DRM, has nothing to do with this all.

The Second Voice
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:43 UTC

I agree with Michael. You can not restrict things with DRM. You won't know the damage until it is too late. It is not just 1's and 0's. The 1's and 0's make up information and knowledge. We have moved from storing our information on paper to storing it in computers. It would be like you needing a different key to read each book. Except when the key gets lost you are s-o-l. And they key holder can charge you whatever he wants to be able to read. Once all your books need his keys, you will have two choices: stop reading or learning, or pay whatever price the keyholder wants. You are screwed.

The problem is, without people like Michael, you won't realize until it is too late. What if SCO had the keys to Unix and its derivatives? You all couldn't even be here on OS News right now. You are giving people the right to turn out the lights on information.

Think about it.

Michael...
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:44 UTC

Look, your rhetoric is wasted on me. I am anti-TCPA, anti-CDBPA, anti-fascist. I'm very politically left. Here, you are applying a simplistic view of DRM to a problem that does not exist. It will NOT EVER be a simple affair for a government to pass laws making DRM mandatory--there is just too much fuzziness there. When Jack Doe can't download his favorite Limp Bizkit song off Kazaa, you better believe Congress will hear about it.

Computing and Politics
by Corey on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:45 UTC

From the Taipei Times:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2003/05/21/200305...
*
*
It doesn't top the official agenda, but as government leaders converge at Microsoft Corp for an annual conference, one of the company's major competitors -- Linux -- is likely to be on executives' minds.

Microsoft had representatives from 61 countries Monday and yesterday at its Redmond, Washington, campus for its annual Government Leaders Summit.
*
*
The summit will focus on such topics as technology and its role in driving economic development, the delivery of government services over the Internet and Microsoft's vision for where technology is heading, said Brad Smith, Microsoft senior vice president and general counsel.



re: enforcing "existing" copyright laws
by Michael on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:47 UTC

Ignorance is everywhere and "Datschge" I call out your ignorance of the politics of copyright.

As you may have noted, Disney recently got the copyright laws changed to support a much longer period. Over time, American corporations have had the copyright laws to suit their interests at the cost of the interests of the people at large.

And what about the DMCA? This was another special favor for a particular industry, in this case motion pictures and music. The DMCA is thought by many esteemed and accomplished people to be a bad law. Did it get passed nonetheless? It sure did. And politics had everything to do with it.

Beyond DMCA, I'm sure you've heard of the various "Super-DMCA" laws. These are being passed in states and of course funded by donations from the music and motion picture industry to politicians.

Politics has everything to do with copyrights.

If there was not the Orwellian technology of DRM, society would have to find a different solution other than monitoring your computer and your behaviour on your computer.

So we find the use of DRM will be determined by politics, much as the laws of copyright have been determined by politics.

Datschge, if you care about your liberty, go and learn more about copyrights, politics, and digital rights/restrictions management. If you don't care, that is fine. But at least acknowledge your own ignorance of the matter.

However, DRM once put into Linux enables much more, namely the monitoring of what the owner of a computer can or cannot run.

This is simply bullshit, for this to work that particular DRM part of Linux would need to be closed source and not possible to be removed anymore. It should be obvious that this can't work and if actually tried would lead to many forks. If DRM will become part of Linux it will be open source and modificable/replaceable/removable just like any other byte in the Linux kernel source.

Whenever you use precompiled Linux kernels though you are trusting strangers just like others are trusting Microsoft, Apple, IBM etc. Bottom line is nothing is changing. If at all people should always have been careful, not only just now that everyone is spreading DRM FUD around.

RE: Computing and Politics
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:48 UTC

And this is on topic how?

Michael,

You got two things wrong. First, DRM isn't a "monitoring" system. It's isn't "phone home" spyware. It's a system of authentication so that only allowed software is able to run on a specific computer. It can be used for many things. Trusted computing is certainly a worthwhile goal. Reasonably fair DRM in terms of media (such as Apple's DRM in the iTunes Music Store) is also acceptable. It's simply forcing you to obey the law (the terms of your software/media license).

Second, true freedom isn't the freedom to break the law and get away with it. Freedom is the ability to pursue happiness under the law. Free speech allows you to publically state your dislike of a law (within reason), but that doesn't mean you can go disobey it without facing the consequences. I find it disturbing that some people would choose to twist the meaning of freedom around to support their particular idea of "I can do anything I want". Well, guess what? You can't do anything you want. Deal with it.

Which brings me to my final point: Linus is under no obligation to jump onto YOUR bizarre political bandwagon. He's an engineer. His software is being used by countless numbers of large (and small) businesses whose top priority is to make lots of money. That's the way it is. Deal with it. If you don't like it, fork the code, write your own OS, or create your own computer system. That's your right under the law, and you're *free* to do so anytime you wish.

-- Jared White
http://www.theideabasket.com

Greg
by Corey on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:52 UTC

"I am anti-TCPA, anti-CDBPA, anti-fascist. I'm very politically left."

What's the difference between a leftist and a fascist? Care to explain?

re: enforcing "existing" copyright laws
by Datschge on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:54 UTC

Ignorance is everywhere and "Datschge" I call out your ignorance of the politics of copyright.

Dear "Michael", I'm not ignorant of the politics of copyright, far from it. That's the very reason why the US copyright is worrying me and I'm actively talking with local politicians to vote against any copyright law changes in Germany trying to "comply" with the respective US laws.

As for DMCA I simply won't use it. If it should become illegal (against my vote) not to use it then I'm in the wrong country and better leave it.

RE: re: enforcing "existing" copyright laws
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 07:54 UTC

Nothing Orwellian about it, or even particularly new. Companies have been controlling the US government for centuries. Ever wonder why cannabis became illegal? Hemp was competition for the cotton barons. True story.

If there was something unsavory in the kernel that would not be removable, it would violate the GPL. Don't worry about it. Your posts are 90% "rise up ye sons of freedom" and 10% actual substance to back the first 90% up.

RE: Greg
by Greg on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:05 UTC

(This is offtopic, mod us down)

I will not get into a lengthy discussion over this. In short, fascism is authoritarianism coupled with corporatism and/or totalitarianism, leftism (not Marxism) is anti-authoritarianism (not libertarianism) coupled with varying degrees of economic socialism.

Lots of isms, and all irrelevant.

" When a newcomer to Athens asked where a certain famous orator could be found, the cynic Antisthenes contemptuously extended his middle finger and said, "Here is your Athenian orator."

RE: Greg
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:08 UTC


"What's the difference between a leftist and a fascist? Care to explain?"


NAZI's were right-wing facist.....and no just because the NAZI party was a National Socialist party does not mean they were leftist ! The name means nothing but the actions count 1000% more ! For example North Korea is also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet there is nothing very Democratic about North Korea.


appropriate quote
by Richard James on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:26 UTC

DRM you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it does.

Digital Rights Managment
DRM is a technology that allows media to control or manage who has the right to view or copy or destroy or whatever that media.

It cannot track you. That is not DRM that would be software on top of DRM. DRM only manages rights. Kinda like like the permission settings on files in a filesystem.

I don't see anyone complaining about filesystem permissions that don't let them delete a file.

Another use of DRM is PGP/GPG. Those messages use encryption to enforce the managment of the rights. Only the correct people should be able to read or alter such documents.

So basically if you are against DRM you should go back to pen and paper.

...
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:46 UTC

Once Intel puts all that funky Microsoft endorced hardware into their processors, I'll either use older processors for the next ten years (which is probably the case) or I'll be buying non-Intel hardware, or else just quit using computers.

Linux is an open source platform however it is based on a centralized architecture, a vendor architecture. It's not the perfect solution to freedom. The perfect solutions to freedom is an organic architecture, a true open source infrastructure.


--> Richard James
by Raskolnikov on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:50 UTC

And how are corporations going to "control and manage" media on home computers without beeing able to "track you" ?! Please explain.

...
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:53 UTC

The principal of freedom for software would definately emphasise decentralization, a decentralized architecture. Ultimately an architecture that no single entity or group could control. I'm begining to believe that it can not be written by humans, but instead by machines, but than there would be the issue of machines controlling humans? I say machines but I mean compilers with A.I..

...
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:56 UTC

...but if the user could control the machine, than the machine could maintain the users platform.

Since his hobby is going to become his job...
by Bill Mische on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:58 UTC

...do you think he'll take up a new hobby or just spend more time with his kids.

As I remember it, some years ago he was offered jobs developing linux and turned them down as he didn't want to lose his hobby.

On the other news
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 08:59 UTC

Yay! Kernel 2.5.72 is out. And just few days after 2.5.71.

Tell me it is not SCO
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 09:53 UTC

"a consortium developing the Linux operating system for corporations"

Tell me it is not SCO ;O)

...
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 10:06 UTC

The SCO owns it but they won't sue until there is a lot of money at stake. And Torvalds is a double agent on his Mothers side.

I fear the worst for Linux
by asd on Tue 17th Jun 2003 10:39 UTC

"Linus has already perverted the philosophy of Robert Oppenheimer in his quest for DRM in Linux. Now with the ability to do Linux full time, we'll see that DRM Linux OS that much sooner."


Fear not.. Keep a current backup of the kernel source.
When that time comes, you can simply make your
own fork :o)

RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by element on Tue 17th Jun 2003 10:43 UTC

I am sorry, but it is. If you do not like his program, don't use it. Same with MS software. If you don't like their software, don't use it.

Eugenia, do you really believe that? My bank only works with Windows AND IE or NS4. Linux? Mozilla? Nope, they don't support that.
Tell my boss and my collegues to quit using MS Windows, MS Office and IE, they'll all freak out (I work at a web design firm and they all hate Mozilla, they don't want to use it).

RE: RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Grant on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:15 UTC

(I work at a web design firm and they all hate Mozilla, they don't want to use it).

We'll that's a pretty pathetic web design firm. I got the same sort of snares when telling my web collegues to use Mozilla, but http://mozilla.org/projects/firebird/release-notes.html"> which got them hooked.

Try them on that. If they don't like Mozilla Firebird (Formally Phoneix), then they have bigger issues.

RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by Q on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:28 UTC

Eugenia:

<quote>
I am sorry, but it is. If you do not like his program, don't use it. Same with MS software. If you don't like their software, don't use it. Or is it because this is Linux has to be "ethical", or that if you don't like its DRM stuff you don't know what to use?
</quote>

These are rather senseless hollow statements such as "If you don't like to breath, don't breath.". Absolutely meaningless. I'm afraid that poeple do NOT have all the choices in the world as far as OS's are concerned.

Re: Tell me it is not SCO
by Benny Siegert on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:30 UTC

The CNet article mentioned in the last SCO story says that SCO, when they were still called Caldera, "helped found the Open Source Development Lab", whih is where Linus is going to work. Go figure!

--Benny.

DRM weenies
by OoSync on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:33 UTC

Okay, enough of the FUD. DRM is not some evil conspiracy, its merely a technological means to enforce how data is aquired, used, and who can distribute it. Sure, the media conglomerates are frothing at the mouth to use it for music and video files (i.e., you won't be able to play that newest Metallica video with paying real $$$), but things swing both ways. I could use DRM tech to store my credit card numbers on my computer in a very, very secure manner. I can share certain files with certain friends or other users of my multi-user system and not worry about exposing any other information. DRM, by its very nature, supports some form (albeit it may be weak, but only time will tell) of Public Key Infrastructure. Imagine being able to verify transactions based upon your universal public key and establish a very nice "Web of Trust". PGP/GPG is available for these things in email, but imagine all of the other applications that immediately become available when the technology is widespread.

So yes, DRM is availble to limit the freedom of information, but it is also availble to safeguard that information that needs to be limited (my credit cards) and validate information that needs to be free (encrypted key signatures used to validate information by "Web of Trust").

Linus' comments about DRM in Linux is that there is no *LEGAL* reason to refute the technology. In truth, I'm not a fan of having DRM without being able to use it for my own benefit (versus only media and software conglomerates), but the GPL cannot limit the availablity or implimentation of DRM in linux.

The only thing that scares me
by Lovechild on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:50 UTC

is that maybe now Linus won't be so inclined to work on making Linux better as a desktop OS - which would really suck, the kernel is very much geared for higher end tasks at the moment.

....
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:54 UTC

I'd like to make the fork with Linux when Linus adds DRM, however Linux is not that flexible, you would need a large group to support the new fork.

Microsoft users never had any rights to begin with, they just rent their platform, so I can see why they are indifferent to DRM.

You know, there really is a time when you have to question the worth of information technology that is heavily controlled and centralized. It might just be worth avoiding it. It's just a shame though to see it get dragged down, as if they are incapable of finding an architectural solution.

Personally I think that with regard to the SCO, they seem to be everywhere, and own everything. I'm suspicious of a impending raelean invastion and a Malaysian challenging an Asian in a rumble in the jungle. If Macbride doesn't get his 30 billion dollars than we might see him in the ring versus Linux Torvalds.

"of" instead of "have"
by alfie on Tue 17th Jun 2003 11:58 UTC

This is completely irrelavant to this topic but I see this error far too often and it really annoys me. Why do people insist of writing "of" instand of "have". For example, Alex above writes, "I'm sure it would of leaked." It's "I'm sure it would have leaked."

Bad grammar pisses me off.

"Leave him out of your politics"
by bogey on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:00 UTC

I've heard this defense a hundred times. Eugenia uses it everytime Linus comes up. I agree Linus has chosen to only care about programming. That's his choice.

This doesn't mean we can't criticize that choice. History regularly judges those who "just do their job". Would you look at Einstein the same if he had not come to the West for political reasons? He might still have been just as smart, but I don't think he would be so beloved.

In a position of influence, some of us expect him to pick up the sword. You don't have to agree, but please don't play your broken record everytime the subject comes up.

RE: "of" instead of "have"
by Q on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:01 UTC

People just think faster than they write, or whatever. Don't get emotional about this, it's not worth it.

Sounding a warning
by Jay on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:08 UTC

I believe Michael is sounding a warning. Most posters are responding as if Michael believes Linus has already done what he fears. It seems odd that someone who helped re-invent free software would become the pawn of corporations but, in fact, you can never tell what will happen. As Micheal said, he "fears the worst". Of course, the worst may not happen, but I think it is good to try and look ahead, to see where there may be possible pitfalls and problems. Taken in that context, a fruitful discussion could also be possible.

So wrong
by ash on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:17 UTC

Facism is complete control of the economy by an authortarian government usually in a one party system.

It has NOTHING to do with ANY of the following:
1. The rise of more corporations vs private businesses
2. Conservatism. This is actually the limited government ( the opposite)
3. Right wing anything. Right wing typically means anti-government. Hence the right wing guerillas in South America in the 80s.

Facism is what BOTH parties are leasing us towards, with each new government regulation and program( where program equals taking one persons money and spending it on another)

RE: I fear the worst for Linux
by linux_baby on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:24 UTC

>> Linus is a programmer, a hacker, not a politician. All a programmer wants is to see his programs getting used, one way or another. So, let Linus out of your political wars.
>>

No, Eugenia, where the hell is the humanity of the engineer?? Science must be socially responsible. It must have a social conscience, because you cannot say: "I am an american nuclear scientist, I just want to see my bombs explode, one way or the other, and so it doesn't really matter to me if I am building these bombs for Hitler or for Osama BinLaden".

That's why we have the hypocrates oath. That's why people like Einstein who were directly responsible for the invention of the nuclear bomb also took out time to protest and rally for peace in a nuclear-enabled world. That's why we don't admire anthrax engineers who would work for Hitler regardless of the social consequences. That's why all these people in biological and medical scientists impose all these ethical regulations on themselves.

At the the end of the day, even an engineer is still part of the human family. You are a human being, first and foremost, before you an an engineer.

v Re: RE: "of" instead of "have"
by FH on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:28 UTC
Newspeak
by Mark Gruber on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:34 UTC

Did you guys notice these words at the beginning of the article : "leader of the shared software movement".

According to the New York Times, it's no longer free software or open source : it's now shared software, following in the footsteps of Microsoft shared source crap.

Was it so hard for that reporter to check the Free Software Foundation website to see what the appropriate terms where ?

Re: RE: "of" instead of "have"
by Q on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:36 UTC

"There is no excuse for the improper execution of the English language. The sooner you foreigners figure that out, the better."

We are just posting on a simple forum, leave the foreigners out of this, please.

....
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:41 UTC

Microsoft invented the Fritz chip idea and Intel gave in to them. Now we see Linux bending to Microsoft because Linux is not popular enough to stand on it's own (apparently). They say that you are not required to use DRM, it is optional, however do you really trust them, it's not optional to have that hardware removed is it? I just finished purchasing a couple of music CD's today. I have some pirated songs from long time ago that I burnt on CD, but I pay for my music. The vast majority of abusers and software pirates are Microsoft users, not Linux users.

I see Microsoft with a hidden agenda and people are going to buy into it, we all know that. For all this time people have known nothing other than Microsoft, because Microsoft is a monopoly. When everyone purchases their computer, their choices are Microsoft or Microsoft. Well now Linux is gaining ground, and Microsoft has used big money to lay down road blocks. As if there wasn't enough already just look at the road blocks that Sun and the SCO are adding.

I'll tell you what, I don't think that Linux is strong enough because it's architecture is a vendor architecture and it's too big of an inflexible target. All of those vendors working together can sink Linux...and they will...at least in America...but not in other countries...but what good does that do for me?

I think that maybe I'm a fool for having books on compiler design and operating systems, because it's a game that can't be won. A person is basically forced to pay rent, and use a heavily controlled vendor platform...that isn't even very good. Quality software is not the focus on a vendor platform, it's more about new presentation (eye candy) and format (repackaging).

Personally I will never use a vendor platform, but I don't really want to spend big dollars if they ported Linux to a new architecture, so I'll just get the new Intel and simply work offline with no Internet...just continue programming as a hobby. Put my money in the bank.

That Michael dude is cool, but maybe attacking Linus wasn't correct, however he was right about everything he said about freedom and liberty.

DRM in the kernel.
by cheezwog on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:48 UTC

First, Linus is doing zero work on DRM in the kernel, and neither is anyone else. (and if you google for it, remember DRM also stands for direct rendering manager!)

Second, DRM is only an extension of the pre-existing access control methods such as encrypted passwords, pgp, open ssh etc. It just sounds scarey because of the media hype! Be brave!

Third, if you want to see real access control management, have a look at seLinux.

Fourth, you don't have to use it anyway!

Fifth, if you pirate music, you deserve to have your computer burnt! You are destroying the industry that I rely on for my living. I have recently discovered record companies scanning the p2p networks, waiting for their releases to be distributed enough so they know when to call the distributor to cut back on CD production. It does not really affect them, they just cut back on investment in the artist and generate less unsold stock. The artist loses in the end. But even with this situation, I know that DRM is not the answer, people always find a way around it.

Disappointed
by UglyKidBill on Tue 17th Jun 2003 12:55 UTC

> DRM is not good or bad.

Guns are not good or bad either, but what are they for other that shooting at living creatures ?

> I am sorry, but it is. If you do not like his program, don't use it. Same with MS software. If you don't like their software, don't use it.

You don't like it don't use it? What happens if/when there is no way to use a computer other than paying several hundred dollars to a US company when you live in, let's say Malasya ?
How is it that so many people doesn't realize that this attitude means that poor people will have no access to a very important part of the modern culture and education ? You either have enough $$$ or you are out !

Do you people really thought about it and got to the conclusion that politics and economics have nothing in common ?

Why does de US have exporting restictions applied to software then? Why the restricted software is usually about security and encription? Why are the unathorized countries usually those who have political issues with the US?

re: Michael
by rockwell on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:11 UTC

//They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin //

*****ESSENTIAL***** liberty.

Not using a computer.

Wake up to reality, goofball.

All you "freedom" freaks
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:20 UTC

All of you "freedom" freaks should be using the GNU/HURD. Support the FSF if you are anti-capatilism.

RE: All you "freedom" freaks
by Corey on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:25 UTC

Thank you Joe Stalin.

DRM controversy
by Q on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:32 UTC

If enterprises wish to enfore DRM, then don't use Linux! This is just the irony of ironies: A free and open OS with DRM. Does anyone see this?

All you "freedom" freaks
by UglyKidBill on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:33 UTC

How says freedom is against capitalism ?

Code is Law
by Pahtz on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:33 UTC


For the serious minded, I strongly them to study the arguments of Lawrence Lessig. A good starting place is the lectures in mp3 format at http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_id=1171.

He is one of the of the brightest thinkers on these issue. His blog is at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ .

If I may present some thoughts inspired by the "Architecting Innovation" (Code is Law) lecture. I see it as very fundamental that information and technological structures are political because they dictate how we communicate and operate.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a framework for how the country is organized and governed. If it were composed in a manner simply to execute the desires of the power brokers of the day in the most efficient and far reaching manner possible then it would be sad indeed. Instead the authors had the foresight to build an open framework that would protect the people and ideas of the future. The government of the day often feels these provisions (e.g. civil rights) get in the way of them enforcing their 'good' policies on American citizens. But it is generally accepted that a degree of freedom is what makes the constitution great.

With DRM we have to be careful to allow the same degree of freedom to safeguard the people and ideas of the future, even if we are in agreement with our political masters that intellectual property protection is good.

[i]Back to technology,[i] consider the internet. The architects of the internet allowed data to be routed from A to Z through computer systems B to Y, without B to Y ever judging the content of those TCP packets beyond what is required for routing from A to Z. B to Y doesn't care if it's a love letter, porn, political statement, or a computer program. Imagine if B to Y became a gauntlet of political organizations, local governments, religous groups, racists, and bigots. They internet would not be the great communication tool and exponent of free ideas it is now if that happened.

This doesn't mean there is no control. At the end points A and Z governments, organizations, and individuals may influence what content is permissable. But arguably, in between, the basic architecture, should grant all the freedoms possible. This is why, the coders, the architects of these systems, are essentially the law writers of this information society.

These programmers should realise the important responsibility they have in safeguarding an open and non-discriminatory information architecture.

Imagine if the early propents of computing networks did not believe in guest accounts, anonymous downloading, routing traffic without a toll, and open sharing of computing resources in general. As programmers they could have easily written systems to stymie the free flow of information and ensure proper financial accounting of traffic. In effect, their own personal lack of generosity or paranoia becomes the law of the network (law of the LAN?).

Imagine they prescribed only specific applications may run over TCP/IP. We may only have Telnet. You would have to get permission from a specific human person to received a password and login before you could access one resource on the network. To have one more destination to connect to you would need the same again from another meatspace person.

As a culture of closedness is built into the system, it would be natural for system admins to block all ports for all users and systems except the one for Telnet so nobody can accidentally run up a traffic bill or leak unauthorised information. You could develop FTP (file transfer), SMTP (e-mail), and HTTP (web), but you'd have a hard time providing a service to anyone because would you have to convince your system admin your 'experiment' is not a misuse of computing resources, a security risk, a legal liability, or a potential channel for unethical behaviour. The sysadmin is not like you, and he's not going to take a risk for YOUR ideals, or 'fanciful ideas' ("who would want to use that?"). Maybe you are lucky and she has both a clue and a heart. Now go convince the sysadmin of one of your potential users so they can connect to your service. If the traffic has to be routed through other systems, then go convince the sysadmins of those systems as well.

The multitude of uses for the internet would not have come into existence if the culture of and mechanisms for limiting content and uses to only those explicitly allowed were encoded in the systems that run the internet.

Be careful when you put in place systems that limit how books, music, and ideas may be used to only those explicitly allowed. You may be limiting innovation, or even something much more important.

Re: Computing And Politics
by linux_baby on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:36 UTC

>> Second, true freedom isn't the freedom to break the law and get away with it. Freedom is the ability to pursue happiness under the law.
>>

I have to say that you do have a super-exalted view of the law. Until barely 30 years ago, there were laws, in the US, banning women and minorities from voting. Those who fought to break these laws were surely fighting for freedom, no???? Take a long look, man, take a long look. Of all the things in the world, technology has the greatest potential to change the way people live and interect.

RE: Code is Law
by Pahtz on Tue 17th Jun 2003 13:40 UTC

ps. Ignore the italics. I'm not deliberately quoting anyone. Perhaps if I had a DRM system, any accidental quotes will be automatically censored because my system knows I have viewed a document saying the same thing, so naturally those aren't really my own ideas, therefore I can't express them without first getting a licence. I would like that, cos it'd help me stay within the law. Somebody go and write it!

DRM
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:05 UTC

What is the problem with including DRM in the Linux kernel, like all other aspects of the Linux kernel, you ain't gotta use it unless ya wants ta

There's amateur radio support in the Linux kernel, but have I ever used it? Nope. JFS, same deal. Minix filesystem, same deal. AppleTalk, same deal.

DRM is just another option for those who WANT it. Most of us don't want it, so we won't compile it into our kernels.

Simple as that. Plus, nothing forces you to USE Linux...and nothing prevents you from creating a DRM-free fork.

(It really pisses off some of you "hard-core" GNUs that Linus attempts to stay away from politics, doesn't it? Linus is a programmer, not a politician...get over it, not everybody is like RMS!)

Good day sirs.

-bytes256

is it really that bad?
by Anti on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:06 UTC

If DRM support is included in the kernel, it won't stop you from downloading all the regular sources you're used to. You'll still be able to compile anything you do already.
Second, it's not like EVERYTHING will be controlled the minute you enable it. None of the opensource developers will get anything out of this. People have their code if they want. Which means they won't 'drm' their work.
I see good uses for this technology, too. If you planned on selling some software, wouldn't it be nice with the extra security against pirates?
And all you people talking about mp3s og warez.. Stop whining.. You're breaking the law, not them.
Just think about how many developers that will actually use this? I doubt it'll be any other than the people that actually need to make money on the product, which will mostly be closed source, anyway. And if you just pirate that, you'll break the law, anyway.
It'll not be "Hah! Look, Jim! The monitor here tells me that 267.267.281.0 is downloading Metallica mp3s! Let's bust him!"

And...
by Anti on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:09 UTC

Do you use all options that the linux kernel give you? I know I don't. Just because you have the opportunity, it doesn't mean you actually _have_ to.

that bad
by UglyKidBill on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:24 UTC

some reasons why it might be 'that bad'.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

re: that bad
by Anti on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:36 UTC

I'm just wondering how much this'll have in common with tcpa/palladium.
Are anyone at all sure they will have anything in common? Will DRM be monitoring by third parties, or will it be some sort of signature technology?
I don't particularly like the monitoring idea, but I don't think it'll end like that. But then again, I don't really have a clue.
Does anyone have anything directly linked to the DRM (remember, DRM can be a lot of things) as it's thought to be in the linux kernel?

Correct, Michael.
by Chuck Bermingham on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:56 UTC

"I would ask any person (not just Linus) to step up from being one-dimensional to be a full human being. And through stepping up, to care what his or actions mean to the rest of the world, to consider his or her actions more carefully and thoughtfully, and to accept responsibility for his or her actions, not just say "I'm just a coder" and opt-out of personal responsibility.

Agree 100%. And I'm a programmer, but I am also very interested in watching how people use computers and programming to manipulate others.

The problem is that, what with all this bickering going on arond SCO, Linus's support of "DRM" seems to be pretty eclipsed. Besides, what makes you think that just because Jefferson, Franklin, et. al. have a clear vision of liberty, that's going to stop this pervasive human tendency to "play chess" with everything and everybody? Especially in a country that was supposed to be a beacon of liberty, yet has a serious problem with education and literacy?

Whether Linus believes in "liberty" or not, he has to work with the material he's got to work with, including the various slimy businesspeople (I have no doubt that he's going to run into Sontag and McBride sometime soon.)

I submit that someone who can work on the level of a Ben Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson, while still maintaining the kind of nose-to-the-wheel technical expertise that Linus has to maintain, would be a true superhero indeed.

re: DRM
by Anonymous on Tue 17th Jun 2003 14:57 UTC

Linux has the DRM already - the direct rendering manager.

There is no use for any other DRM.

Hmmm...
by Chuck Bermingham on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:02 UTC

I wrote:

"I submit that someone who can work on the level of a Ben Franklin or a Thomas Jefferson, while still maintaining the kind of nose-to-the-wheel technical expertise that Linus has to maintain, would be a true superhero indeed."

Now that I think about it, Stallman comes to mind in a way or two here. Now, here's a guy who operates his entire life in near-poverty, yet understands the value of liberty. I can understand why both techs and execs around the world think he's crazy and why some of them also think he's wonderful at the same time.

Free Culture
by Pahtz on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:10 UTC

It's too easy to say the only opponents of DRM are pirates but this is not true.

There are many permissable uses of licensed content that DRM may directly prevent.

This is an entertaining flash presentation one of Lessig's lectures on Free Culture which has some funny examples of such restrictions on permissable uses of content:

http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/

Analogy
by Tyr on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:12 UTC

Here's an analogy for you 'DRM is just technology' types : you are sitting on a chair, meanwhile someone is wiring it up with electrical wire. He says don't worry this is just some wires, it can't hurt you, besides it's not even plugged in yet and I'm pretty sure I'll give you the switch later (*evil grin*)
So you just sit back and relax, but it makes me very nervous.

On OSNEWS
by Deep on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:16 UTC

On OSNews there are mostly 3 things for supid comments
Linux, Windows and Mac OS X

Michael: DRM...whoopee...who gives a crap
by Jason on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:21 UTC

Michael, I understand the concerns of DRM...I really do. However I really don't perceive it as the incarnation of "Big Brother" from 1984 that you have made it out to be.

Further, do you really think it will last without someone circumventing the DRM software and making the tools available?

Additionally, even if DRM is the monster you make it out to be...Apple has already sworn to uphold the privacy of Mac OS users and will not incorporate DRM technology. That gives you an out. Further, If you are a PC user...what does your PC not do now that it will do in the future that you need (assuming that currently you are not suffering from DRM on your system because you have some big bad Microsoft software)?

If your bank requires you to use IE, I suggest you contact your bank and let them know that requiring IE is ridiculous and that alternatives such as Mozilla provide all that is needed for online banking. Hav you even tried to use another browser like Mozilla? My bank said that IE is needed on the web site...but guess what...Mozilla Firebird worked perfectly.

In the end, DRM will only really effect Windows users in the short run. As Windows users jump ship, alternatives will rise that will not have DRM. And if you're worried about Linux adopting DRM I have to ask, "has it happened yet?" A web site stating that they heard that Linus might incorporate the technology does not mean that DRM will be in the OS, nor does it mean that your typical Linux distro will include the software to make DRM spy on you.

In the end, you just seem paranoid right now. Ranting and raving about liberties being violated and Ben Franklin said "blah blah blah" just makes you seem kinda looney. I don't want to insult you, but calm down. Take a breath...and realize that there is a way around any problem and that alternative solutions to the same problems will always be available.

DRM in Linux will be OPTIONAL!!!
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:28 UTC

You people B*TCHING about DRM in Linux are absolute fools...DRM will and must be an optional component, this is part of the beauty of OpenSource...don't like a feature that the maintainers put into a piece of software? Disable it, or fork it and gut it right out.

Even if Linus, et al actually made DRM veeerrry pervasive in the kernel, to the point that it could not be simply disabled by not compiling it in, there is NOTHING and I do mean NOTHING preventing concerned users from forking from a DRM-less codebase, such as the 2.4.x and so far 2.5.x kernels.

Shutup...it's a feature for those who want it, I don't personally want it, but I'm not afraid of it either.

You're probably one of those fools who whines about Mono too.

Find a clue stick and beat yourselves with it.

-bytes256

Re: Q
by FH on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:30 UTC

Here's a quarter. Go down to the corner store and buy yourself a sense of humor.

Linus is also political, Eugenia
by John on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:31 UTC

I read your response to concerns about Linus having no particular concern with issues of freedom, being "just an engineer". And you are very wrong about that.

Engineers, also, have political or philosophical stances. Everyone does. Saying that one has no politics is also a form of politics, just as atheism is a religion to a dedicated atheist.

I'm not aware of Linus's stance on DRM except that he's not strongly opposed to it, and it is possible to implement DRM in such a way as to give the user freedom and control of his own data and programs. However, I'm enough of a realist to know that's unlikely. If DRM is implemented for Linux, it will most likely be controlled by corporate interests, not the end user. Implementing DRM on linux may also be incompatible with GPL in a practical sense if not theoretically as well.

Very few of us are trying ot make something superhuman out of Linus. However, like anyone else involved in Linux development, he must be somewhat concerned about freedom issues as well as technical ones. Getting back into Linux kernel work where DRM will have to be implemented for Linux if it is at all, Linus will have some hard choices to make and his decisions on this will have a lot of influence. It most certainly isn't just a technical issue, and you are very unwise to ridicule those who are also concerned with freedom being central to what linux is (for Linus as well as for others). Perhaps it is possible to work in DRM requiring hardware and software components with the philosophy of Linux which, while not exactly that of GNU, shares many values. That remains to be seen. In the meantime please don't be so eager to scoff at those who are concerned about corporate control of Linux getting out of hand.

RE: DRM in Linux will be OPTIONAL!!!
by Jason on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:35 UTC

You people B*TCHING about DRM in Linux are absolute fools...DRM will and must be an optional component, this is part of the beauty of OpenSource...don't like a feature that the maintainers put into a piece of software? Disable it, or fork it and gut it right out.


Thank you!

I too am tired of the paranoid ravings. It is optional...nuff said.

As far as MONO, I haven't tried it yet but have been reading up on it...very cool.

RE: Linus is also political, Eugenia
by Jason on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:38 UTC

I think you missed the point.

Yes Linus undoubtedly has political views...but that does not mean that Linux is the incarnation of his political ideology.

Why DRM is a bad idea !
by Mark Gruber on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:44 UTC

There are a lot of ways to make sure that somebody's work doesn't get pilfered by some crackers.

If I want to send a copy of a draft to a friend, I can use PGP to encrypt my email and its attachment. To transfer files through a network, SSH is available. There is neither a SuperSSh for the rich nor a CrappySSH for the poor. To make sure documents haven't been tampered with, I'll use MD5 checksums.

To avoid software glitches such as buffer overflows, many solutions have been devised : Immunix has its StackGuard, there is the Write or eXecute thing in OpenBSD 3.3, one can install TCPWrapper, ...

The transition to IPv6 will probably take care of many weaknesses of the current version of the Internet.

The list goes on and on...

Considering the abundance of methods allowing me to securely use a computer, why should I accept some murky scheme devised by companies like Intel and Microsoft ?

The "loosely-knitt bunch" of open source coders have showed that there is no need to trample people basic freedoms to achieve the same goals as the DRM. That ongoing project is a testimony to the failure of Microsoft to provide customers with secure software.

I can't prevent myself from asking this simple question : how is the protection of Adobe, Virgin Music or Disney rights beneficial to Joe Blow ? This technology is promoted by a corporation whose protection measures have constantly been defeated.

My biggest beef with DRM is the following : individual rights pertain to the sphere of politics. It is the duty of elected officials to debate them, it's not up to profiteers like Gates or Eisner to carve them according to the latest data of the stock exchange. I know, in reality, it's the contrary that happens. At least, we as users shouldn't throw away our freedom so easily. We should certainly not justify the actions of men who feel nothing but contempt for those whose names don't appear in the Forbes or Fortune lists.

Another point of contention is the danger of applying US laws in other countries. We saw it with the DeCSS case where local prosecutors sided with a foreign association in condemning a young bright man for his initiative. Again an interrogation : why should US corporations whims be imposed upon the citizens of sovereign countries ?

To return to the topic at hand, it must have been tough for Linus to meet his obligations both as kernel maintainer and as Transmeta executive. I think his new job will still keep him under pressure. Anyway, I wish him good luck.

so much for an option
by UglyKidBill on Tue 17th Jun 2003 15:49 UTC

>> I too am tired of the paranoid ravings. It is optional...nuff said.

The option will be :

DRM turned on, you _may_ access

DRM turned off, access denied

...NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...
by asd on Tue 17th Jun 2003 16:11 UTC

"You people B*TCHING about DRM in Linux are absolute fools...DRM will and must be an optional component, this is part of the beauty of OpenSource..."

YOU are the fool, dear sir.

Don't you realize, once DRM gains mainstream use as M$
and Intel want it to, Every single content provider
will make use of it!

Sure you will be able to compile the kernel without
DRM - once DRM starts being needed for special websites
and multimedia content ... good luck surfing the web,
listening to music and logging in your homebanking.

"Sorry, your browser must support DRM to view this site"

"Sorry, this media player is not DRM-enabled. You cannot play this file"

"Sorry, you cannot play this DVD on a non-DRM platform"

Yeah, right, "the choice is ours to use DRM", keep saiyng
that to yourself and you will end up believing it -- at
least until you hit the wall with your blind head and
realize you are suddenly out of the system. Once DRM
gains popularity, choosing not to use DRM will be like
choosing to use lynx as your only web browser.

There is no real choice about DRM -- only the choice
of the content provider to force you to use it or leave
their site.

If your choice is NOT to use DRM, the time to bitch about
it is NOW. Get that through your head.

And for the ones saying "DRM is just a kind of encryption"
lemme tell you: You are absolutely right. And unless
we stop this crap right now, you will be needing to
have DRM enabled hardware to avoid content
from looking like jibberish and getting "you are
not authorised to view this" dialogs.

Re: ...NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Jun 2003 16:39 UTC


Sure you will be able to compile the kernel without
DRM - once DRM starts being needed for special websites
and multimedia content ... good luck surfing the web,
listening to music and logging in your homebanking.


Ogg vorbis will let us listen to music, and the majority of the web will never become DRMed, that's just silly, why on earth would sites like oh, i dunno OSNews or Slashdot or CNN.com become DRMed? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard!!! Perhaps online banking will become this way, but even then you can always just pick up your phone and do all those operations that way.


There is no real choice about DRM -- only the choice
of the content provider to force you to use it or leave
their site.


What's to prevent the creation of a "white-list" implementation of DRM on Linux? I.E. you can select which sites you will allow DRM for?

Plus, there will be MASS consumer backlash if DRM is too strong. And like the current state of affairs with encryption, there's always a cat and mouse game...DRM will become harder to crack, and within days it will be cracked.

I just can't find a really good reason to worry about DRM.

Mozilla
by N.N. on Tue 17th Jun 2003 16:48 UTC

I like Internet Explorer more than Mozilla. There - I've said it. There's nothing wrong with my head, I have the freedom to choose whatever I want, and I choose Internet Explorer.

Everything is political
by Tyr on Tue 17th Jun 2003 16:59 UTC

Technology does not exist in a vacuum, as a part of society it too is political and it's developement is a political act. This is especially true for DRM and related technologies.
If you want to know more about the relation between politics and technology you should read 'Questioning technology' (or another book) by Andrew Feenberg ( http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/ ) the emminent philosopher of technology.

Re: Mozilla
by Ajay on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:18 UTC

"I like Internet Explorer more than Mozilla. There - I've said it. There's nothing wrong with my head, I have the freedom to choose whatever I want, and I choose Internet Explorer."

Ever heard of "Mozilla Firebird" formerly "Phoenix"

www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix

Re: Ajay
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:23 UTC

"I like Internet Explorer more than Mozilla. There - I've said it. There's nothing wrong with my head, I have the freedom to choose whatever I want, and I choose Internet Explorer."

Ever heard of "Mozilla Firebird" formerly "Phoenix"

www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix


So he likes Internet Explorer? What's the problem with that? Some people like Miracle Whip, I personally think it's nasty, am I gonna snottily say, ever heard of mayonaise?

It is upto the artists
by Ajay on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:26 UTC


Free software was born when developers wanted to share their code, not when users wanted it(Users always wanted it).

DRM will be weak, if artists reject it. Companies exist only to make more and more money from less and less.

To peek into the horrible future, understand the meaning of "Kaliyuga" found in Hinduism

....... still: NO!
by asd on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:27 UTC

"Perhaps online banking will become this way, but even then you can always just pick up your phone and do all those operations that way"

Or any kind of web site that has copyrighted material AT ALL. your solution "let's just not do it over the internet
then" is really bright. really.


Sure there will allways a way to work around it. Warez
groups will allways give us what we want, right? hm. right.

Some examples:
by asd on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:40 UTC

"Or any kind of web site that has copyrighted material AT ALL"

the likes of www.apple.com/trailers

- any kind of website containing movies, trailers, music
samples, and online games. (i use none of these, probably
neither do you, but most of the internet users use them for
fun. And lusers will just click on "Yes, i wanna enable
DRM" if that's all that takes them to play their games and
watch videos. And that is not far at all from getting
mainstream.)

Third: No, i don't think you will be able to "enable DRM
for specific sites", since AFAIK DRM needs hardware + software implementation, thus needing a special kernel
(so, that would mean that, at least, you gotta reboot to
toggle it).

- Online Shopping! I don't do online shopping either, but
it would be damn stupid not to worry just because this
time the bullet did not hit my head.

- Any kind of subscription service: Registering a domain,
getting a "M$ passport sign-in name" (yuck, but millions
use them), etc.

... i dunno. It seems to me that you are not even trying
to see how far this could go..






....... still: NO!
by bytes256 on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:42 UTC

The thing is, DRM can only work if people actually use it...and my understanding is that DRM support in the Linux kernel is primarily aimed toward corporate environments where this kind of control over individual workstations becomes very important.

However, on the consumer end? What's there to force the MP3 loving populace to embrace DRM with open arms?

I know you're just going to tell me that it'll forced down our throats whether we like it or not...

Ummm yeah, if all of the things that corporate America pushed down our throats came into acceptance, we'd be using MSN on Java-powered Tablet Network Computers, that required a Smart Card powered by Oracle...

I think you get the picture, a lot of things that corporations wanted us to use, we ain't exactly using now, sure all of the above items are still in use today in niche markets, but that's it.

..
by asd on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:51 UTC

"The thing is, DRM can only work if people actually use
it..."

The problem i have with this point of view is that i believe
that DRM is the kind of technology that can be inserted
into everyone's lives without them even noticing.

will it be "pushed down our throats"...? maybe not, but
it WILL be able to silently slide among the less tech-aware
crowd (and that means 80% of the public). By enabling it as
default, by websites or services refusing to work without
it.... you get the picture. This "security" is,
as far as i can see, a very tricky problem to deal with.

The buzzword of the week is: DRM
by smurf975 on Tue 17th Jun 2003 17:55 UTC

All the fuzz about DRM in the comments.

If you are an honest person using no warez you have nothing to worry about.

The buzzword of the week is: DRM
by asd on Tue 17th Jun 2003 18:01 UTC

"All the fuzz about DRM in the comments.

If you are an honest person using no warez you have nothing to worry about. "

Only about your soul being lost :o)

Now, really, i think i've exhausted the subject
for now. I'm not starting over. My opinion
is stated in my previous posts, feel free to disagree.

re: "of" instead of "have"
by rockwell on Tue 17th Jun 2003 19:19 UTC

// Why do people insist of writing "of" instand of "have".//

Preach it! Kind of like using "instand" instead of "instead."

... or "of" instead of "on"

... or misplacing periods when using quotation marks.

//Bad grammar pisses me off.//

I know what you mean. Really.

"of" instead of "have"
by Chuck Bermingham on Tue 17th Jun 2003 19:31 UTC

AAAAAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

re: "of" instead of "have"
by Bill on Tue 17th Jun 2003 20:00 UTC

Yeah. It's like when people noun verbs!

RE: The buzzword of the week is: DRM
by Tyr on Tue 17th Jun 2003 21:05 UTC

All the fuzz about DRM in the comments.

If you are an honest person using no warez you have nothing to worry about.


I'm coming over to install a camera in your house. Don't worry if you're honest you don't have anything to worry about.
And we can ban free speach because that only protects people who say nasty things, and those that don't don't have anything to worry about anyway.

Freedom is it's own reward, you have it despite people abusing it. It's very easy to sign away, but enormously hard to regain.

the key is "hardware"
by dc on Tue 17th Jun 2003 23:38 UTC


Ok, let's say you have a new shiny PC, DRM enabled : it means it contains one of those beautiful Fritz chipsets, that only let DRM licenced systems to run on it. If Linux is DRM enabled, a distro provider still have to get a licence for a specific build of the kernel. You can bet that this licence will only be delivered if the kernel is fully supporting DRM (not as a dynamic module, but statically linked).
That means that any software will have to be DRM friendly to be runnable on such system. Thinking about circumventing DRM ? If you live in US, it's a crime (DMCA). And the way things are going in Europe, it might become a crime there too.
Ogg Vorbis, Xvid, OpenOffice, Freenet you say ? To access a DRM enabled hardware part (say the soundcard, or simply the Hard Disc), your software will have to be certified by DRM certification providers, or die.
And who will provide the licences/certifications ? Microsoft ? Intel ? The RIAA ? The MPAA ? Governments ?
Besides the fact that you'll need to shell out big bucks to get a DRM licence or certification, just doing something subversive - from the licence provider point of view (like some free implementation of an encryption scheme) could be sufficient to forbid you from getting any certification at all.
In the highly unprobable case that someone get a DRM licence key to be incorporated directly in the Linux source (like Linus is suggesting), how long will last its validity ?

And this is just for Linux : do you seriously believe that all these nice little OSes that fill up everyday news of your favorite website will survive the DRM revolution ?
Goodbye *BSD, BeOS spin-off, MorphOS, not to mention the frequent articles about OS writing...

comments
by sam on Wed 18th Jun 2003 01:38 UTC

>>>If Linux is DRM enabled, a distro provider still have to get a licence for a specific build of the kernel. You can bet that this licence will only be delivered if the kernel is fully supporting DRM (not as a dynamic module, but statically linked).

You are think the other way around. 99% of RedHat's customers bought the cheapest version and not the enterprise server version.

If linux kernel has TCPA (and it's disabled at default), and Oracle's software requires TCPA enabled with a valid TCPA key --- and if RedHat only provides a valid TCPA key to their enterprise server version customer, then everybody have to ditch the cheap version and buy RedHat enterprise server version.

That's why RedHat and company is secretly smiling at the prospect of TCPA. RedHat will still observe fully GPL rules because the TCPA codes are available in the main source tree --- you can still compile the OS, but you can't operate TCPA without a valid key (which RedHat is the only one able to give you for a RedHat TCPA-enabled distribution).

re: comments
by dc on Wed 18th Jun 2003 08:38 UTC

I don't understand the implication of Oracle software forcing everyone to get a TCPAed system : do you mean that once a couple of customers have one, others has to follow ? why ?
Besides, is it a key, or a signature ?
A key could be used for anything, once available unencrypted. While a signature is bound to a single build, which makes having the kernel source code useless except for review.