Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by rohcQaH
you don't have to be a smartass about it! lol thanks!
Senior Member
Phoronix Member
you don't have to be a smartass about it! lol thanks!
Junior Member
Well, that's done. Bring on the islands cards!
Phoronix Member
Niche Viewpoints
Qadarium, people in your position are a minority, and a very small minority. For the majority (in fact, the vast majority of folks running Linux), Windows may not be liked, or their first choice, but they don't go about hating it with the fervor of a jihadist.
Windows is a *compromise design*; pretty much any design which has to support as wide a hardware base as Windows does in practice is going to be a compromise. (And is Linux - any distribution - clean of security holes? Absolutely not, and you know that.) Linux is also a compromise - in fact, if anything, it's more of a compromise than Windows, as only parts of the common core are identical (which is why there are endless niche distributions, forks, etc.) That very freedom to do things differently than Windows is part of the reason why DRM (which is a security measure related to IP) is such a nightmare on Linux (and why most distributions don't install what players support DRM playback - they are justifiably worried about discovery of DRM exploits). Except for the most DRM-ridden formats, Windows and Linux (when fully installed) treat average DRM-protected content (DVDs and MP3s) no differently (both require third-party software, that is easily available, and it's usually free). BD-ROM content, on the other hand, is considered by its authors to be the most valuable, and thus gets the highest level of protection. (Consider bank vaults - not all protect their contents equally. As an engineer, you should at least be familiar with that sort of cencept, as it's not even remotely unique to security, though it is a linchpin of it.) If you are unable, for any reason, to approach security from the content-owner's POV, may be you are not philosophically cut out for engineering. (Your beef with DRM seems very much to be on philosophical, not engineering, grounds.)
Senior Member
1) From a philosophical point of view, if I buy content, I become the OWNER of that content and should therefore be able to use it as I see fit. After all, I'm paying for it.
2) From a lighter philosophical point of view, if you are going to sell content that is restricted by DRM, you should be OBLIGATED to make sure that that content is USABLE on *whatever* equipment the customer happens to be using.
3) From a technical point of view, #2 would be solved by moving the video decode junk into the DISPLAY unit and letting the DRM-infested nonsense just pipe dumbly through the host system. You can let the DRIVE and DISPLAY negotiate with each other for a secure channel without having to go all nuts with protected pathways.
Senior Member
Then I belong to the same minority.
I would like you to think for a moment,
Would M$ shove this DRM shit up out asses, if they were not so dominant ?
I buy something, but I do not own it ?
Like audio cd's, I cant play on my pc, you find this normal ?
Senior Member
I hate DRM too, but do you really think MS is the one pushing it? It's the content providers dictating to Microsoft, not the other way around.
Senior Member
I don't think they can dictate Microsoft around, what would they do? Even if they could in theory ditch the PC and go stand-alone only would they give up all laptops with Windows being used to watch movies on the road? No.
Microsoft does DRM for a few reasons:
1. Files that only play on Windows is a great lock-in
2. It blocks Linux from taking market share (but not Macs)
3. They probably get some kickback from the content industry to require DRM in their "made for Windows" program. It's free money to do their dirty work.
Senior Member
The main thing to understand is that there is no benefit to MS to avoid DRM, since they themselves have tried and continue to try (failing miserably) to implement DRM or DRM-like limitations. The nature of DRM is NOT anti-MS.... so they accept it and rake in the $$.
If there was some fundamental reason why MS would be better off (in terms of $$) to NOT implement DRM, they wouldn't. This would, naturally, have led to problem with their customers who lack the ability to use play their content on their shiny and new MS-whatever... and the next logical step from here, would be that the content MAKERS wouldn't be able to use DRM due to it being thoroughly rejected.
The simple fact is that MS is VERY CENTRAL to DRM.
Simply put... if you make something that nobody can use, nobody will buy it. If nobody buys it, you look for the reason why. If the reason why is that you've loaded it up with DRM, then you know that the only way to make it work (and thus get people to BUY it) is to eliminate the DRM, then you ditch the DRM and allow people to actually use what THEY PAY FOR, what is THEIR MORAL RIGHT to do!
... I say "moral" right since the law tends to be at odds with what is actually right and wrong. Especially when it comes to DRM.
In other words, if I buy something, I ***OWN*** it -- not whoever produced it. Like I buy a sandwich -- the sandwich store can't tell me what I can and can't do with it, so I can feed it to my dog if I want. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with this.... which is a real pain.
... and I do NOT agree with any nonsense "licensing" ideas. They didn't get my signature (witnessed or otherwise), there is no contract outlining my obligations to them, I therefore OWN it irrevocably.
AMD Linux
The sandwich analogy doesn't work so well with digital media. I think everyone agrees that you should be able to buy a sandwich and feed it to your dog, the question is whether you should be able to upload that sandwich to a public server and have everyone *else* feed their dogs without buying more sandwiches.
Do you feel that when you buy something you should have the right to make copies and give those copies to your friends, for example ? If not then you and the content providers are probably on the same page.
