Ubuntu To Investigate Digital Rights Management

[funkSTAR]

No, DRM is not part of the Qt "bu$ine$$" model.

LoL. You are in denial.

[blackiwid]

drunk or dumb?

nothing of both, that proofs that you are a ashole and dumb, and to insult somebody without got insulted by this person or hurt in any different way also proofs that you are the dumb motherfucker

yaourt is not the arch packagemanger....

I never wrote such stuff
so another proof of your dumbness!

its only so taht in 99.99999999999999% of any tutoral or even on official wikis you get noted that you should do that next...

If you use yaourt to use AUR has nothing todo with how arch package management work.

packmans user-interface is even more stupid it looks like dpkg heck even the old debian non-recommend 2000 year old apt-get looks better and more comfortable at least you dont have to use combinations of 4 shortcut-keys to do stuff, everybody can learn easily apt-get update; apt-get upgrade, but who remebers packaman -Sy ( I had to look again ) -Syu its ok for console tools to have additionaly shurtcuts for people who want to use a command 100 times a day or so, but to not have --long-name option is just stupid. I stay to it, gentoos interface is way better and even debians bad console interface is better.

But you can think here different, but because of that you dont have to insult me, ashole!

Its exist a shitload of different AUR-helpers, yaourt is one of them. Non of them is official and non is neded. AUR is a place you can distribute your own packagebuilds if you dont understand the difference between that and the packagemanager pacman you should probably not choose arch ither way.

look at the quality of the packages in ubuntu-ppas and then look at AUR, you will see a big big quality difference. even the gentoo files I found in bugtrackers or somewhere else years ago had better quality.

And its not just the interface, yes I am able to use even such a bad interface, I just think that its a bad sign if that tools arent that good.

Arch can maybe be a ok distri I would not have mentioned it, when I just think its totaly bad, but at least for testing new stuff even ubuntu is better, the support from the ppas to test as example very new mesa builds is better than what garbage often lies in AUR.

Maybe my comparsion with gentoo is set to high, they had maybe there best days also behind them, back in the days I used it, latestly in a weak after something a bit bigger was released there were packages or build scripts at least in unstable, now they seem to work also more with 3rd party (and because of that often less quality) stuff.

But just because gentoo is now also bad, makes the desktop linux question not better, I find it somewhat strange that there is no linux, not even the in 1 week coming beta version of the next ubuntu release have gnome-shell 3.7xx packages. and arch dont have it, and sadly even gentoo dont have it as option.

Thats my problem with todays linuxes, yes not everybody wants to play around with new packages that are not ready for productive environments, but to have the option is not bad.

The only one I just found out who can deliver me that option in a non-3rdparty way is fedora:

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/gnome-shell

So if they get there release-dates back somewhat sync with the gnome-releases I could think to it that it would be the alternative to me.


But then is the question if arch linux fails to deliver (if you exclude AUR) very new versions of even major software parts whats the point in rolling releases??? I dont really get that.

[Yorgos]

Taking advice on security from antivirus companies is like taking advice from foxes on how to build your chicken coops.

what do you suggest? believe every random guy who has an internet connection.
it wasn't long ago when someone found an exploit on how to unlock the screen of an i-pad while it had password protection with 3 simple taps on the locked screen and I remember another case where the user's passwords were stored in plain text in the system.
I'd say again, that Eugene guy must've been drunk. I believe all you random guys who have internet.

[j2723]

LoL. You are in denial.

Is that all you got to say? How about answering some of my questions and commenting about the points I've made? Guess I'm expecting too much from a forum troll . I must be insane, I keep trying in hope of a different result.

[Akka]

nothing of both, that proofs that you are a ashole and dumb, and to insult somebody without got insulted by this person or hurt in any different way also proofs that you are the dumb motherfucker


I never wrote such stuff
so another proof of your dumbness!

its only so taht in 99.99999999999999% of any tutoral or even on official wikis you get noted that you should do that next...

ehh. what?

packmans user-interface is even more stupid it looks like dpkg heck even the old debian non-recommend 2000 year old apt-get looks better and more comfortable at least you dont have to use combinations of 4 shortcut-keys to do stuff, everybody can learn easily apt-get update; apt-get upgrade, but who remebers packaman -Sy ( I had to look again ) -Syu its ok for console tools to have additionaly shurtcuts for people who want to use a command 100 times a day or so, but to not have --long-name option is just stupid. I stay to it, gentoos interface is way better and even debians bad console interface is better.

Pacman support booth short and long option names.

look at the quality of the packages in ubuntu-ppas and then look at AUR, you will see a big big quality difference. even the gentoo files I found in bugtrackers or somewhere else years ago had better quality.

AUR has zero package...
The quality in the regular Arch repositories is good.

And its not just the interface, yes I am able to use even such a bad interface, I just think that its a bad sign if that tools arent that good.

which interface?

Arch can maybe be a ok distri I would not have mentioned it, when I just think its totaly bad, but at least for testing new stuff even ubuntu is better, the support from the ppas to test as example very new mesa builds is better than what garbage often lies in AUR.

PPA means personal package archive, I suppose that is package arcive. The problem with these is that either you restrict them to trustworthy individuals or you get a security hole. If you use binaries you need to know that the guy how did them was reasonably competent and not malicious. If you do this all people can not contribute.
If you instead contribute simple build script every one can contribute. The user can read them before he build and install the package. You should not build and install from AUR if you don't understand the PKGBUILDS. Arch has more than 40000 people registered and legitimated to contribute PKGBUILD package. As you can control the PKGBUILD before you use it the security is not lower than build package from scratch yourself.
AUR is notice-board with user contributed PKGBUILDS they works like them that is used to build the official package. But they are not the same. You can do what your like with them. The quality is shifting as regular user contribute them. And that is what is good with them.

Maybe my comparsion with gentoo is set to high, they had maybe there best days also behind them, back in the days I used it, latestly in a weak after something a bit bigger was released there were packages or build scripts at least in unstable, now they seem to work also more with 3rd party (and because of that often less quality) stuff.

Gentoo is a source dist. The user build theirs package before they install. Yes you do that with AUR but that is the only similarity. The packagebuild for the official Arch package is not in AUR. You can download them with ABS thought. They have good quality.

The only one I just found out who can deliver me that option in a non-3rdparty way is fedora:

You could consider PPA third part also

[zanny]

PPA means personal package archive, I suppose that is package arcive. The problem with these is that either you restrict them to trustworthy individuals or you get a security hole. If you use binaries you need to know that the guy how did them was reasonably competent and not malicious. If you do this all people can not contribute.
If you instead contribute simple build script every one can contribute. The user can read them before he build and install the package. You should not build and install from AUR if you don't understand the PKGBUILDS. Arch has more than 40000 people registered and legitimated to contribute PKGBUILD package. As you can control the PKGBUILD before you use it the security is not lower than build package from scratch yourself.
AUR is notice-board with user contributed PKGBUILDS they works like them that is used to build the official package. But they are not the same. You can do what your like with them. The quality is shifting as regular user contribute them. And that is what is good with them.

It is worth noting that you can "upvote" AUR packages, as a way to figure out which ones other people have used to verify the validity of them without having to read through the whole pkgbuild file, and you can also add to the usual base repositories pacman uses (I have one for Firefox Aurora) to auto-update from that repo in addition to the normal ones. They behave almost exactly like PPAs.

And I have seen very little software without a *-git repo in the AUR, which just pulls the latest git tree and builds that. I don't think you will get newer than that.

[ElderSnake]

I don't understand why anyone needs to try and implement DRM at OS level.

Why not just let the content providers provide their own way of DRM if they are so anal about it. Look at Steam, Netflix, Spotify etc, they have their clients with some form of DRM and people can choose to use them or not.

I do feel Canonical are getting a wee bit desperate or power hungry, but then again, this entire topic stemmed from a Google Hangout conversation; this kind of stuff may never happen.

[funkSTAR]

Is that all you got to say? How about answering some of my questions and commenting about the points I've made? Guess I'm expecting too much from a forum troll . I must be insane, I keep trying in hope of a different result.

No one can help you. If you cant read some of the provided links then you are lost. I dont care about you calling me a troll but I do care about you skipping proof.

[Akka]

nothing of both, that proofs that you are a ashole and dumb, and to insult somebody without got insulted by this person or hurt in any different way also proofs that you are the dumb motherfucker

I can add, I thought you did trolling in the first post... If you wasn't I apologize for my choice of words

[e8hffff]

I don't understand why anyone needs to try and implement DRM at OS level.

Microsoft put in a protected software bus that if someone attempts to disrupt the channel it produces an interrupt resulting in violation crashes or error. DRM advocates would probably want this level of protection so that any streams are protected from immediate copying or tapping. The consequence of having a protected software bus is latency for software starts and other general checking and clearance situations. This is why Microsoft Windows become dog slow from XP.

The fact is if someone wants to copy content they will get it, even if it means descrambling(sampler) the display of an LCD monitor after it passes security circuitry, or cracking encryption for Bluray or DVD's, etc and then sharing on major p2p sites.