Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80

Thread: Ubuntu To Investigate Digital Rights Management

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    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.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    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

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    586

    Default

    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.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Basement
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j2723 View Post
    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.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    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
    Last edited by Akka; 03-08-2013 at 08:29 AM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElderSnake View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Canonical doesn't care about your opinion on public opinion. See, most people ... will choose what looks prettier.
    I'm sorry but in the context of you talking about Ubuntu this statement is absolutely hilarious. If there is one thing Ubuntu is not, it's being pretty...First it was shit brown and now this congealed mass of purple and orange and yeah... just wtf fugliness. Nobody else uses those color schemes not even Kubuntu,Lubuntu, or Xubuntu who have all opted for blue themes.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    I can add, I thought you did trolling in the first post... If you wasn't I apologize for my choice of words
    I have respect when somebody apoledgise, you have to have a big ego to do that so peace.

    I did maybe troll a bit, but thats often a good way to get fast good responses ^^.

    But in fact I just find it a bit sad today that there are not many good alternatives to ubuntu, back in the days there were mandriva, there were even this debian-think dream linux... ^^ then there were a gentoo that was in better shape^^. Now I find it a bit sad, its maybe just a small time window and in a year fedora as example is a good alternative, and maybe arch isnt that bad, it just dont fit my bleeding edge need (sometimes).

    I will not say its totaly bad, but I have a bit a problem to see it as a ubuntu replacement...

    we will see what happens, I just find it a bit sad that now that ubuntu in my opinion gets to proprietary or goes extremly bad ways ( imho ), I dont like it that the alternatives are not in absolut top shape... I wished they would be in better shape now... and again I just talk about fedora and arch because they are the most interesting candidates to be such a alternative for many people...

    I dont like opensuse much, I cant go back to debian because I dont like there changing package-aging even in testing or unstable and that this branches both get frozen too if a release-freeze happens, I cant go back to gentoo because first I have no good compile machines and also there quality did get down, or I wont ^^, but arch and fedora even I had bad feelings about a redhat rpm systems I am not totaly happy with it too at the moment because of their release problems.


    And Mint is for me ubuntu because it uses their packages its basicly like a ppa and a installer that installs the packages from that ppa default ^^


    We will see ^^

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I have respect when somebody apoledgise, you have to have a big ego to do that so peace.

    I did maybe troll a bit, but thats often a good way to get fast good responses ^^.

    But in fact I just find it a bit sad today that there are not many good alternatives to ubuntu, back in the days there were mandriva, there were even this debian-think dream linux... ^^ then there were a gentoo that was in better shape^^. Now I find it a bit sad, its maybe just a small time window and in a year fedora as example is a good alternative, and maybe arch isnt that bad, it just dont fit my bleeding edge need (sometimes).
    Try Mageia if you liked Mandriva. They are the old Mandriva community.

    I don't think Arch has to old package? They have almost always the latest package upstream proclaimed stable. At least for KDE it exist a unstable repo. Other repos https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...l_Repositories and https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...r_Repositories besides that you can use git/bazar/svr PKGBUILD to get trunk.
    But arch can not replace Ubuntu as they have different goals.

    I dont like opensuse much, I cant go back to debian because I dont like there changing package-aging even in testing or unstable and that this branches both get frozen too if a release-freeze happens, I cant go back to gentoo because first I have no good compile machines and also there quality did get down, or I wont ^^, but arch and fedora even I had bad feelings about a redhat rpm systems I am not totaly happy with it too at the moment because of their release problems.
    I have always thought opensuse is pretty much like Ubuntu was before. They use upstream desktops but they patch and theames them more than Arch and Fedora. They are reasonably stable but do not use as old package as debian. Besides that I think OBS is like PPAs? OBS also works for multiple distros, you can use it to build and distribute both rpm, deb and arch package. They also has a rolling release flavor, tumbleweed. But as I not have used either opensuse or Ubuntu in some years I should not say to much.
    Last edited by Akka; 03-09-2013 at 10:33 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •