Posts by Vic

> The number of non-techies I've seen with some flavour of Linux has gratifyingly been growing

I supplied a copy of Fedora to a customer who had something of a problem[1] with malware. I didn't hear from him for many weeks - I though perhaps I'd upset him, but it turned out that he just wasn't having any problems he needed help with.

Then his son came home and convinced him that Linux was too difficult for him to use, so he went out and bought a new Windows PC :-(

Vic.

[1] He was something of a prodigious consumer of one-handed websites...

> PC owners don't buy a new one every year.

I've met quite a few people who decide that they need a new PC because their old one is running slowly.

I always try to explain to them that a bit of a tune-up (i.e. a reinstall) would make it like new again, but this never seems to work; I suspect many people just want an excuse for some new shiny.

So these days, I offer to take the old one away. And I acquire another quick box running a RHEL clone...

Vic.

Re: i interpret this as

Your interpretation is wrong.

What this is saying is that if one of the component manufacturers - e.g. Foxconn - wants the Win8 certification label on its box, it must implement this strategy that gives Microsoft complete control over ever bootloader that ever runs on that board.

Now it is true that said manufacturer could build two options - one with the label, one without. But that's additional overhead for everyone, and there is always the probability that someone will accidentally end up with something he didn't want. So it's downside all the way, unless you're Microsoft.

So what's the commensurate upside for punters? Well, there isn't one, really.

Vic.

> What I'm betting on is that all we'd have to have "keys" for would be lilo or grub/grub2

Yes.

Where are you going to get those keys? If they're publicly-available, then the whole system falls flat on its arse - the malware makers could sign their bootloader with those keys, and then the rootkit sails straight past the "protection"[1].

Or the key could be unavailable - in which case, you need to get Microsoft to sign every build of grub you want to use. Remember that grub2 is GPLv3, so they won't do this[2].

The whole system is a joke - it doesn't prevent rootkits, just bootloader vectors. Given the capabilities available in all commonly-used OSes these days, it should never be necessary. But implementing it will cause endless grief for anyone trying to use their own property in any fashion slightly removed from the One Microsoft Vision.

Vic.

[1] Once again, I am using the term quite wrongly.

[2] Aside from Microsoft's well-known dislike for the GPL of any flavour, GPLv3 explicitly requires *all* source and build materials to be included in a source distribution - which MS, as the distributor of the binary, would have to ship on. That includes the signing key, without which the binary could nor be built...

> It was supposed to be a closed platform,

There was an awful lot of detail (including schematics) in the blue Tech Ref manuals for a closed platform...

Vic.

> That's 1% of a market

That 1% figure is complete nonsense.

Even Ballmer's slides from 2009 show it as being much higher than that.

Vic.

Re: Anyone trying to run Linux on an iDevice is doing so for the lulz

Not *entirely*.

I have an iMac G5 running Fedora. I installed that because OSX kept failing to boot.

Eventually, I found that it is complaining about a fault code (from the PSU, I believe). Shaking it hard enough gets it to boot eventually - at which point it is perfectly stable. But Fedora was much easier to get going...

Vic.

> Why the hell do you spend time and effort ripping it off?

We don't.

But the film industry has seen a decline in profits because we aren't bothering with the tosh they put out. And they seem to have convinced the last government that that decline is because of pirates with cannon and swords and bandanas and lots of swashbuckling.

If even the FPRP - which I'm absolutely certain will have no hint of bias in its output - only puts the problem at 2.5%, it is clear to anyone who is looking that the whole "piracy"[1] problem is a storm in a teacup; the decline in film revenues is because people are deciding that going to the flicks is no longer worth the price they charge.

The government[2], in its usual fashion, chooses to put in place yet more draconian laws rather than fix the real problem, though...

Vic.

[1] And I use the word quite wrongly.

[2] This isn't a party-political thing; the DEA was introduced under a Labour government, and supported under a Tory/LibDem coalition. All three main parties are equally clueless[3] in this arena.

[3] I'm being generous; there are other, more sinister words that could be used here :-(

> And *all* UK generators are *addicted* to the big lump of capacity in one humungous hit.

That's hardly surprising.

Look at the amount of aggro you'd have to go through to get *any* power station built - any size, any technology. There will be protests, legal challenges, you name it...

So you can either do that once for a large power station, or many times for a number of smaller ones to get to the same capacity.

Vic.

> yes, hydroelectric storage

Underground? In an old mine?

How do you work that, then?

Vic.

> it is clean simple and would "just work".

I'm not sure that's actually the case...

The sort of volume of water we're talking about really isn't that great; if you work out the total energy storage in a gasometer, it's going to be pretty much ineffective as an electricity supply.

Gasometers held enough energy to sustain the gas *pressure*...

Vic.

> So does multi-line quoting from the parent work? I'll write

> something quite long here to see if I can quote it and then

> see whether the spurious paragraph tags still turn up all

> over the place making it very difficult to work out what

> the quote was really about.

Here goes...

Vic.

> LVM *IS* aggregated storage

... *can be* aggregated storage. can be many things, in fact.

It's quite wonderful to watch people's faces the first time they see an lvresize / resize2fs play...

Vic.

> What people actually want to do is have a single filesystem transparently

> spanning multiple drives

Like LVM, then.

Vic.

> make music and we will buy it

I doubt you would.

I was actually a professional guitarist at the end of the '80s. "Professional" in that my music was my sole income.

I nearly starved...

Vic.

> Where your argument really falls apart is in seemingly making a

> connection between the rise in copyright infringement and the

> perceived decline in the quality of music.

I'm not sure the OP actually made that connection.

I, however, will make a connection between the utter shite being bandied around pervasively and the decline in the music companies' income. I hardly ever buy music any more - I'm not copying it, either; I just don't acquire new music because there is so very little I will listen to.

The problem we all have is the assertion that this drop-off in profits is down to unlawful activity. It is my contention that this is not the reason - but we're still subject to stupid new laws (or proposals for laws, at any rate).

Vic.

> (Performing Rights Society)

They're calling themselves "PRS for Music" these days. Pillocks.

Vic.

> they need to ensure their staff/departments are by far and away the

> best informed regarding the technologies they sell

I'd go for a slightly different tack.

They need to ensure that their staff know when they don't know something.

A sales assistant that says "Sorry, I don't know the answer, I'll find someone who does" is only fractionally annoying. A sales assistant who bullshits me will raise my ire...

Vic.

> The corollary is that non-locked-down ARM mobos can never run Windows 8.

Actually, they could,

They wouldn't get Win8 certification, though.

But if someone were to install Win8 on an unlocked device - would it check? Of course not.

Vic.

> You need to be better and cheaper.

I suspect "better or cheaper" would suffice.

But this is neither...

Vic.

I don't like Mondays.

Vic.

> It doesn't count as sweary if it's an acronym, right?

Doesn't matter either way.

MPAA *are* cunts.

Vic,

Re: Didn't like Wednesdays anyway

It would have been far more suitable to have blacked out Monday.

I don't like Mondays...

Vic.

> And perhaps you'd care to look up "disingenuous" ?

I know what the word means. I am very carefully and deliberately making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft - which is a true statement - whilst simultaneously *not* making the statement that copyright infringement is acceptable - which would be an untrue statement.

This is not disingenuous; it is a statement of fact, and it is important because it has a significant effect both on the hyperbole of the pro-enforcement camp and on the position that politicians[1] will be backed into if we accept the untruth.

There is an attempt here to declare property rights when none exist. That is a line that must not be crossed.

Vic.

[1] We all know that pols have a tendency to react without thinking[2]. Giving them false premises upon which to hang their prejudices is just going to be awful.

[2] Just look at the support SOPA is getting in some areas: SOPA is a clear dereliction of due process, yet the pols think they're protecting the world...

> The repeated comments here that it isn't theft because making a copy

> doesn't deprive the owner of the original are disingenuous

Not so. They are a statement of the law[1] as it stands.

> The situation is called *copy*right

Indeed it is. Note that the word "copyright" doesn't include the word "theft" or even "property" at any point. So focussing on what it is - the right to determine which copies are made - doesn't actually help your proposal that theft is involved in any way in making unauthorised copies.

Really - check up on what the law says, rather than pontificating on what you'd like it to say.

Vic.

[1] This is specifically UK law I'm speaking about. I believe the US law says something very similar, but my expertise in that jurisdiction is significantly less.

> So my post was to explain the value of the copyright

This was never at issue.

> it is something that appears to pass by many people when they

> start on the copyright infringement isn't theft crusade,

No. That is exactly the false dichotomy I keep highlighting.

Just because we say that copyright infringement isn't theft, we are *not* saying that it is OK.

Do I need to repeat that?

Just because we say that copyright infringement isn't theft, we are *not* saying that it is OK.

No-one is ignorant of the value of copyright. We all know that copyright infringement is at least unlawful. We are not arguing that it is a Good Thing(tm) to do.

What we are arguing is that conflating it with theft is wrong. There are many reasons for such conflation, and none of them are good.

Vic.

> So, no copyright infringement isn't theft

Thank you. That was the point under discussion.

> however it is still depriving someone of the income to for the work they've done.

That was not the point under discussion.

Nor is it something protected by law; depriving someone of the income they had expected (but not yet realised) is not unlawful. The means by which that is achieved might be.

But that is a tangential discussion. What we were heading towards is the point agreed above - copyright infringement is not theft.

Vic.