Posts by The BigYin 3080 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
@Charles 9 - Cobblers. Ubuntu (to pick just one of the many non-free distros) contains blobs OOTB.
The "non-free" codecs thing is down to how they are licensed. Not their freedom (or lack thereof). It can depend on the nature of the distro and where they are based. Mint, for example, installs them by default.
I think the short answer is "makes it incompatible". To comply with the GPLv3, the decrypt keys would need to be provided with the source...unless there was some way to securely download them...but then that mechanism would need to be public, so.... Once the keys are known...all bets are off.
However, to be provided in a GNU/Linux distro the plugin/whatever does not have to be GPL compliant. It can just be a binary blob. Nothing to stop someone like Canonical writing said blob and supplying it; "Ubuntu, now with Netflix!" Of course, each distro would need to write their own blob(s) or Netflix would need to provide it (and it sounds like they want to get out of that).
Note: I am not a GPL or crypto expert - if someone else has more knowledge (and can cite sources), please do so.
JDX - well said that person.
I am not going to claim innocence, and I still use "illegal" sites...but for one use case...when the DRM or other restrictions stop me from easily using what I have paid for.
I gave them my money and they give me pain.
E.g. iPlayer on VirginMedia doesn't list films, so if I want to catch up on a film I missed I need to drag out a PC. WTF?
Their PVR has no web UI. Really? This is 2013! So when I record a programme but want to watch it on the PC I download it, watch, then delete the recording.
Some DVDs refuse to rip easily (Dark Knight is a bugger), so buy the DVD and then download to get it on the media server.
All this is content I have paid for one way or another yet am blocked from using it. I own hundreds of DVDs etc...but I'd still be called a pirate.
"I definately agree that the more you use the roads, the more you should pay."
And amazingly we already have this. It's called "fuel duty". No need for a gross invasion of people's privacy, no need for a massive electronics network, no need to fit something-else-that-breaks to a vehicle. It's collected at point of use, and the more you use the more you pay. Simples.
"[Pearson] said farmers with nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
And that's where he fails - hard. We can get into a debate about where the suffering of an animal trumps one's right to privacy (and I tend to agree with that) but the ALA does not have a societal mandate to determine when this should apply. We have courts etc for this.
Minor flaw. What if the rights-holder of the orphaned work didn't want it used for that purpose? Say Nestle, Coca-Cola or some other company that the rights-holder disagrees with on moral grounds used it? Should it be down to money to balance out any perceived harm?
The actual answer is far, far simpler. If you cannot identify the rights-holder or get a license from them, don't use the asset. End of.
Or people could stop being ass-hats.
"Did you get permission from the photographer/artist/writer/other for that asset we wanted for the big promo?"
"Unfortunately not, couldn't find out who created it."
"Dammit. Oh well, go for the second choice then; we know who did that one."
Bingo, bango, bongo; no one has to pay anything to some central authority.
Yes mistakes will happen, but that's still preferable to the alternative.
...if you are putting it on-line, you tag it within the image itself.
Not a perfect solution either, but better than relying on easily removed meta-data. Many sites, newspapers and magazines will crop or obscure the tag, and then you probably have a case for wilful infringement.
Vasilenko's attitude seems to be fairly Creative-Commons; good to see.
As for the authorities being on the side of BBC and Sky...well what do you expect? It's the same deal as the MPAA, RIAA, BPI etc; the big corporates can afford better bribes...err...lobbying.
"the Office XML formats of which are an open standard that are supported"
Apart from the fact they are not open, they are infected with patents and one can't implement MS's format without infringing on MS's patents. Patents MS has licensed in such a way as to make it hard (nay, impossible) for F/OSS to fully support.
MS also deliberately mis-implemented the ODF standard to break compatibility with Libre/Open Office. Their code was free to read, MS could have made sure they used the same/compatible implementation; but no. They had to make sure it would not work.
For many the other products are superior (or, at least) equal; but the lock-in MS retains prevents any real competition or choice.
MS are not open, they are not to be trusted. Ever.
"They are effectively promoting an operating system which they actually CAN'T put monitoring stuff into."
Why does everyone think that just because the Linux kernel is F/OSS that everything that runs on it is also F/OSS. nvidia drivers anyone?
It would not be beyond the wit of the Chinese to include binary blobs. Want to connect to the Internet? First the closed-source blob must authenticate that it is running and correctly filtering/reporting on you.
One could remove the blob, of course, but then the authorities just have to detect that fact and kick your door down for trying to undermine the glorious Party.
They don't have to do anything to the kernel, the kernel is irrelevant; it's what Canonical help then include in userland that should worry you.
It's not limiting your freedoms (yet) but enabling the freedoms of others to be limited is not good. The tools the Chinese develop and add in will no doubt be picked up by other states and used to monitor their citizenry. You only have to look at what Obama is doing in the USA to see what a hard-on they'd have for a "national OS" with built-in spyware.
All to protect freedom, you understand.
Google userd to offer a good service. That's why they got traction, but like many companies they are now going for lock-in i.e. proprietary APIs etc. That's evil right there.
It's also an admission that they cannot compete on ability, and not competing on ability is fundamentally bad for the consumer and for the user.
Go to Apple.
Put in a town or city name or post code.
What comes up? A bunch of links and, more importantly, an Apple map.
There may be other mapping services available, but who's going to look at those when they can just click on the first offering available?
*That* is a clear abuse of Apple's...wait a minute...an Apple map?...nah...no one would be that stupid...?
Google is a monopoly. Yes, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo all exist; but at 90% use Google is a monopoly.
If Google are favouring their own offerings over others, then that is monopoly abuse and they should be punished. Heavily.
If Google are not favouring their own offerings, but their own offerings happen to be better than rivals' and thus linked to/quoted more which makes it appear higher in the results...well...that's just tough.
Personally I try to avoid using Google and any Google service as I view them like a metastasised cancer; little tendrils and nodes all over the 'Net doing goodness knows what and none of it good for you. I never even use "google" as a verb; one does not "google that", one "web searches". Google, like MS, are a monopoly and never to be trusted.
along with the NHS
Not for much longer - we're bringing in the USA system by the back door. Twice the cost, half the service. But it keeps the PFI contracts rolling and that's what our MPs want as their buddies all have the snouts in the trough.
If you have kids, now is a good time to sit them down and explain to them why their future is screwed.
"unlike other taxes enforced on the population it is not means tested"
Having a TV is not mandatory.
"the money just handed to it on a plate means that the organisation is bloated, wasteful, heavily bureaucratic, institutionalised and, as proven with Jimmy Saville etc hiding a corrupted core in its working practices."
Just like the NHS the Beeb not perfect (e.g. Mid Staffs death scandal), but just like the NHS it's still better than any alternative.
"why should people pay for just having a TV?"
You don't have to. It's quite legal to have a working TV and not pay the license fee. Be prepared for an argument mind you.
"what if they only watch Sky on their TV set?"
Two things. 1) The set is capable of receiving broadcast and is actively being used for same, so needs a license as you could be watching the Beeb; 2) Sky is orders of magnitude worse than the BBC.
The NHS is being ripped apart and replace with something worse, more expensive and much more dangerous. Just as the railways were. And you want to offer up the BBC to the same altar?
"Types the dude/tte who seems to think that "Anonymous Coward" is it's name."
Oh look everyone, Jake "The Perfect" has to be demoted to Jake "They Like To Think They Are Perfect"!
Jake, don't you proofread? Don't you know that the English language is very exact? It's a precise tool to be wielded deftly and with a delicate touch. '"Anonymous Coward" is [it is] name' what are you wittering on about? "is it is"? Makes no sense. PROOFREAD you fool!
Now I have made my point, I shall let the matter rest.
Hi Jake "The Perfect". So good to hear from you.
I am human, I make mistakes. Unlike Jake "The Perfect", the only human in the history of all creation who has never once made an error. As wise as Solomon? Please. 'As wise and perfect as Jake "The Perfect"' should be the new saying.
I'm not denying my imperfections, I'm taking the piss out of your holier-than-thou attitude. Maybe I should rename you, Jake "The Perfect and Insufferable"?
I see. Jake "The Perfect" is shall now call thee. He of unerring perfection and exactitude. He who has never stumbled over of a word, taken a wrong turn, forgotten to flush before closing a file or otherwise made any error or misstep from the moment of his conception.
Really Jake, get over yourself. You are coming across as a total ass.
If you have physical possession of your stuff on some media, but it is has a Digital Repression Mechanism (DRM) then it's still not your stuff. Someone will decide when you can see what you paid for. if they are on-line. If the keys are not revoked. If you don't change your PC too much. If your OS is supported. If...
ps Be careful with spelling mistakes or Jake "The Perfect" will get you. :-)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
