Posts by Charles 9

Re: The road ends eventually.

"Similarly, when DVD first launched, PCs at the time needed an MPEG-2 add-on card as the required decoding wasn't possible in software-only due to the limits on CPUs grunt at the time."

And they weren't cheap, either. Anyone remember the RealMAGICs and Jazz VGA piggyback cards? I ended up getting one (used) because I learned firsthand that a 300MHz CPU (no cheapie for the late 90's) was a bit on the underpowered side. It took the P3 generation to make it doable in software, just as it took the P1 generation to be able to do MPEG-1 VideoCDs in software.

But the handshake can also BREAK or be REJECTED. Think of the early 4K screens after the HDMI spec was updated for protected 4K content.

My point. You STILL would miss, as most video decoding these days is done on the graphics unit rather than the central unit. Plus by raising your price, you allow the competition to undercut you, so you basically can't win.

Re: 'unused bit of the video signal'

Specifically, NTSC used 3.579545 MHz as the color subcarrier frequency. PAL used 4.433618 MHz. SECAM used a different system altogether that had its own tradeoffs (instead of both channels at once, it goes one at a time, improving horizontal color resolution at the cost of vertical resolution).

None of the systems were perfect, which is why derivise backronyms were made up ("Never Twice the Same Color", "Picture Always Lousy", and "Sans Experience Contre les AMericans"/"System Essentially Contrary to American Method")

Re: All I want is the screen

"So get cracking on modular frames."

You forget about Planned Obsolescence. Unless you can compel them by law, no manufacturer will ever want to support the screens for more than the bare minimum. Captive markets, after all.

Re: Hardware Acceleration Required

It depends on the chip, I think. If the 10-bit bitstream is not that different from an 8-bit one, the decoder can still decode it, then pare down the 10-bit results into 8-bit ones. But this isn't a question with a universal answer.

Until they update the HDMI spec, that is...

Re: Smart

But terrible media centers. You usually have to fiddle with them to find the videos you want, and their codec support can be hit or miss. I speak from experience. It's not like they support something like Kodi where everything's well-organized.

Re: Hardware Acceleration Required

Yes you can. You just can't show the full gamut. It's like trying to watch a 4K video on a 1080p screen. You can do it, just not at its full quality.

Ah, but which VERSION of HDMI? Ask the early 4K TV adopters what they thought when they learned the HDMI spec was updated for 4K HDCP support and their TVs don't support it. Ugh...

Probably not. Need additional oomph in the chips to be able to handle HEVC (that's the tradeoff; tighter encoding results in higher demands at the other end). Basically, if your TV was built before HEVC was formalized, don't count on it to be able to handle it reliably if at all. It's a hard problem of technology: they can only build for what they can see, and trying to future proof is like trying to predict the weather: fair chance of missing.

Re: Question about these pirate Kodi sticks

I think it's mainly the latter. Content management systems are getting hardened enough for the former to not be too feasible these days barring a hole.

Re: mmmmmmmmmm...

"One assumes, further, that it may become illegal to pass any directions as to where you can find the instructions on how to install such software."

Directly, probably, but that kind of information is also easier to pass along INdirectly.

Re: The future...

But that was the FIRST thing they did. All the prime real estate's assumed to already be taken, including space WITHIN the exchange if at all possible. Now, due to the crazy demand, prime real estate commands prices too high for RoI to be worth it anymore. Which means time for Plan B: quicker turnaround at junction points because everything else is basically hampered by the speed of light in medium and the speed of electricity.

Re: They missed a trick

Anything that involves a translation means things can get LOST in translation, especially if a system is heavily used. START with an ASCII log, THEN work from there on an AUXILIARY basis. Until you can prove yourself able to dig through a mangled journal on a crashed drive using a raw sector editor (because the system you're using for the post-mortem may not even be a Linux machine, so forget about one that groks a binary log to say nothing of an extended filesystem), don't even get started.

Why MUST the log be binary for forward-secure sealing? Why not encode a TEXT log and append the Hex-encoded hash to the log? You get your signature AND maintain an ASCII log that can still be read in the event of a disaster. It's nothing more than a blockchain, and you don't need to use binary formats to create a blockchain.

As for enclosing those utilities, remember the old Microsoft mantra? The three E's? Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. This seems like a blatant attempt to usurp baseline utilities and take over their control so that no one else can keep up? Look at what happened to udev, which was working pretty well all by itself. Between it and the existing init systems, you'd be well on your way to solving most of the existing problems with dynamic hardware, containerization, and so on while still keeping things distinct.

And what about Bug #5644? In any other circles, this would be a Drop Everything because it breaks a cardinal rule of Linux (Don't allow easy tampering of the root). Here it's a WONTFIX. And not because it's a non-issue, because no real reason is given for ignoring the issue. Where I come from, we call that "taking the ball out of spite" and consider this a sign the project is Not Ready for Prime Time and the head to be blackballed.

Frankly, if they could demonstrate one clear and present need that systemd AND ONLY systemd solves by its particular methodology, we'd probably pay at least some attention to it. But until then...

Re: Why not switch to FreeBSD?

Hardware support stinks, especially for end users.

Re: They missed a trick

Really? Then perhaps you can list and rebut all the objections to it, including boring things like ntp and udev best kept separate, not using an ASCII log that can be read easily even if you're forced to read a crashed drive by raw sectors, and especially the attitude coming from up top of "my way or the highway," and no, Linus is better than Pottering in this regard. Linus objects to stupid stuff. Pottering objects to stuff that isn't his.

Re: geez, the ignorance about systemd here is astounding

"Please make the effort to do so, if they are indeed misunderstandings. There are some angry comments here about systemd, but I'd be very interested in your rebuttal of the more rational comments from those of us who have what we believe are sound technical objections to systemd's design."

I think what they're saying is that you can't fix Stupid. And you can't stop people ignoring things they WANT to ignore.

Re: They missed a trick

You forget. The Amish are technophobes. They're very much against using electricity; computers are essentially taboo to them.

What you probably intend to coin is perhaps "Luddix" on the belief that technology isn't the answer to everything.

PS. Back to the discussion. If we do have to go back to square one, how DO we better handle dynamic hardware configurations where even basic things like displays can come and go on a moment's notice?

Re: Cat among the pigions but...

Not really. A desktop has to work with much more varied hardware configurations including consumer-designed graphics cards with GPUs and 3D demands as well as things like hot-plugging USB hardware of all shapes and sizes from media devices to display adapters (and a good chunk of which are black-boxed, too), in mobile settings where people may be switching from access point to access point, maybe even using LTE modems and so on.

As they say, the devil is in the details. There's a world of difference between making a fixed-hardware interface-light server work and making a desktop that could have any number of things attached to it work.

The problem comes when you don't have access to journalctl. Say you're booting from an external device because the original drive no longer boots (or worse, you transplanted the drive to another system). Odds are, the journal's mangled and the recovery system you're using doesn't grok the binary log. It's somewhat easier to make at least some sense of a mangled ASCII file; it's one time where INefficiency is a boon (more room for error). As for filtering, as long as the log's well-formatted, you can simply run an ASCII log through the usual trove of text-selector utilities like grep to winnow things down. You'll have to demonstrate (very useful) things that simply cannot be done any way OTHER than a binary log.

Re: More honest questions

Probably because it wasn't intended to be an actual fork but rather a demonstration on just how tightly integrated the systemd components are. Sort of a, "Oh, you say it's so simple?" response to claims that you can separate the components.

As I've mentioned, the desire to have this kind of integration appears to come from up top, meaning any attempt to divorce the init part of systemd from the rest is unlikely and it would make more sense to start from scratch. Trouble is, something as serious as an init replacement, especially for modern environments, will likely need some backing, and most commercial interests that back Linux projects are backing systemd.

Re: More honest questions

"Second, and please don't blow my head off, it's just an idea, is it practicable to fork SystemD and castrate its excesses to create a genuinely clean init subsystem?"

I think for many your last suggestion is the nail in systemd's coffin. The group centered around the development of systemd appears insular and opinionated. If it weren't for the "my way or the highway" attitude existing there (and since it's coming mostly from up top, there's no real way to control it), we might see support for paring things down.

Because there ARE things that could use addressing, like better support for dynamic hardware configurations and especially hot-plugging (not prevalent in servers, yes, but essential for end-user stuff).

There's also debate about the very core of the UNIX philosophy because "doing one thing" doesn't guarantee they'll do it RIGHT or CONSISTENTLY, and you need both in order to ensure the stable interrelationship that is essential to make a process chain work. Interdependency chains create "weak link" problems that aren't always obvious. Nothing fouls up a maintainers day like one of those "one things" going WRONG, messing up the process chain, and then mangling the logs and backtraces to make backtracking difficult. It doesn't help that there's no real manual of style for scripting or configuration files, so each one does things differently leading to more inconsistency. From my perspective, the whole problem is something that's neither here or there: in other words, it's complicated, and there's no real ability to debate over the best way to approach this due to the spate of extremists in the discussion (see the systemd problem above).

"I doubt some magical spell patent would bother me."

But you'd also running the significant risk of being found out and having another excuse for the plods to come after you.

Nope, you forget scenario three. Mine's the large AND well-worn toolbox, because my dad found himself having to fix A LOT of different things of varying shapes and sizes. Anything from a 6mm socket using a 1/4" ratchet to the four-inch pipe wrench. In another box he held a soldering iron and assorted accoutrements. Two multimeters, multiple saws, and a vice. And ALL of them have been used, multiple times. I've been forced to do the same thing. It's called versatility. Sometimes, you DO need the jack of all trades because although he may not be a master of any one, he can still be good enough to be preferable to the alternatives.

"You have to bribe the manufacturers to do so - and for them it's a matter of once it's known they let the NSA or whoever doctor their stuff that's it, game over."

Or blackmail. It's not above the Chinese, isn't it? As for "game over," that depends on whether or not an alternative is available. If they're a monopoly (say because they hold an essential patent), then they've basically got you up Crap Creek because there's no alternative other than to go without (which depending on the case is not an option for staying in operation).

And there's always going AROUND the manufacturers and replacing chips or other things en route, or simply finding ways to tamper with firmware and do it in irreversible ways (like the MacOS exploit that then replaced the encryption keys to prevent a reversal).

Easy enough. Encrypted packets bound for a white listed address or mixed into an existing encrypted session. The plods intercept the data upstream. Plus they really could be pwning the network chips. What then? You can't roll your own because of hardware patents.

Re: Move Windows XP to VM

You can't VM custom hardware because it won't know how to virtualize it, like that custom ISA lathe controller card (can't be used after XP because Vista dropped the ISA bus).

"The thing is, you want tools that work "everywhere", not every target runs the same hw, most, if not all, have slurp boxen, though."

No, you want the most effective tools, and you keep as many tools as you need to be as effective as you can in as many things as you can. That's why a good garage keeps a lot of tools. That's why State-level malware writer ALSO write Linux and MacOS malware.

Re: Targetting the wrong method?

The untrusted medium basically means there's no real way to deal with CNP fraud before the fact, as most thieves simply get enough information to properly impersonate the original holder. There's no real way to stop a Perfect Impostor at that point.

Re: Won't matter because it seems the Americans don't use C&P now

"But the real issue is US merchants who can't, or won't use C&P and only accept on 30YO mag strip technology."

Because they don't care. Most of the time, they don't foot the bill, and the little that does stick they eat to keep customers from defecting. Customers don't care as they just wanna get out the door (one of the most embarrassing things you can see is a customer swiping and leaving only for the clerk to call back, "But your card was declined!"). And as noted earlier, VISA don't want to lose customers so they tend to resolve fraud issues quickly in their favor. In such an environment, why shoulder additional PITAs when they don't have to?

Re: Maybe I'm not as smart as these card tech guys...

"Well typically it's not a hash, because that won't allow fuzzy matching that takes into account small changes between different presentations of the same finger. MasterCard say that they convert the fingerprint to a template and store it in an encrypted form on the card. Of course the encryption key needs to be stored on the card too, but hopefully it is not easy to extract both it and the encrypted template."

In such a situation the crypto module is black-boxed, unique to the card, and highly tamper-resistant with suicide circuits and so on (IOW, try to mess with it and it wipes).

"Red-Tag Items 50% Off Next Friday" seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. "Now $1.19" as well.

If those are a lie, then cake is a lie, too. And if that's a lie, EVERYTHING is a lie and we're back to square one.

How else can you get the word out that you exist, especially if you're new to the scene and no one knows about you yet? Chicken-and-egg problem otherwise.

Look, advertise on your merits, but be ready to back them up. If your product is so good, then it should be good in the general case, not just the atypical case. If you don't have enough difference to make your ad worthwhile, GOOD!

The way I see, I consider ads a testimony before the public. Subject them to the same requirements as a court witness: the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth, so help you $DEITY.

No, that doesn't always work because young people can be both impressionable and rebellious. They'll follow their idol and hide that from their overbearing parents.

Given that, the only solution is a law demanding absolute truth in advertising with all claims made in the conservative. If a celebrity endorses it, they must ACTIALLY USE it and describe it's actual effects truthfully.

Re: Terms of service

"To comply with local laws the Swiss subsidiaries pulled access from their parent firm (not to do so would land them in jail) however the US courts still found the US parent firm to be guilty of contempt of court for not providing the the information and fined them daily."

So what happens when a multinational company (local to MORE THAN ONE country) gets caught between conflicting sovereign laws such that, no matter what, the company WILL be in violation of AT LEAST ONE, with severe consequences either way?