The new version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn) coming out in 20XX (I forget exactly when) is going to have a system to ‘tag’ every music or video file that goes through it, and only allow the mp3/mpeg/whatever to be played on the PC with the same tag, therefore (in theory) effectively destorying Kazaa et al.
And apparently already the anti-piracy codes has been cracked. Before it’s even released. MS now has a website Windows goes to register automatically after installation, which checks that is is indeed a ‘real’ copy of Windoes, and some guys have set up a near-identical one, which does the same thing for pirated versions.
Does anybody remember the good old days when you could do what you wanted on your own computer?
Seriously, though… how many sci-fi stories have an all-powerful computer controlling the flow of information? This is just another step to Internet Orwellism.
Every time Microsoft comes out with something new, a hundred conspiracy theories pop up. Personally, I’ll wait to see what REALLY happens. Besides, Kazaa users will ALWAYS find a way around whatever Microsoft, the RIAA, or the government throws at them.
And I have a hypothetical question. Suppose Linux was the dominant OS; every computer came with it, every program was required to run for it, every person on earth had to use it. When it reaches that point, I doubt Linux would be as kind and benevolent as it is now. Rather, it would become corrupted by the power bestowed upon it. Soon, it will do the same BS that Microsoft is doing. That’s because the reason such crap goes on isn’t because Microsoft was evil from the beginning; rather, it crushed all the competition until it was no longer a serious threat. They became the dictators of the computer industry. And as a result of their absolute power, they were corrupted absolutely, until they became the evil monopolist organization that thrives on creating OSes that the average person can understand.
You are right… we WOULD bitch about Linux, and make Windows the small guy. But, I think we should.
After all, as long as we are willing to defend how we want our system, we can at least know the alternatives, and be aware of how we are being screwed, we can at least pretend to have control.
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> Gallo, don’t just randomly spout stuff around anymore While things would change if Linux was the dominant OS, it wouldn’t be run in the same way as Windows, considering they both are on opposite ends of the development spectrum. Open Source and Closed Source. Basically, it means that noone really “owns” Linux, and that everyone can do whatever they want with it. Well, not really, but I’ll let Wert explain that as he undoubtedly will. Windows on the other hand is Closed Source. The only people that are allowed to touch it are the in-house programmers of Microsoft, and people whom they hire for it. Both have their own pros and cons, but an Open Source based OS would not be run in the same way as a Closed Source based OS.
There is an owner of Linux, but he gave the source away and he only owns parts of Linux (like the name). There are literally hundreds of Linux distros. In fact, no company can really charge for Linux itself because it is open source. When you buy it in a store or something, you are paying for the manuals, the CDs, customer support, some of the software, etc. basiclly, Linux is the ideal OS for capitalism since there are so many distrobutions that each one tries to better the other and you get your price based on what the market will pay. Since it is free, one company can’t charge ridiculous prices for their distro if they want to make any kind of money. SuSe probably has the best business model in that they include tons of software to make you want to buy it. However, if Linux was the dominant OS there is no way things would be run the same as Windows and MS, it’d be impossible. I have more to say, but I’ll let this sink in and let Wert add his stuff.
TD and Info basicly got it right; Noone really owns Linux, but everyone can contribute to it.
However, that being said, Linux (the kernel) can actually be sold; The license permits you to sell Linux. In fact, it permits you to do whatever the hell you want with it, INCLUDING selling it further, but with a single reservation: You have to give the person you sell it to the same rights you have. So if I sell something to a guy, he has the right to copy and redistribute that as much as he wants. Not to mention change it.
So the reason it’s not practical to sell Linux isn’t legal, but because of a very simple principle; If the person I sell it to can legally give copies away for free, how am I supposed to make any money? Would you rather buy something that costs 3¢ as opposed to 30$?
And yeah, we’d probably bitch about the stability of Linux as well if it was the leading OS, but there is one important key factor; You can change the things you’re annoyed with in Linux, or pay a coder or two to change it. The same cannot be said for Windows. You can, of course, pay Microsoft for including things, but they’ll most probably charge a thousand times more than two stand-alone programmers will do.
Linux, by it’s very nature, cannot become corrupt, coz’ if it did, you can just change it to non-corruptness. 'Nuff said.
Yeah, Zero posted something about this a while back, I remember. And then how Microsoft is teaming up with Intel to have that Palladium processor or whatever it was. Kinda ominous rumors, but I won’t decide anything until it actually comes out. Though if something like this actually does happen I’d definitely look into alternative OSes.
“I doubt they will pull through with the ‘Next Generation Security Platform’, it would scare away the big ones: Governments, and the like.”
I dunno about European governments, but speaking from an American standpoint, the US government is already so entwined with big corporations’ interests, I’m sure it wouldn’t be enough to scare them away. Besides they could always get a specialized “government” version, or what have you. Though, in America’s case, this would definitely usher in even more corporate power in government (giving a corporation that much more control over government communications, etc.).
Originally posted by Wertigon Linux, by it’s very nature, cannot become corrupt, coz’ if it did, you can just change it to non-corruptness. 'Nuff said.
I should add that the most recent versions of Red Hat have already taken out MP3 support. HOWEVER, because of the nature of Linux, coders have been able to make patches that enable MP3 playing. This basicalyl protects Red Hat, but still alows their distro to play MP3s if the person spends a little bit of time finding the right patch. I don’t think that this would work if MS took it out since they are putting more and more remote controls for themselves in Windows.
Originally posted by Mazrim Taim
[b]“I doubt they will pull through with the ‘Next Generation Security Platform’, it would scare away the big ones: Governments, and the like.”
I dunno about European governments, but speaking from an American standpoint, the US government is already so entwined with big corporations’ interests, I’m sure it wouldn’t be enough to scare them away. Besides they could always get a specialized “government” version, or what have you. Though, in America’s case, this would definitely usher in even more corporate power in government (giving a corporation that much more control over government communications, etc.).
-Mazrim Taim [/b]
The problem is that the “Next Generation Security Platform” involves Microsoft knowing what you have stored on your harddrive, at the very least, being able to find out.
I doubt any government, be it American, European, Oceanic, African or Asian, would want Microsoft to have that possibility. Any organisation for that matter.
While things would change if Linux was the dominant OS, it wouldn’t be run in the same way as Windows, considering they both are on opposite ends of the development spectrum. Open Source and Closed Source. Basically, it means that noone really “owns” Linux, and that everyone can do whatever they want with it. Well, not really, but I’ll let Wert explain that as he undoubtedly will. Windows on the other hand is Closed Source. The only people that are allowed to touch it are the in-house programmers of Microsoft, and people whom they hire for it. Both have their own pros and cons, but an Open Source based OS would not be run in the same way as a Closed Source based OS.