Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:So does this mean.... (Score 1) 128

by peppepz (#49342657) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK

And the OEMs provide a switch to turn it off.

That's not true any more. That's the news. People will install Linux on their laptops, find out that hibernation isn't working because of the so-called Secure Boot restrictions, get angry, and just give up Linux and go back to Windows and its world of post-boot malware.

That is the OEMs choice, just like is their choice whether to even give you access to the BIOS.

Impossible, no machine could ever be sold without the capability to boot from an external device, as this would prevent installing Microsoft Windows on it.

We've seen the same thing with default BIOS passwords before too, the hysterical idiots crying "what if the OEMs dont tell us the passwords?!".

Actually, what we have seen is that people saw the so-called Secure Boot as the unuseful and harmful thing that it is, and a limited number of Microsoft supporters labeled them as hysterical idiots pointing at the fact that it could always be disabled. Well, now it's no longer true, as widely expected by the hysterical idiots.

Blaming Microsoft when the onus is on the OEM is obvious stupidity or intentional malicious misdirection.

Leaving aside the fact that "leaving the onus on the OEM" already is an anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-free software behaviour, since you are less malicious than me, can you give a non-malicious explanation about why the requirement of being able to disable the so-called Secure Boot is being lifted now? What problem are MS trying to solve? The rising wave of hypno-malware that induces users to enter the firmware setup utility on their machines and disable boot restrictions?

Comment: Re:So does this mean.... (Score 1) 128

by peppepz (#49334557) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK
Certainly I can't tell you about specific negative effects from the so-called Secure Boot, since the lack of a way to disable it is a proposed feature of Windows 10 which, as you certainly know, hasn't hit the markets yet. I could tell you about the large amounts of malware that I have had to remove so far from Windows 8.1 update 1 machines notwithstanding their so-called Secure Boot feature in place, but I suspect that wouldn't be the kind of story that you want to hear. As for pointing fingers, when somebody gets eaten by a lion, I don't point the finger to the lion, but to the person who opened its cage. Bear with me.

What's my complaint, you ask. My complaint, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, is not being able to install the software that I want on the PC that I own. Everyone around here has understood perfectly what's going on: the so-called Secure Boot adds no security on a system where the user is able to install third-party software (or his own) and therefore it is merely an obstacle put in place by Microsoft (not the UEFI forum, not the OEMs, not anyone else) to make it harder for end users to replace Windows with something else. Being upset for this is not an "emotional problem against Microsoft", it is a very pragmatic stance. If anything, if you want to see something emotional, it's calling a company which behaves this way as "the new Microsoft that supports Linux", which is the reason I bothered to write my original comment. And that's, of course, a perfectly acceptable emotional behaviour; we'd be robots without emotions. A less laudable kind of emotional behaviour is making personal attacks about the richness of my vocabulary. Yes, my English skills are limited. But being able to master a wider portion of the English language won't help me when I get a blinking cursor because I tried to remove Windows, or because a malware has modified some image measured by the so-called Secure Boot infrastructure.

Comment: Re:So does this mean.... (Score 1) 128

by peppepz (#49327531) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK
This is unacceptable for so many reasons, do I really need to enumerate them all, once again? We've already gone through this when the "new" Microsoft forced on the OEMs (and therefore the users) the so-called Secure Boot restriction for Windows 8; back then all Microsoft supporters claimed that it wasn't a big deal precisely because there was the warranty of being able to disable it.

Comment: Re:So does this mean.... (Score 0) 128

by peppepz (#49326813) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Windows 10 SDK
Of misdirected, here, is your failure to comprehend the implications of removing in general the ability to install an operating system other than Windows on the PC architecture. For competition in general, and in particular for an operating system which is developed by end users who install it on their home PCs.

Comment: Re:Ban teachers union (Score 4, Insightful) 213

by peppepz (#49319045) Attached to: Finland's Education System Supersedes "Subjects" With "Topics"

Why do I need a union?

Unions lobby the government to make them pass laws that make your work life more enjoyable even if you don't belong to one. This is needed to counter balance the lobbying power of the employers. For example, if fire breaks out at the place where you work, most probably you'll find fire extinguishers and emergency exits, and this fact is not due to your employer's benevolence or your professionality: your employer would be compelled by market forces to make you work in a dangerous place, if there weren't laws in place preventing malevolent employers from competing with him.

I'm not impoverished, despite you saying I should be without a union...

You don't need to be a communist to actually believe in the role of unions: the IMF, certainly not a lair of leftists, found out that inequality and poverty rise when the power of unions falls.

Comment: Re:Some pedants are more pedantic than others... (Score 1) 667

by peppepz (#49264811) Attached to: Why There Is No Such Thing as 'Proper English'

The use of "was" as in past tense and "was" as in the subjunctive are actually in mutually exclusive use. That's why English even bothered to lose the subjunctive in the first place.

Hello, English learner here, what about the case of a sentence that *was* true in the past (not "might have been true" as the GP suggests)?

"If I was fooled, that's because I wasn't careful enough."

"If I were fooled, I'd be sorry now."

Comment: Re:It could've been worse ... oh wait.... (Score 0) 136

by peppepz (#49039229) Attached to: Microsoft Fixes Critical Remotely Exploitable Windows Root-Level Design Bug
The interesting part is not so much that they're no longer fixing bugs in Windows Server 2003, but rather the reason why they aren't:

Although Windows Server 2003 is an affected product, Microsoft is not issuing an update for it because the comprehensive architectural changes required would jeopardize system stability and cause application compatibility problems.

In practice they're admitting that Windows 2003 is so broken by design that not even them can fix it without causing problems. I'd like to hear now the opinion of those who were lamenting over the quality of open source software after the heartbleed bug.

Comment: Re:Forced benevolence is not freedom (Score 1) 551

by peppepz (#49016033) Attached to: RMS Objects To Support For LLVM's Debugger In GNU Emacs's Gud.el

One does not have an inherent right to the work of someone else. Such a right only exists when it is contractually forced by an agreement such as the GPL.

Indeed, that's the point. That's one thing the developer loses when he choses a BSD license over a copyleft one (not just the GPL).

No, it is not a loss. It is simply coveting something one does not have. If you want to say it it unfair, sure, but a loss, no, not all.

Isn't it correct to call "a loss" something that you can have, and then at some point you can no longer have? I get quite a lot of hits on Google for that usage: https://www.google.com/search?...

The point is that with the GPL they cannot commercially fork code written by me. Of course they can do whatever they want with their own code.

They absolutely can use GPL code commercially. Commercial use does nor require distribution to external users. Commercial use simply means they make money off your work, and this is perfectly allowable under the GPL.

use != fork

You forget the pesky little detail that I mentioned that users are under no obligation to use a proprietary BSD fork rather than the community version. They can stick with the community and have no such fear, use FreeBSD rather than Mac OS X for example.

Another loss for the user. With the GPL, I have the freedom to choose the products that I like. With the BSD license, I have to take what the community gives me. And today this means that I might even not have the ability to run the free version of the software on my machine, because its manufacturers might decide (and they usually do) that it's not worth the hassle for them to release the source code of some machine-specific software that is required to use even the community version of the product.

Its also a humorous example given the fact that Android phones with their GPL based Linux host are not getting critical patches.

Quite the opposite. Since Linux is GPL, and only because of that, at least Android phone owners can install a community-driven distribution on their phones. That's because the hardware manufacturers have to release both the kernel and the drivers. For the userspace parts, which fall under different licenses, they don't bother - and that's an endless source of problems for the users.

To make a concrete example, try asking Sony about the source code for the GPL kernel of an Xperia phone. They'll give it. Try asking them about the source code for the BSD kernel of the Playstation 3 and see what happens ;-) .

Yes you mentioned GPLv3 but that was a crude attempt to manufacture a hypothetical, the reality is that Linux is what most devices will be based upon and Linux is inherently GPLv2 and will not be changing.

Are you trying to make the point that the GPLv3 is better than the GPLv2? You're bashing an open door, as I strongly agree with that.

A straw man. No where was your property, the community BSD code, at risk of loss. Only the commercial fork's code, and that code is not yours, it is someone else's property.

We're talking about the mere "forced benevolence is not freedom" statement here. Do you think that the laws that force people not to rob my house give me freedom, or not?

You are under no obligation to use commercial forks. Again, you may stay with FreeBSD and not run Mac OS X. Nothing Mac OS X does or adds takes away from anyone who wishes to use FreeBSD.

Of course I have no obligation to use commercial forks, it's a freedom of choice that I have. Then again, it might become an obligation if the machine that I can buy only runs the commercial flavour of the project. The most relevant example for the case of Mac OS X isn't FreeBSD, it's Darwin. I can download it, compile it, and then I can just look at the binary, because it doesn't contain the drivers required to boot the Mac that runs the commercially distributed version of the same software.

Comment: Re:Forced benevolence is not freedom (Score 1) 551

by peppepz (#49015827) Attached to: RMS Objects To Support For LLVM's Debugger In GNU Emacs's Gud.el
I have never used the word 'theft', with or without quotation marks. Nor I have said that extending BSD code without giving back is illegal or furtive. It's done with permission.

Albeit with different intent than commercial exploitation, you'll find that some BSD code was imported in key GNU projects, and the FSF even goes as far as to recommend using the 3-clause BSD license when the additional protection of the GPL isn't desired.

And no, BSD developers don't lose their copyright. They lose, freely, an opportunity to endow the community with the best outcome of their work, which is a fact and not a characterization of mine. If you want we can talk about my opinions on the music industry but then I think we'd be derailing the discussion.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser

Working...