Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Quality doesn't matter when it's disposable any (Score 1) 280

You don't, I don't, but we don't count. The majority out there does just that, so why bother building a cellphone that lasts? Yes, the 1% of people who actually care will be pissed, but they, too, will just buy a new cellphone. They'll just mutter profanities towards the manufacturer of their current phone while they buy a phone from the manufacturer they muttered profanities at 2 years ago when they bought the phone they are tossing now, while the rest of the people squeal "ohhh shiny!" while buying whatever phone has the latest bling.

In the end, we all buy. And that's all that counts to the makers of those phones.

Comment Re:You don't have to use it (Score 1) 549

I have done so in the past. Details can be found here. And as you can see back there, nobody bothered to answer. Apparently there is no answer, so I didn't bother to write the whole list again.

The main problem why Windows isn't replaced by "the masses" with Linux is not the OS. It's the hardware that is still manufactured with Windows in mind, with Linux being, at best, an afterthought, more likely though, it's just being ignored, unless it's some kind of server stuff. You can actually find better RAID controllers for Linux now than for Windows, but as soon as you're dealing with hardware the average user will have at home, your chances for a sensible Linux driver vanishes.

But as long as you can't use your desktop hardware sensibly in Linux, the "normal" user will not switch. The "year of the Linux desktop" will not come until we finally get drivers for desktop hardware. Now, of course you can say "But who has those 'special' mice and keyboards, and how many people actually have touchpads and digitizing tablets?" Easy. The people that use their computer for more than just browsing and emails, i.e. people who WANT to use that machine. People who enjoy it. Those are also the people, though, that buy software. And they are the ones that actually care about the data trail they leave on the internet because they spend more time there than Joe Randomsurfer.

And it does not matter whether we're talking about a MMO mouse with 30 buttons, a studio sound card, a digitizing tablet or a braille display. As soon as someone needs (or even just wants) to use a special kind of hardware that requires its own driver, chances are good that using it sensibly (or at all) in Linux at the very least requires a lot more knowledge and time investment than the average user is willing to spend. If it is possible at all.

And until those drivers exist, people will not switch. And with none of those high-investment people moving away from Windows, there is little incentive for software creators to take any other platform serious.

Comment Re:Storm in a tea-cup (Score 1) 323

IT security is my business. I have had that dialogue. Numerous times. What you want is the security equivalent of the perpetuum mobile. Many have said they have one, only to fail if examined carefully. Pardon if I don't want to see your perpetuum mobile suggestion, I have seen enough to last a lifetime.

It already starts with "what is encryption?" Is using a file format you cannot read because you don't know the format encryption? Then you outlaw competition between companies because nobody may create a new file format. If not, well, how do you want to know whether the "picture" I just sent to a friend is just a graphics format you don't know or encrypted data? Or how about me sending a stream from /dev/urandom to fuck with your deep packet inspection for shits and giggles, is that outlawed too because it looks like encrypted data?

What you propose is that only "entitled" entities may communicate encrypted. Why? What makes their traffic more important than mine? Who may, anyway? Banks? Ok. What about companies? Maybe, they should, right? What is a company? Is that the mom'n'pop shop, too? Well, they should, shouldn't they? Else it would really kill competition if only big corporations may use encrypted communication. What keeps the terrorist from setting up a fake shop to be allowed encryption? What keeps me from doing the same for the sake of finally being in the "entitled to encrypt" group?

May I access https pages abroad where such insane laws do not exist? Because that traffic would certainly be encrypted with a key you do not have. Google for example is using HSTS, making unencrypted communication with their servers virtually impossible. The same is true for a lot of other pages. What about them?

And that's just what I come up in 5 minutes, if you need more, there's plenty of headaches left where this comes from.

Comment Re: Whoomp, there it is! Proof positive of stupid (Score 1) 323

You needn't know the ins and outs of metallurgy to make gun laws, but knowing that hot chocolate is probably not a great idea to pour down a barrel for maintenance should be required before you create laws that deal with rules that dictate what "in good repair" means when it comes to handgun conditions.

I don't expect him to know the ins and outs of encryption, not even that he can tell the difference between elliptic curve ciphers and block ciphers. I don't want him to implement one. But I do require him to understand the ramifications of laws that he proposes, which he very blatantly does not do.

In some cases it is impossible to surrender such a key. If I store data that is already encrypted, you can threaten to hang me and I cannot provide the key. You can of course make it illegal to store data I have no key for, but that is the death spell to any and all cloud services your country would offer, because why the fuck would I store my data in your country? Even (or rather, especially) if I live in that country I would not want your service and go to one that honors my privacy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Digital circuits are made from analog parts. -- Don Vonada