On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:28:33 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On 10/17/2009 1:13 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:25:31 -0400, SharkD wrote:
>>
>>> Open source software is always stable
>>
>> Um, yeah.  What's your point?  Nobody ever claimed it was *always*
>> stable, by its very nature, OSS is available in alpha and beta form. 
>> No guarantees about stability in any software.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> 
> Compare:
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Microsoft+buggy&fp=92ba666181073553
> (2,270,000 ghits)
> 
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22open+source%22
+buggy&fp=92ba666181073553
> (951,000 ghits)

It's still not clear to me what your point is.  Can you spell it out 
clearly for us?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:30:56 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> One of the disadvantages is that developers feel bugs are not as
> important because they expect that someone *with* the skills will
> eventually come along and fix it.

Got some data to back up that assertion?  Or is that what you've been 
trying to post and say?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:40:23 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On 10/17/2009 6:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Not really a case of "the exception proves the rule", though.  There's
>> plenty of decent OSS software out there that competes with proprietary
>> software and does very well.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Who buys this "other" software though? End users, or companies and
> people within the IT field?

The other OSS software that I cited?  Nobody needs to, it's OSS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> Not entirely true.
> 
> Counter-example: http://www.xkcd.com/619/

Well yes, I true example of crappy closed-source application (Flash)
really does fit here ;).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 10/17/2009 12:25 AM, SharkD wrote:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
>
>
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23705&p=108062#p108062
>
>
>
>
> Mike

Oh, and I forgot these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla

Mike

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, the number of people working on OSS software is
> usually determined by how "interesting" it is, whereas for CSS software
> it's determined by how much money the company has. If they have a
> crapload of money, they can quite possibly produce a better product than
> an OSS community could come up with, because they can just *hire* enough
> manpower to get the job done.
> 

There's also the part where you don't need to do quality code, when you
have enough money, big enough market share and not enough competition
(remember Windows ME?). So the amount of money that CSS publisher has
isn't purely indication of how good the code/software is.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94015
> 
>
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23705&p=108062#p108062
> 

When it comes to OOo, this is my favourite:
http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/08/15/bohrbugs-openoffice-org-wont-print-on-tuesdays/

> Mike

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

>> On the other hand, the number of people working on OSS software is
>> usually determined by how "interesting" it is, whereas for CSS software
>> it's determined by how much money the company has. If they have a
>> crapload of money, they can quite possibly produce a better product than
>> an OSS community could come up with, because they can just *hire* enough
>> manpower to get the job done.
>>
> 
> There's also the part where you don't need to do quality code, when you
> have enough money, big enough market share and not enough competition
> (remember Windows ME?). So the amount of money that CSS publisher has
> isn't purely indication of how good the code/software is.

Oh, sure, it also depends on what their movites are BTW. If they're 
*trying* to make a good product, they may have the means to do it very 
well. But, as Warp pointed out, sometimes they have other priorities...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> One of the disadvantages is that developers feel bugs are not as
>> important because they expect that someone *with* the skills will
>> eventually come along and fix it.
> 
> Got some data to back up that assertion?  Or is that what you've been 
> trying to post and say?

Ah yes...

Why doesn't XXX work properly?

"It's a known bug. Patches welcome."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> I get that a lot on the Internet. For example...
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/535/
>>
>> ....like, WTF?
>>
> 
> LOL You are a card. :)

Is that something like a bambino?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> Oh, sure, it also depends on what their movites are BTW. If they're
> *trying* to make a good product, they may have the means to do it very
> well. But, as Warp pointed out, sometimes they have other priorities...
> 

Most of the time they do have other priorities. For a commercial firm
the no.1 priority is to make money for the owner(s), always. Quality
usually is available when it supports making money to the owner(s).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> He seems to be saying "see, see?  OSS isn't always stable".

I don't see how a bug report makes something unstable. It makes something 
buggy, but sometimes (as MS has shown) keeping something buggy and stable is 
better than unstable with fewer bugs.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.

That's not really true. There are plenty of ways of fixing software without 
the source. They're a PITA, yes, but it can be done.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:52:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> He seems to be saying "see, see?  OSS isn't always stable".
> 
> I don't see how a bug report makes something unstable. It makes
> something buggy, but sometimes (as MS has shown) keeping something buggy
> and stable is better than unstable with fewer bugs.

Well, yeah, I don't either.  I wish he'd clearly state his point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:39:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> One of the disadvantages is that developers feel bugs are not as
>>> important because they expect that someone *with* the skills will
>>> eventually come along and fix it.
>> 
>> Got some data to back up that assertion?  Or is that what you've been
>> trying to post and say?
> 
> Ah yes...
> 
> Why doesn't XXX work properly?
> 
> "It's a known bug. Patches welcome."

That doesn't mean the developer is not working on it and hoping someone 
else will fix it.  It generally means "I know it's a bug and will get 
around to fixing it at some point, but there are higher priority things 
for me to work on.  If you want to submit a patch, though, you're welcome 
to do so".

Do that with closed-source software. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:54:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You can't do that (by definition) with closed-source software.
> 
> That's not really true. There are plenty of ways of fixing software
> without the source. They're a PITA, yes, but it can be done.

Not really saying it's impossible, but you have to really know how the 
software works in order to write a binary-only patch.  But sure, hackers 
have been doing that for years to remove copy protection from games (for 
example).

But many programmers don't even know how to do that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:18:04 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla

Yay, you submitted bugs.  Still not sure what point you're trying to 
make.....or are you just trolling the OSS people here?  Because if you 
are, I'll happily ignore your posts.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de 
> news:4ada536f@news.povray.org...
> >  I did not touch the subject of *quality* in my post, nor do I in any way
> > claim that OSS would be in part with the best commercial software in many
> > fields.

> I was addressing the claim that "OSS is user-oriented, doing what benefits 
> the users the most.".

  Targetting your users rather than your own company doesn't say anything
about the quality of the software.

> To be frank, I have lost my time trying OSS. I push OSS when it's good, but 
> just too much of the stuff is alpha quality and in some cases I wished that 
> OSS folks had been more honest in stating that they were doing it for fun 
> without the pretense of creating a useful and working product. I'm wiser 
> now. At least marketing folks are paid to lie ;)

  Linux (or sometimes a BSD variant) and Apache are used in tons of web
servers out there (in fact, I think they are the majority). People can
have differing opinions about the quality of the Linux/Apache combo, but
you can't deny that many people have found it a working (and *free*)
solution.

  That's just one example.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 10/17/2009 7:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> >    There is, however, another advantage I can think of: With OSS you not only
> > can "try before you buy", but you can skip the latter part of that altogether.
> > So it's not like you are losing something by trying OSS (except perhaps a bit
> > of time).

> Not true if time itself is money. I.e. you may "lose" some by wasting 
> hours/days/weeks on OSS software that doesn't end up working.

  How much more do you lose by having to pay software licenses?

  You can't claim that trying an OSS for a few days costs more than eg.
buying a Windows license for 10 servers, for instance.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Oh, and I forgot these:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla

  So open source software often contains bugs. What shocking news! I had
no idea.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/09 14:38, Warp wrote:
>> Not true if time itself is money. I.e. you may "lose" some by wasting
>> hours/days/weeks on OSS software that doesn't end up working.
>
>    How much more do you lose by having to pay software licenses?
>
>    You can't claim that trying an OSS for a few days costs more than eg.
> buying a Windows license for 10 servers, for instance.

	I can somewhat sympathize with his viewpoint. Sometimes the cost of 
using OSS isn't apparent after merely a few days. It could be months 
after it's been adopted. Usually fixing the problems requires one of 
your employees to spend time working on fixing it. And sometimes the 
cumulative time spent on such "fixes" is more than if they had just paid 
for reliable support (which many OSS projects don't offer). Employee 
time is expensive (in terms of money).

-- 
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:57:24 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> Sometimes the cost of
> using OSS isn't apparent after merely a few days. It could be months
> after it's been adopted.

That's not unique to OSS, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/09 17:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sometimes the cost of
>> using OSS isn't apparent after merely a few days. It could be months
>> after it's been adopted.
>
> That's not unique to OSS, though.

	Perhaps - haven't spent enough time in the business world with non-OSS 
software.

-- 
When you die, you lose a very important part of your life.
                 -- Brooke Shields

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:11:44 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 10/18/09 17:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Sometimes the cost of
>>> using OSS isn't apparent after merely a few days. It could be months
>>> after it's been adopted.
>>
>> That's not unique to OSS, though.
> 
> 	Perhaps - haven't spent enough time in the business world with 
non-OSS
> software.

Most of my IT career was with non-OSS software and working very closely 
with Novell's products (as a customer, beta tester, and forum volunteer) 
- some customers never fully utilize software no matter what the source 
is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/2009 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
> SharkD<mik### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Oh, and I forgot these:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
>
>    So open source software often contains bugs. What shocking news! I had
> no idea.

The point is not that I submitted bug reports; rather it is that I 
submitted patches for several of them and they never got implemented. I 
suspect because only Internet Explorer was affected, and the devs don't 
use it.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/18/2009 2:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:18:04 -0400, SharkD wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
>
> Yay, you submitted bugs.  Still not sure what point you're trying to
> make.....or are you just trolling the OSS people here?  Because if you
> are, I'll happily ignore your posts.
>
> Jim

Who's trolling exactly?

Mike

Post a reply to this message

>  Another advantage is that OSS is often developed by several independent
> parties which are not driving their own personal gain with the project,
> something that is the rule with proprietary commercial software.

I'd disagree with that, in fact it's almost the opposite.  IME OSS seems to 
be driven by individual developers doing whatever they feel like doing 
whenever they feel like it, they have no requirement to implement certain 
features or to be ready by a certain date.

> OSS is
> user-oriented, doing what benefits the users the most.

You really think so?  Even with our own POV it seems that developers just 
work on parts of the code almost randomly without really much input from the 
users.  One day there will be a "oh I though about doing X and it turned out 
pretty well" post, there are never any "hey i've got some time to work on 
POV, what would you like to see" type posts.

> The primary goal
> of proprietary software is to benefit the company the most. In some cases
> this means putting features and restrictions which benefit the company at
> the cost of the users. This is the more likely the more of a monopoly
> status the company has. (Think of draconian DRM measures, for instance.
> Users don't want nor benefit from DRM,

Users benefit from DRM by getting the same product for cheaper, it's just 
most don't realise this.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Users benefit from DRM by getting the same product for cheaper, it's 
> just most don't realise this.

Counter-example: Because of DRM, my CD recorder will only record CDs 
which contain a special marker. These CDs are 10x more expensive. 
(Becuase, if you're recording CDs, you're *obvoisely* doing so 
illegally, right?)

Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.

Post a reply to this message

> Counter-example: Because of DRM, my CD recorder will only record CDs which 
> contain a special marker. These CDs are 10x more expensive. (Becuase, if 
> you're recording CDs, you're *obvoisely* doing so illegally, right?)
>
> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.

You're just a sucker for buying a recorder that can only record to those 
fancy-pants discs :-)

Anyway, sit back and feel comforted that your extra donations to the record 
companies mean they can charge the rest of us a tiny bit less for everything 
else they sell :-D

Post a reply to this message

>> Counter-example: Because of DRM, my CD recorder will only record CDs 
>> which contain a special marker. These CDs are 10x more expensive. 
>> (Becuase, if you're recording CDs, you're *obvoisely* doing so 
>> illegally, right?)
>>
>> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.
> 
> You're just a sucker for buying a recorder that can only record to those 
> fancy-pants discs :-)

It was a birthday present, actually. :-P

> Anyway, sit back and feel comforted that your extra donations to the 
> record companies mean they can charge the rest of us a tiny bit less for 
> everything else they sell :-D

I was feel rather resentful that I'm being taxed for illegally copying 
stuff when in actual fact the reason I wanted the thing was so that I 
could record performances of my own music which I therefore own the 
copyright to. I'm paying the music industry so that I can record my own 
music! WTF?

And besides, if you write some text on your webpage, you don't have to 
pay a tax to the paper print industry that you're "driving out of 
business", so why is the music industry so special? :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:58:24 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.

And in some cases, you get to buy it more than once.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:03:53 +0200, scott wrote:

> Anyway, sit back and feel comforted that your extra donations to the
> record companies mean they can charge the rest of us a tiny bit less for
> everything else they sell

Except that they don't.  I remember when CDs came out, they talked about 
how much less expensive it was to produce CDs than cassettes, and the 
initial marketing (which drove adoption) was that CDs *would* be cheaper 
than cassettes.

Yet cassettes tended in the $6-$8 range IIRC, but CDs never really 
dropped below $15 (for first run, obviously clearance stuff was reduced 
below that).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:47:11 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On 10/18/2009 2:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:18:04 -0400, SharkD wrote:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
>>
>> Yay, you submitted bugs.  Still not sure what point you're trying to
>> make.....or are you just trolling the OSS people here?  Because if you
>> are, I'll happily ignore your posts.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Who's trolling exactly?

You haven't answered my question about what your point is.....I'm still 
waiting.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:46:39 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On 10/18/2009 3:40 PM, Warp wrote:
>> SharkD<mik### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> Oh, and I forgot these:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SharkD/Bugzilla
>>
>>    So open source software often contains bugs. What shocking news! I
>>    had
>> no idea.
> 
> The point is not that I submitted bug reports; rather it is that I
> submitted patches for several of them and they never got implemented. I
> suspect because only Internet Explorer was affected, and the devs don't
> use it.

Not all patches get accepted.  Fact of life, could be any number of 
reasons why they weren't accepted.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.
> 
> And in some cases, you get to buy it more than once.

Heh, that's why I don't buy DRM-protected content. ;-)

Actually, I'm currently buying content again for a different reason: 
replacing VHS with DVD. But at least here you're getting something for 
your money. (Do you have any idea how long it takes to rewind a VHS 
tape?? Or how grainy the picture is?)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:04:33 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.
>> 
>> And in some cases, you get to buy it more than once.
> 
> Heh, that's why I don't buy DRM-protected content. ;-)

Same here.  There's not much audio-wise that I find worth it.  I think 
the last music CDs we purchased were the complete LOTR soundtrack discs.

> Actually, I'm currently buying content again for a different reason:
> replacing VHS with DVD. But at least here you're getting something for
> your money. (Do you have any idea how long it takes to rewind a VHS
> tape?? Or how grainy the picture is?)

Answer to both questions in the parenthetical is "yes". :-)  This is 
something where I'm OK with re-buying the content, because I'm paying for 
the improved quality.  Same thing with buying CDs to replace cassettes.  
But buying MP3s to replace CDs?  No, I'll rip 'em myself, thanks.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.
>>> And in some cases, you get to buy it more than once.
>> Heh, that's why I don't buy DRM-protected content. ;-)
> 
> Same here.  There's not much audio-wise that I find worth it.  I think 
> the last music CDs we purchased were the complete LOTR soundtrack discs.

I bought Natasha Beggingfield. Not the ones with the rootkit, fortunately...

> Answer to both questions in the parenthetical is "yes". :-)  This is 
> something where I'm OK with re-buying the content, because I'm paying for 
> the improved quality.  Same thing with buying CDs to replace cassettes.  
> But buying MP3s to replace CDs?  No, I'll rip 'em myself, thanks.

Buy MP3s, which are by definition lower quality than CDs? Heh, I don't 
think so. ;-)

(But then, I use Ogg Vorbis anyway...)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:23:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>>> Thanks to DRM, I get to buy the same product for 10x the price.
>>>> And in some cases, you get to buy it more than once.
>>> Heh, that's why I don't buy DRM-protected content. ;-)
>> 
>> Same here.  There's not much audio-wise that I find worth it.  I think
>> the last music CDs we purchased were the complete LOTR soundtrack
>> discs.
> 
> I bought Natasha Beggingfield. Not the ones with the rootkit,
> fortunately...

Another of the reasons I don't tend to buy music CDs any more - you never 
know what they've included software-wise on the disc.  Running Linux, I 
don't need to worry about it too much, but still, I don't like giving 
money to companies that do things I don't consider to be right/ethical.

>> Answer to both questions in the parenthetical is "yes". :-)  This is
>> something where I'm OK with re-buying the content, because I'm paying
>> for the improved quality.  Same thing with buying CDs to replace
>> cassettes. But buying MP3s to replace CDs?  No, I'll rip 'em myself,
>> thanks.
> 
> Buy MP3s, which are by definition lower quality than CDs? Heh, I don't
> think so. ;-)

Exactly.  The value-add there is....?  (Some would say "portability", but 
I have that with ripping my CDs, so there's no added value).

> (But then, I use Ogg Vorbis anyway...)

I need to look into that and see how it compares on my iPod.  Rockbox is 
supposed to be able to play the format...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I bought Natasha Beggingfield. Not the ones with the rootkit,
>> fortunately...
> 
> Another of the reasons I don't tend to buy music CDs any more - you never 
> know what they've included software-wise on the disc.  Running Linux, I 
> don't need to worry about it too much, but still, I don't like giving 
> money to companies that do things I don't consider to be right/ethical.

Just need to turn off AutoPlay. But still, it's not very ethical to 
hijack somebody else's property to protect your own interests. (In other 
situations I believe that's called "theft".) And it's not like it's 
going to stop the geniune criminals - only the paying customers.

>> Buy MP3s, which are by definition lower quality than CDs? Heh, I don't
>> think so. ;-)
> 
> Exactly.  The value-add there is....?  (Some would say "portability", but 
> I have that with ripping my CDs, so there's no added value).

Indeed.

>> (But then, I use Ogg Vorbis anyway...)
> 
> I need to look into that and see how it compares on my iPod.  Rockbox is 
> supposed to be able to play the format...

RockBox plays that format on my iAudio M5L... but then so did the 
manufacturer's original firmware. ;-)

Personally, I use CDex for ripping. Put in a disk, tell it what the 
tracks are called, hit rip. It generates the Vorbis files, names them, 
and encodes the metadata into them. Copy and play...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> Users benefit from DRM by getting the same product for cheaper, it's
> just most don't realise this.
> 

They (yes, they) wondered why selling music online was so hard at first.
They offered the same piece of music on lower quality (lossful packing)
 and with DRM on the same price as a real, non-DRM'd CD. I don't know
online-prices today, since I'm not intrested (it's still lossful packing
and I want the physical media to put on my CD-self, not to mention if
the booklet has lyrics, pics etc).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:50:23 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Just need to turn off AutoPlay. But still, it's not very ethical to
> hijack somebody else's property to protect your own interests. (In other
> situations I believe that's called "theft".) And it's not like it's
> going to stop the geniune criminals - only the paying customers.

Yep, it's that "I'm not going to pay money to people who think it's OK to 
take control of my computer without my consent".

>> I need to look into that and see how it compares on my iPod.  Rockbox
>> is supposed to be able to play the format...
> 
> RockBox plays that format on my iAudio M5L... but then so did the
> manufacturer's original firmware. ;-)

Should support it here then as well. :-)

> Personally, I use CDex for ripping. Put in a disk, tell it what the
> tracks are called, hit rip. It generates the Vorbis files, names them,
> and encodes the metadata into them. Copy and play...

I use grip myself. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

I read recently in Scientific American about quantum technology being 
used in encryption. Basically the idea is that the individual particles 
used in the transmission signal are charged or spun at the quantum level 
in such a way (without affecting the data itself) that the signal can't 
be intercepted or examined without corrupting this charge or spin and 
marking the signal as compromised. This got me thinking as to whether an 
arbitrary pattern of electrons or light (i.e. an audio file being 
transmitted or stored on a medium) could be "tagged" at the quantum 
level, thus making it unreadable without proper hardware (or at least 
the correct key) and making it useful for DRM purposes. Since the data 
itself does not change (just some normally ignored/discarded 
characteristics of the transmission signal), it would not affect the 
size or performance of the DRM encoded data.

Here's the link:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=swiss-test-quantum-cryptography

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2009 12:30 PM, SharkD wrote:
> I read recently in Scientific American about quantum technology being
> used in encryption. Basically the idea is that the individual particles
> used in the transmission signal are charged or spun at the quantum level
> in such a way (without affecting the data itself) that the signal can't
> be intercepted or examined without corrupting this charge or spin and
> marking the signal as compromised. This got me thinking as to whether an
> arbitrary pattern of electrons or light (i.e. an audio file being
> transmitted or stored on a medium) could be "tagged" at the quantum
> level, thus making it unreadable without proper hardware (or at least
> the correct key) and making it useful for DRM purposes. Since the data
> itself does not change (just some normally ignored/discarded
> characteristics of the transmission signal), it would not affect the
> size or performance of the DRM encoded data.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=swiss-test-quantum-cryptography
>
>
> Mike

Of course, if quantum computing were to ever emerge as a viable 
technology, this would no longer work since the technique "piggy-backs" 
upon existing technology.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I'd disagree with that, in fact it's almost the opposite.  IME OSS seems 
> to be driven by individual developers doing whatever they feel like 
> doing whenever they feel like it, they have no requirement to implement 
> certain features or to be ready by a certain date.

There are different kinds of OSS.

Something like GCC or emacs (or POV) is going to be driven by developers who 
need their tools.

Something like Open Office is written by a company that doesn't really do 
software for a living, but instead wants to undercut the software of a 
competitor. In this case, Sun trying to sell Sparcstations without Microsoft 
eating their lunch.

Something like Blender is software that was originally in-house until the 
developers thought it would be more valuable to make it open source, 
primarily because their business changed. (In this case, their business 
changed to "out of business", but other changes work too.)

> Users benefit from DRM by getting the same product for cheaper, it's 
> just most don't realise this.

That's the assumption. I am not sure one can tell if it's right or not.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> could be "tagged" at the quantum level, 

Answer: No. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> Of course, if quantum computing were to ever emerge as a viable 
> technology, this would no longer work since the technique "piggy-backs" 
> upon existing technology.

The quantum encryption would continue to work fine. You can't *store* 
quantum keys. That's the whole point that makes quantum cryptography work. 
Therefore Quantum DRM is not going to happen, at least not using the same 
techniques as quantum cryptography.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> I use grip myself. :-)

Heh, there's got to be a joke in there somewhere...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:19:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I use grip myself. :-)
> 
> Heh, there's got to be a joke in there somewhere...

There probably is - I'm just waiting for you to find it. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2009 10:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You haven't answered my question about what your point is.....I'm still
> waiting.
>
> Jim

You'll just have to remain mystified.

Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:56:20 -0400, SharkD wrote:

> On 10/19/2009 10:59 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You haven't answered my question about what your point is.....I'm still
>> waiting.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> You'll just have to remain mystified.

I shan't waste any more time on it then, if you can't be bothered to 
communicate clearly, it's your loss. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message