Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Spread the word: an open graphics solution is on the way!
12345
Spread the word: an open graphics solution is on the way!
2005-03-04, 8:44 PM #121
Do we have to buy it?
-Hell Raiser
2005-03-04, 8:48 PM #122
No.

Newcomers to this thread: If you haven't already done so, I highly recommend going back a page and reading my lengthy post near the bottom. (I spent a lot of time on it, and do not want the fact that another page has started to overshadow that work.;) )
2005-03-04, 9:12 PM #123
...um... Mystic0, you're the one who derailed your own thread by posting crap about how Microsoft is spying on you.

And we're still waiting for you to post proof.
2005-03-04, 9:15 PM #124
Quote:
Originally posted by Jon`C
...um... Mystic0, you're the one who derailed your own thread by posting crap about how Microsoft is spying on you.

And we're still waiting for you to post proof.
2005-03-04, 9:20 PM #125
I have sent you both a private message with the source enclosed. I did not post it here because you both disobeyed my request to drop the discussion. Please take it elsewhere. I specifically said I only want to talk about the original topic.
2005-03-04, 9:31 PM #126
I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to change my mind. (Sorry about this, and sorry for my hostility in my last post. :( )I believe that the issue about Microsoft is relevent, because it is an example of a situation where the user's privacy is intruded as a direct result of software being non-free, which is the issue at hand.

If anybody wants to continue that discussion, I can post the source. If not, feel free to discuss other aspects of the Open Graphics Project.
2005-03-04, 9:34 PM #127
[Edit: For context, Mystic0's post originally said he didn't want to argue this here]

Also to avoid public scrutiny of your dubious evidence.

The first thing he sent me is a link to a video that's about 1 hour and 20 minutes long. I don't have time to watch it. Apparently it's a lecure by the founder of the FSF.

Second is a link to this, which pretty much reeks of a random Google search. In big, bold letters the article says "THIS ARTICLE IS SUPPORT FOR YOUR OWN INVESTIGATION" and states that if you don't have enough technical knowledge to understand the article you should disregard it". Eh, Mystic0, what?

Pretty much everything on that site is expected behavior. Or do you really think allowing the Application Layer Gateway Service access through your firewall constitutes a claim that Microsoft is spying on you?
2005-03-04, 9:40 PM #128
Hm, I watched the video and RMS repeatedly stated that Microsoft was sent the text you search for, as well as the movies you watched.

I realized that most people don't want to watch a long video, so I did a quick google search and came across a page that seems like it backs up my point. If not, my mistake.:o

Here is the page:

http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm
2005-03-04, 9:43 PM #129
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
Hm, I watched the video and RMS repeatedly stated that Microsoft was sent the text you search for, as well as the movies you watched.

If you have remote assistance enabled Microsoft is sent the text you search for in Windows Help. Windows Media Player 8 didn't give you the option of disabling DVD/MP3 track information retrieval, but WMP9 and 10 do because many people complained about it.

For the record, WMP's DVD/MP3 track retrieval code would not only need to get the movie, but it would need to get the information in a specific language/character set and format it for a specific verison of WMP. Remember: Microsoft isn't dealing with a single English version of their software and they are contractually obligated to make certain that it works flawlessly in any language.

Everything else on that site is expected behavior, but worded in a way to sound "scary" to people who don't know what they're doing.
2005-03-04, 9:48 PM #130
Okay. Remember, I don't support that page; it is just a result of a google search in an attempt to back up RMS' claim.
2005-03-04, 9:51 PM #131
Quote:
Originally posted by Jon`C


Also to avoid public scrutiny of your dubious evidence.



No. I only wanted to avoid bringing back that discussion. I wrote in my next post that I would post it if people wanted to continue the discussion. :/
2005-03-04, 9:53 PM #132
So we agree that it is true that in some version of Windows, Microsoft is or was sent the DVD title and the help search string?

Jon, I am inclined to say that you unfoundedly judged me by saying that it was simply a random page. Consider this, quoted from the page:

Quote:

2) Microsoft has programmed Windows XP to contact other computers and transfer information from the user's computer to the other computers:

a) If you have only three DVDs that your children watch sometimes on your home machine that is always connected to the Internet (through a broadband connection), you may not care that Microsoft knows when they watch them. If you seldom use the Windows XP help facility, you may not care that Microsoft is able to know the level of expertise of the people who use your computer.

However, if you are using Windows XP in a large corporation or a government, the fact that another organization believes that it can gather data from you may be completely unacceptable.

b) Even if, with an enormous amount of effort, professionals determined what information is sent to other computers, it cannot be known what information is sent in unusual circumstances. As mentioned above, there are simply too many pathways in complicated software to check all of them.

(Contrast this with the Linux and BSD operating systems: Changes are discussed intensively and openly before they are made. The instructions to the computer [source code] are open for anyone to see and criticize. Those who program open source software have no interest in collecting information about the people they serve.)



I think that is pretty relevant.
2005-03-04, 9:59 PM #133
I hope we can end this Microsoft tangent as soon as possible and get back to the original discussion.
2005-03-04, 10:01 PM #134
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
So we agree that it is true that in some version of Windows, Microsoft is or was sent the DVD title and the help search string?

Jon, I am inclined to say that you unfoundedly judged me by saying that it was simply a random page. Consider this, quoted from the page:



I think that is pretty relevant.

Yeah, it's called "Remote Desktop Connection" or "Remote Assistance". It's not a method to spy on you, it's a method to either give you help, or allow you to access something like a work computer from home. I believe it's disabled by default
</sarcasm>
<Anovis> mmmm I wanna lick your wet, Mentis.
__________
2005-03-04, 10:06 PM #135
Okay. If that is true, consider the case dismissed.
2005-03-04, 10:06 PM #136
...Did you completely ignore my last post? That page is written to be alarmist, but it's easy to debunk pretty much every argument made.

GNU/Linux was programmed to "send information" to other computers too. So was Windows 98, UNIX, MacOS and every other OS ever designed to support networking.

Know what the author of that article objects to? Network Services. OMFG, "Volume Shadow Copy Service" is connecting to my network!!!! ...Oh wait, that's because it's designed for backing up volumes to a remote backup server. And let's not even mention the horrible "Network Availability Test", the fact that rundll32 doesn't tell you which DLL is running or the aggrivation and annoyance that the Windows Media Player Configuration Utility automatically starts the first time you try using WMP on a user account!!!!!! OH NO!!!

:rolleyes:
2005-03-04, 10:08 PM #137
I'm sorry. I read your post, I guess i just misinterpereted it. I guess the page is not relevent. Remember, I'm not an expert on how Windows works.
2005-03-04, 10:13 PM #138
Here is another supporting RMS's claim that seems to be less biased:

http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/1471/IDG020221mediaplayer/

Quote:


Microsoft Media Player logs users' DVD picks
ITworld.com 2/21/02

Microsoft Corp.'s latest media player software keeps track of what DVDs are played on a PC and shares that information with the software maker via the Internet, privacy watcher Richard Smith said in an advisory.

2005-03-04, 10:16 PM #139
That's from 2002. Every version of Windows Media Player after 8 has included an option to disable this feature, because of negative customer feedback.
2005-03-04, 10:18 PM #140
Jon'C, Mystic0, et al. It is obvious that your passions are heating up and a lot of times ends up with things said that get you in trouble. It is apparent that neither of you are going to convince the other. I've tried. I've failed. Y'all wanna take this up in PM, go ahead. The OP did want his thread to go back on topic and his request should be fulfiled. So this discussion ends now.
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2005-03-04, 10:19 PM #141
I sent a PM to Mystic completely debunking his articles, if anyone is curious, ask and I'll PM it to ya'll.
2005-03-04, 10:23 PM #142
I realize that this pertains to an old media player. I hope that issue has been cleared up, so we can move on and continue the original discussion. Please let us forget the media player discussion.

Allow me to quote myself... my apologies for the length.


Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0

<First part of message omitted. Please see preveous page for the full message.>

I do not believe in free software because it is the cool thing to do. I believe in free software, as an end-user, because it allows me to be independent of domination by a proprietor. I believe in free software, as a developer, because it is a moral practice: it prevents me from exploiting my end-users. In a nutshell, I believe in free software when it prevents domination. Therefore, I have no problem with non-free software in a situation where it is impossible for an end-user to be dominated.

<More of message omitted. Please see preveous page for the full message.>

Allow me to summarize what the original discussion was about. Remember how I argued that a graphics card with well documented specifications is a good thing, because it enables the driver to be written as free software. Before we go on, we need to establish what free software is and why it is a good thing. Many of you think you know what free software is. Even if you think you know, I strongly encourage you to skim this page for information on why free software is important!

Summary of the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, and the reasons Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) founded them.

I realize that the GNU Project is not the same thing as the Free Software Foundation. However, I linked to it nevertheless, because I think that that page does the best job of summarizing what free software is and why it exists.

One of two scenarios can exist: either the specifications are not published, and the end-user must rely on the proprietor for non-free software drivers, or the specifications are published, and the end user can rely on the community to write free software drivers. Let's look at what happens when the graphics card specifications are not published. First, I'll borrow a quote from the GNU page I linked to earlier:


Quote:


Secret hardware

Hardware manufactures increasingly tend to keep hardware specifications secret. This makes it difficult to write free drivers so that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware. We have complete free systems today, but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot support tomorrow's computers.

There are two ways to cope with this problem. Programmers can do reverse engineering to figure out how to support the hardware. The rest of us can choose the hardware that is supported by free software; as our numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a self-defeating policy.

Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes--if we have built up a strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and non-free drivers are intolerable. And will large numbers of us spend extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers? Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.

[/b]


As you can see, secret hardware hurts free software. Here is a list of effects that secret graphics card specifications bring, assuming that the proprietary, non-free driver is used:

  • The user does not know what the program does, because the community has not had a chance to analyze the driver's source code. This means that the program could be running surveillance! (please do not ask for evidence of this. This is a theoretical situation, so I do not have any. Furthermore, there is no certain way to know without access to the source code.) Or maybe it is just restricting the user's privileges, via Digital Rights Management (DRM).
  • The user must have faith that the proprietor will make effective software on his platform. History has shown us that the proprietor will usually only write the software for the platforms that have the largest user base. If the user has an uncommon platform, the proprietor will probably not support it.
  • The driver code can never be merged into Linux, X.org, or other free software.
  • The user is generally left helpless to the company, and is at it's mercy.
  • Debugging is made much harder.
  • The fact the driver is non-free software taints the entire system, which could be otherwise entirely free from domination of a proprietor.


As you can see, the users are left helpless. The community has no control over the situation. Let's look at the effects that documented specifications of the graphics card bring, assuming that the driver is free software:

  • The community knows exactly what the program does, and will quickly spot any malicious components.
  • The specifications can be thoroughly studied. Because a wide range of people have access to the specifications, there can be wide support for obscure platforms. In addition, the specifications and driver source code can be carefully analyzed by everyone to ensure that the driver is taking full advantage of the hardware.
  • The end-user is free from domination by a proprietor.
  • The driver can be merged into Linux, X.org, and other free software.
  • The graphics card driver is one of the few missing links in an otherwise free GNU / Linux operating system. (If there are any other crucial components used with the GNU / Linux Operating System that are non-free, please let me know.) If the Open Graphics Project is successful, we will have in our hands an operating system that is completely independent and free from domination by a proprietor.


Any comments are welcome, if stated in a calm and objective manner.:)
2005-03-04, 10:25 PM #143
Quote:
Originally posted by Cool Matty
I sent a PM to Mystic completely debunking his articles, if anyone is curious, ask and I'll PM it to ya'll.


I replied... remember, that's not my page, and I do not support it. I don't understand how Windows works, and I thought it was a good reference, but I suppose I was wrong. I'm sorry I linked to it.:(
2005-03-04, 10:27 PM #144
Quote:
Originally posted by JediGandalf
Jon'C, Mystic0, et al. It is obvious that your passions are heating up and a lot of times ends up with things said that get you in trouble. It is apparent that neither of you are going to convince the other. I've tried. I've failed. Y'all wanna take this up in PM, go ahead. The OP did want his thread to go back on topic and his request should be fulfiled. So this discussion ends now.


Thank you.
2005-03-04, 10:42 PM #145
Quote:
Originally posted by JediGandalf
Jon'C, Mystic0, et al. It is obvious that your passions are heating up and a lot of times ends up with things said that get you in trouble. It is apparent that neither of you are going to convince the other. I've tried. I've failed. Y'all wanna take this up in PM, go ahead. The OP did want his thread to go back on topic and his request should be fulfiled. So this discussion ends now.


So, because it *might* end up in flaming, the discussion ends now? This debate gives the readers of the thread an insight on both sides of the story, therefore, perhaps it is not important that either of them win or lose. Also, it is not as if this debate has degraded to the point where each and every word is weighed and measured; Jon`C is simply looking into sources that Mystic0 claims are valid.

Ending the discussion now could actually hurt Mystic0's thread. At the moment, it seems he is scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources, and that makes me doubt that he really knows what he's talking about at all. If others feel the same way, what is the difference between ending this debate and killing this thread?
2005-03-04, 10:46 PM #146
*Ahem*

That discussion ends, because:

1. We have resolved that argument and have reached an agreement.
2. I said so. Please talk about the original topic.

I don't think anybody has said a thing about the Open Graphics Project for a few pages now,
2005-03-04, 11:02 PM #147
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
I don't think anybody has said a thing about the Open Graphics Project for a few pages now,
You pretty much killed that discussion when you said the thread was cross-posted on the Gentoo forum just to prove a point about how different Linux users are from real people.
2005-03-05, 2:48 AM #148
Wow Mystic. You've lost pretty much all the respect I've had for you in this thread. "Let's drop the argument because I say so guys, lol, I have ultimate power, woot, you guys weren't on topic and even though I followed you you suxxorz."

I can't convince you you're wrong, because you don't WANT to be wrong, so that's all I have to say.
D E A T H
2005-03-05, 3:03 AM #149
This just keeps getting better!
2005-03-05, 5:55 AM #150
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Wow Mystic. You've lost pretty much all the respect I've had for you in this thread. "Let's drop the argument because I say so guys, lol, I have ultimate power, woot, you guys weren't on topic and even though I followed you you suxxorz."


It's a respected fact in here that when the topic creator requests the thread to be moved back on topic, it should be done.

Mystic's only fault was placing blame for going off topic in the first place. (Who or why doesn't matter, just do it.)

Anyway, bout the video cards:

I think that while it's an interesting concept, I don't see this working too well. Most video cards are built on years of research and experience. Plus, gaming video cards are becoming highly popular now, even in common desktop machines.

I just don't see it taking off, personally. At least, not without some huge company backing.
2005-03-05, 8:43 AM #151
The project is being funded by TechSource.

Remember that the project's leader, Timithy Miller, works for TechSource. TechSource has much experience in the market of producing hardware.

I agree that this project has a great deal to overcome to be successful. Even if they fail, however, I think it is a step in the right direction. In addition, they only need a small amount of cards sold to make this a worthwhile endeavor.

If the first generation of cards is moderatly successful, the path will be paved for a better second generating that may turn more heads. In addition, the first generation will not be for the desktop market: it will be for embeded devices. The sales from this will allow them to sale the desktop card a lower price.

Allow me to quote myself from a message on the Gentoo Boards:

Quote:

So what if the specs are released? It's not like this is cutting edge technology. It won't be a big deal if somebody steals the design, because the design won't compete with Nvidia or ATI anyway. The only way for another company to compete with this card in this market is to open up their specs and source code as well. The beauitiful thing is that every time somebody does that, not only do we benefit from additional competition, but because in order to compete in this market, they will have to share their specs as well. And that creates one big, nice pool of free information.Very Happy

This is a niche market. There will always be people who want an open spec, open source driver powered card. It is competing in that market only. Everything else is irrelevant. As of right now, this is largely an untapped market, and the Open Graphics Project will be filling the vacuum, so to speak, because nobody has stepped up and done so already. As long as people are willing to buy an open card, be it for ideological or practical reasons, they will have a market.


You probobly notice that I am being somewhat idealistic here....

Remember that direct consumers are not the only ones who will be buying this card. In fact, we hope that much of the sales will come from bulk purches to GNU / Linux hardware vendors.
2005-03-05, 8:51 AM #152
Mystic: STOP. Your making a complete fool of yourself and the entire OSS community. Nobody likes a zealot.


The whole OSS graphics card thing is great, and Id probably buy one, but very, very few on these boards would. Heck, very few would even understand the concept. Massassi is not the place to advertise such a project.



...And the rest of it...geeze man, dont you know when to shut up?
And when the moment is right, I'm gonna fly a kite.
2005-03-05, 8:55 AM #153
I think that's a bit harsh. Have you read everything I have said? If you don't wish to participate in this discussion, you can leave.
2005-03-05, 10:16 AM #154
Dude, you just got told by GBK. I mean, he's not the kind of person to break up arguments and the like. There's probably a reason.

And maybe it'll be a step in the 'right' direction, for a very small handful of people (and yes, if they were cheap enough, I would buy one). But in the end, so few people would use it, that the market for it would probably die out before it got a chance to grow.

Sometimes you just have to face facts. Open-Source Software works--to a degree. Open-Source Hardware doesn't.
D E A T H
2005-03-05, 11:08 AM #155
Quote:
Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Dude, you just got told by GBK. I mean, he's not the kind of person to break up arguments and the like. There's probably a reason.



Let's just believe everything gbk says becaseu he's gbk. :rolleyes:

Here's how I see it: on GNU / Linux, hardware with closed specifications work, to a degree. However, hardware with open specifications work much better. Remember, it's okay that the specifications are documented. We don't have to worry about people stealing the ideas because it does not compete as far as performance against Nvidia and ATI. Remember, it is competing because the specifications are documented. The minute somebody builds on the published specifications and releases hardware without publishing the specifications, they have eliminated the primary asset that is carrying this project.

Quote:


The only way for another company to compete with this card in this market is to open up their specs and source code as well. The beauitiful thing is that every time somebody does that, not only do we benefit from additional competition, but because in order to compete in this market, they will have to share their specs as well. And that creates one big, nice pool of free information.

2005-03-05, 11:12 AM #156
Quote:
Originally posted by Mystic0
Let's just believe everything gbk says becaseu he's gbk. :rolleyes:

Here's how I see it: on GNU / Linux, hardware with closed specifications work, to a degree. However, hardware with open specifications work much better. Remember, it's okay that the specifications are documented. We don't have to worry about people stealing the ideas because it does not compete as far as performance against Nvidia and ATI. Remember, it is competing because the specifications are documented. The minute somebody builds on the published specifications and releases hardware without publishing the specifications, they have eliminated the primary asset that is carrying this project.


What he was trying to explain is that GBK is more one to argue to no end, rather than put an end to an argument.


That DirectX spyware thing was funny though. I think you could go on the road as the nerd comedian. I'd buy a ticket to that.
2005-03-05, 11:14 AM #157
I never said that DirectX had a backdoor. I only said it was possible because it was non-free software.

Anyway, that discussion is over now. Please discuss the original topic.
2005-03-05, 11:14 AM #158
GBK also knows a helluvalot more about *nix and OSS than you do. Think about it. It makes sense to listen to someone who KNOWS MORE THAN YOU.
D E A T H
2005-03-05, 11:16 AM #159
Please leave if you are going to act like that. Immature and unfounded comments are not appriciated. Stop feeding the fire and get back to the original poster's request.

By your logic, because I know more than you, you should listen to me. You tell me if that's right or wrong.
2005-03-05, 11:19 AM #160
You feed the fire as much as anyone else, so don't give me that crap Mystic. You've been acting like an obstinate *** this entire thread, and I think it's time you took your own advice.

But I'll let this thing die, because that's the only place it has to go.
D E A T H
12345

↑ Up to the top!