On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 15:25 -0500, lukefro...@hushmail.com wrote: > For me to stay with Ubuntu, the packages I use, in clean versions, > need to stay in repo and never depend on packages I am not willing to > install. Since > I regard my installed OS as a fork, it's what's in repo and what they depend > on that counts, > not the default installation which now has little bearing on my own. > > I draw the line at any attempt to restrict my power over my own machine, or > connects to the Internet without my explicit authorization. For my uses, even > automated bug reporting in things like Firefox is deemed unsafe and disabled. > I > would switch to rekonq if not for the "browser fingerprintng" menace. > > As of now, I have to remove software that looks online for names of audio > files, as well > as the "shopping lens" and now all of Unity due to unknown future updates. > > If Ubuntu integrates DRM support to the point that you can't remove it, I will > have to switch distros. Same if I have to check every package update manually > to > filter out addtions of DRM media support or especially any form of > out-of-browser > online license checking. If I hear of Hollywood license servers used by > Ubuntu, I > will certainly 127.0.0.1 all of them out in /etc/hosts just in case something > slips > past me. I don't like having to worry about getting something like this and > finding out > months later after ISP logs have been generated! > > On my own machines, I do not buy any form of paid content, so I don't > need support for it. I produce only media distributed free, and only consume > free or pirated media. The activist media I produce has enemies, so it is by > myself that > my machines must be trusted, not by Hollywood. It is not possible for the > same computer > to be trusted by both, save for a totally open machine. > > In the production of activst media I must store encrypted files that > would be of interest to well-funded governmental enemies. That means the paths > used by encryption passwords must only pass through open-source software, so > nobody can hide a backdoor keylogger. > > Even proprietary video drivers are not recommended by encryption experts, > and I won't mount an encrypted flash drive from the GUI on a machine running > them > for that reason. > > DRM is another use of encryption, for purposes opposite my own. If I wanted > to > send a video to the security forces as a warning-but only let them play it as > I > streamed it, I would have to control the decryption key, AND the path taken by > the decrypted audio and video streams all the way to their eyes and ears. I > would > have to be able to verify that they had not replaced the software I trusted > with > software they trusted. That is the fundamental issue of strong DRM, analysed > by > role-reversal. > > DRM isn't quite there, as it can't beat a camera and microphone, nor wires > hooked > to speaker leads inside an HDMI compliant speaker cabinet. Still it means > having to > control all busses on which audio or video signals travel, it often means > connecting to > a keyserver, etc. > > A machine supporting DRM is an attempt to make a machine Hollywood can trust. > To get there, the entire audio and video path have to be protected from users > like myself. > That requires either closed-source, secure boot to a kernel that hash checks > all binaries > (and thus slows down) or probably both. > > In short, if Ubuntu wants to offer DRM any stronger than that supported by > Flash, > they would have to use a set of "restricted" packages that would have to > include > the kernel, video drivers, audio driver, and all media players. None of > those would > I be willing to install. I hope to hell these are kept separate and optional, > so you can > at least choose a DRM or non-DRM install from the package manager. Better if > users could boot from a DRM or non DRM kernel, choosing at boot time. > > In fact, Flash is a good example here: if Adobe threw up their hands, walked > away > from it, and released it under the GPL so someone else could mantain it, all > Flash > DRM content would be instantly cracked. > > Everyone knows about Flash, few would trust, say, a Flash applet to open an > encrypted > disk from the browser! Hell, when using Tor browser for something that could > land > someone in jail or worse, you must disable Flash. Torbrowser could never be > safely made from > a closed-source browser, whether it integrated Flash or not. Nor could it > ever me made from > a browser that cannot disable Flash. > > You are right about metals: smartphones and tablets are the worst offenders, > as their > small size requires special materials like Tantalum capacitors. That as well > as trust are > reasons I choose not to own them. I also never throw out Pentium 4 or later > hardware, > repurposing and giving them away instead. > > Free and open source software for encryption has saved lives of activists > fighting against > resource extraction focussed dictatorships. > > > > > On 03/08/2013 at 6:31 AM, "Kaj Ailomaa" <zeque...@mousike.me> wrote: > > > >On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:16:17 +0100, <lukefro...@hushmail.com> > >wrote: > >That said, has anyone considered the dirty business around > >hardware? > >Precious metals and all that? I don't know much about it, but I > >think we > >could probably all agree on that all though the software is free, > >doesn't > >mean the machine it runs on is a blessing to humanity.
Mining of pewter already is a serious issue, but it's too unworldly to think that Linux needs to protect people, who want's to fight against dictatorships. The problem with Ubuntu indeed is all that tablet PC and other computer crap. I don't want DRM, EFI or any other acronym on my machine. I even don't install flash player anymore. I neither consume legal nor illegal entertainment industry medias. I never could stand Roland Emmerich and I even can't stand Quentin Tarantino anymore. I never listened to chart music. There's nothing bad with tablet PCs, but they can't replace a desktop machine. People who give away their PCs and Laptops and replace it by a tablet PC, perhaps don't need a computer as a tool. I won an iPad2 a long time ago and it definitively can't replace a _real_ computer, even if it would run Linux. It's a reader and remote control and could be a very useful tool, assumed it wouldn't run iOS. The hardware is good enough for video games, I'm not a gamer, but I've got the impression, that playing a game with the fingers and motion sensor doesn't work. A production environment does need a real keyboard and card slots and last but not least, a real, huge tube monitor or display. I'm using Linux for around a decade now and from the beginning I didn't stay with one and the same distro. I switched apps, I switched DEs and I switched distros several times. >From the beginning I never trusted Mark Shuttleworth, what people made calling me a troll around ten years ago, now is reality :D. Saul became Paul in an incredible ridiculous book, unlikely that this does happen in real live that often. -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
