The end of free computing?

[Jeratain]

Originally posted by funxus
...but they won't have control over my computer.

Or so you think...

 

[bladester]

Originally posted by nihilistic


You realize that in Linux YOU get to choose what kernels you want to load, right?

Ahh the beauty of linux. You can do whatever you want to it. That is the true way to control your hardware!

Originally posted by nihilistic

It require a group of idiots stupid enough to buy it. That's right. If you will actually buy into this, you are dumber than the people who chose the red imac over the blue because it has a red cupholder.

You mean the red iMac actually had a cupholder? That is sickening, choosing a computer over another for a cupholder

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by nihilistic

If you will actually buy into this, you are dumber than the people who chose the red imac over the blue because it has a red cupholder.

You've got to be kidding. A computer with a cupholder?

 

[Dralix]

Cupholder is idiot speak for "CD and/or DVD drive." As in "the cupholder on my computer doesn't work anymore. I used to press a button and the cupholder would pop out."

More on topic, what exactly is "free computing" supposed to mean? If that refers to stealing software, then by all means kill it. I agree that not being able to uninstall on one machine and reinstall on another is overboard but I can't agree with this ...

Originally posted by archer_007
That sucks that you wouldn't be able to use software on multiple systems. Having multiple copies of the same game sounds extreme.

I suggest actually reading the license agreement/terms of use that comes with your favourite game/software. You'll probably find that when you installed you agreed that you would not install and use on multiple machines.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Dralix
Cupholder is idiot speak for "CD and/or DVD drive." As in "the cupholder on my computer doesn't work anymore. I used to press a button and the cupholder would pop out."

I suggest actually reading the license agreement/terms of use that comes with your favourite game/software. You'll probably find that when you installed you agreed that you would not install and use on multiple machines.

Thanks for the clarification on the cupholder thing. Ive never heard that before.

I always thought that multiple machines thing in the license agreement was refering to installing it on the machines of other people, not to installing it on multiple computers that you own (say your laptop and desktop, for example)

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by archer_007
I always thought that multiple machines thing in the license agreement was refering to installing it on the machines of other people, not to installing it on multiple computers that you own (say your laptop and desktop, for example)

I think the real issue is that you can't use them both at the same time. So you could install Civ on your home PC and laptop and use the laptop when you're away from home. You could not install on both and play at the same time with your wife/parent/sibling/dog/whatever.

 

[Archer 007]

Yeah, that makes alot of sense, but having it installed on two different systems will be impossible with this new thing.

 

[Dralix]

So the software vendors will probably change the license agreements accordingly, saying that you can only install on one machine. Kind of a heavy handed solution to the problem. I can understand both sides of this issue. On the one hand, it sucks if you have a legitimate purpose to install on multiple machines. On the other, I fully support their desire to stop people from buying one copy and sharing it with 10 friends.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Dralix
So the software vendors will probably change the license agreements accordingly, saying that you can only install on one machine. Kind of a heavy handed solution to the problem. I can understand both sides of this issue. On the one hand, it sucks if you have a legitimate purpose to install on multiple machines. On the other, I fully support their desire to stop people from buying one copy and sharing it with 10 friends.

I can see the concert the industry has also.

 

[Inter4]

Noooooooooooooooo...............I'll never buy those kind of computers!!

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Dralix
More on topic, what exactly is "free computing" supposed to mean?

Never heard of it. Sounds like some political catchphrase than a technical one.

Originally posted by Dralix
I think the real issue is that you can't use them both at the same time. So you could install Civ on your home PC and laptop and use the laptop when you're away from home. You could not install on both and play at the same time with your wife/parent/sibling/dog/whatever.

Yes, that is one of the functions. However, for that to actually function correctly, there must be a third party involved in this registration process whose function is to give you a unique user hash. That means you must register the game online before you can use it, which implies that you must suubscribe to some sort of internet access. Also, since the key will be hardware dependent, you may have to buy new software everytime you upgrade and everytime a critical component breaks down. The technophobe who shopped for that versatile cupholder at least got a cupholder. The idiot who buys into this deal gets nothing except a thorough shafting.

 

[Archer 007]

I think people will be too stupid to see whats really going on.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

If technophiles can hack a Duron with pencil markings on the chip, then I am certain that some kind of mod chip would be released.

But remember, peoples, to speak with your wallets. Maybe even try to get your local computer hardware store to boycott Palladium. That is assuming that the stores arent profiting from this...

I think by free computing people mean you are allowed to use your computer however you like, when you like. Free as in freedom, not cost.

And about cost, just imagine it. Subscription could vary from US$5 per month, to the limits of the sky. Just calculate how much software you have installed that would demand subscriptions? I would certainly be pushed over US$50 per computer, per month. Seeing that there are three Windows based computers in our home, that would be $150 per month, Which in Aussie Dollars is about $250. $3000 per year. Kill me now!

I was already thinking of going to Linux, even installed it dual boot. But now I definitely will. I know, palladium is hardware based, but linux is non-commercial. No open source project would agree to palladium, because it would do nothing for them. As soon as I have the time, I will move over to linux fully, and just use a remote desktop application like VNC to use windows and play civ from the linux box when I have to. It looks like a very good idea to me, and more welcoming by the minute.

Ditch Windows, and the greedy pigs that want to scam money off even legitimate computer users. It will kill the freedom that is (or was) the computer.

 

[Immortal]

for those that are saying "Ill never buy this" do you really think they will allow any of the newer technology to be campatable with anything without palladium? I suspect all technologies to come out after this palladium will require its presence to function.

Also with the servers part: would non palladium computers be able to access servers which use palladium? I wouldnt think so.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Which of course means that nobody will upgrade to any palladium hardware. The hardware manufacturers who dont implement Palladium will make a mint.

It is pretty horrible though, seeing a corporation trying to force customers into something they would never agree to willfully. Like a shotgun wedding, we may have to put up with this, because we have to. Well not I!

I have a feeling that this may fail when palladium is trying to be sold to the public. No-one will want it, because it means they will have to ditch all compatibility, and all previous software, instead getting subscriptions that cost $100 per year, for each product. If by chance it does succeed (that is, if palladium is forced upon us), I think I would rather be in the dark age of computing with my 1GHz, then using 10GHz palladium chips.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Immortal
for those that are saying "Ill never buy this" do you really think they will allow any of the newer technology to be campatable with anything without palladium? I suspect all technologies to come out after this palladium will require its presence to function.

I suspect that there will be two markets, one with Palladium and one without. The one with Palladium will eventually fail. Even if RIAA and Co. manages to buy enough senators and congressmen to pass a new bill outlawing their production, there will still be overseas suppliers for the same technology.

Originally posted by Immortal
Also with the servers part: would non palladium computers be able to access servers which use palladium? I wouldnt think so.

Palladium isn't supposed to work like that. It's not very hard to fake a set of RSA keys and thus acquire the means to converse with any server that implements Palladium. Also, what makes you think that (if it was technologically viable) ISPs would actually want to implement Palladium? Do you know how much the cable and dsl companies depended on file-sharers' business? Verizon's reasons for resisting an RIAA demand to release names of file-sharers are not good will. The reason in which Verizon did that was that they knew that if they did not fight off RIAA, they can kiss a large part of their customer base goodbye.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Originally posted by nihilistic
I suspect that there will be two markets, one with Palladium and one without. The one with Palladium will eventually fail. Even if RIAA and Co. manages to buy enough senators and congressmen to pass a new bill outlawing their production, there will still be overseas suppliers for the same technology.

I think that is very likely, too. For one, this would be legal in the United States, but international implementation would be impossible. I know that the Australian Government will reject this, or at least I hope so, because of the way the government treats these things. If Sony lost a battle to ban mod chips, surely this would never be accepted.

Also, it would be illegal to search someones computer for unliscenced software without a warrant, even if the search is permformed by the computer itself. I know, it would be in the EULA, but when you buy a fridge, the manual doesn't say "we reserve the right to search through your fidge for illegitimate material". If it did, the manufacturer would be in big trouble. A remote security system would never say "we reserve the right to spy on you using the security cameras we sold you".

Why? because they dont have any right to 'reserve' in the first place!