Battle Already Lost?
Experts, like security guru Bruce Schneier, are telling us the DRM systems included in Windows Vista is harmful to users. It consumes system resources, causing slowdowns, and destabilizes the system, causing, one assumes, crashes and hangs.
This software exists for one reason: to let someone else control what you can and can't do with your own computer. To some extent all software does this, but DRM software is unique in that it's purpose is to reduce the functionality of the system.
Regardless of what you might think of the motivation for this, who do you think ought to be able to control what is shown on your monitor, or what sounds come from your speakers, or what data is moved from one disk to another? Do you think they will get it right, and you'll never have a problem, or wrong, and you'll find yourself unable to make a copy of some file? What do you think the collateral damage will be? Does it bother you that some corporations have decided you're untrustworthy?
If an automobile had a system installed that let the automaker disable the steering by remote control, would you buy it?
Schneier suggests consumers not upgrade to Vista
.
Unfortunately, I find that an unlikely scenario, and offer as
evidence people paying more than $200/month for
unsatisfactory service, and writing comments on the newspaper website,
rather than making a meaningful change. Soon, all OEMs will be shipping
only machines with Vista installed, and in general we'll take it lying
down because the latest version of MSWord, won't run without it. Or new
displays won't. Or speakers won't.
We'll let Microsoft use us as pawns in a game to control the delivery of content, forcing on us an OS which limits our control of our own systems, and forcing their proprietary formats on the providers. (The providers don't actually care that much about format, I suspect, as long as you pay your $0.99 per track for your music, and can only access it from one device. They'll deliver it in the format that will net them the most ninety-nine centses.) Like a commodity, we'll be sold to the entertainment industry. It's not because we're lazy or stupid; it's just that many of us don't even realize we have a choice.
But we do. There are several concrete steps that would make those that want to take control of our computers and networks from us sit up and take notice.
-
This is the easiest step to take, and aside from openness and keeping your computer your own, there are good reasons to make the change.
Break the reliance on MSOffice. Try something free, as in Freedom.
OpenOffice is full-featured, and has an open file format so your documents aren't locked away by a software vendor, forcing unwanted upgrades on you. It provides compatibility to make the transition easier.
Finally, take back your system completely with a free operating system.
Ubuntu comes with both Firefox and OpenOffice ready to go, as well as just about everything you might want your computer to do. Photo editing? Chat? Media player? Simple software updates? Community and professional support? It's all in there.
Ubuntu's Live CD lets you try it all with no risk or commitment.
Update: Support free and open software by joining the Free Software Foundation. Support free networks and digital rights by joining Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Don't take it lying down.
Comments: 0
Annotated Links to the Future
Talking to Jeff this morning made me realize I probably should have said more about yesterday's Links to the Future entry. He objects to the hype surrounding Web 2.0, and I can't say I blame him.
In the two links, my aim was to present two visions of the future,
one largely
pessimistic, and one largely optimistic.
Yet, in each, there are seeds of the other, and in a turn that would
make Laozi nod in
appreciation, there is pessimism in the optimism (viz. Jeff's
grumbling about XML breads and circuses; youtube, a darling of Web 2.0
evangelists, limiting users to viewing videos of people's cats through
their proprietary flash app; DRM
everywhere), as well as optimism in the pessimism (diminishing reliance on
industrialized food, increasing neighborliness
, greener
environs, better local economic opportunities).
Posting these links was not a breathless endorsement of either. XML won't realize utopia, and society won't come crashing down in some petroclysm. Rather, the potential of so-called Web 2.0 technologies may help to bolster a global society built on a post-petroleum economy. I imagine a world where, thanks to some of the information processing power granted by nearly-universal, open information architectures and high efficiency networks, location of self becomes less relevant. Wasteful office buildings and commutes curtailed, the peak oil tail lengthens, creating more time to develop replacements of diminishing petroleum-derived materials and processes.
And if the whole world turned into a sentient computing system, a sort of global Chinese Room, that'd be kind of cool too.
Comments: 0