How Firefox Will Handle DRM In HTML 361
An anonymous reader writes "Last year the W3C approved the inclusion of DRM in future HTML revisions. It's called Encrypted Media Extensions, and it was not well received by the web community. Nevertheless, it had the support of several major browser makers, and now Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal has a post explaining how Firefox will be implementing EME. He says, 'This is a difficult and uncomfortable step for us given our vision of a completely open Web, but it also gives us the opportunity to actually shape the DRM space and be an advocate for our users and their rights in this debate. ... From the security perspective, for Mozilla it is essential that all code in the browser is open so that users and security researchers can see and audit the code. DRM systems explicitly rely on the source code not being available. In addition, DRM systems also often have unfavorable privacy properties. ... Firefox does not load this module directly. Instead, we wrap it into an open-source sandbox. In our implementation, the CDM will have no access to the user's hard drive or the network. Instead, the sandbox will provide the CDM only with communication mechanism with Firefox for receiving encrypted data and for displaying the results.'"
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it, but it's likely that the CDM will attempt to check the Firefox binary and assert that the one loading it is signed by Mozilla and refuse to operate otherwise.
It's the CDM's job to fight off attack attempts against itself, not Firefox's. All Firefox will do is attempt to isolate the (undoubtedly security hole riddled) CDM and protect the end user from it - but given the closed source nature of the CDM this may not be possible.
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are you going to check the binary if you've explicitly isolated the CDM from any access to the system? Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed. If the CDM access the OS directly, aside from the security implications that causes, now your open source OS can attack it in the same exact manner, returning whatever information the CDM wants to see, rather than the reality.
The simple truth is that you cannot have open source anything anywhere within the code chain from the point the content exits the CDM to the point the content is sent along with wire to your display device. If you are breached anywhere, then your system is insecure, and if your system is insecure, your content will be stolen and freely distributed on the internet. All you've prevented with all this DRM is the typical honest customer from being able to flexibly access the content in the manner they chose. The typical honest customer needs to be taught this, that DRM has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with artificially restricting their abilities. Education is the key to fighting all forms of oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I doubt that they can actually sandbox it. The CDM needs OS access so it can try and leverage nonsense like Windows' Protected Media Path. I'm not sure what they intend to do with the sandbox, realistically.
I still doubt that Firefox will, or can, do anything to protect the CDM.
Re: (Score:3)
How are you going to check the binary if you've explicitly isolated the CDM from any access to the system?
By requiring the sandbox to prove that it passes a validation with an attestation using credentials that are not available to the user.
Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) / TPM come to mind. The TPM allows for secure storage and secure reporting of some security related metrics.
The Sandbox can't spoof a validation of the trusted status of the Sandbox program, because the digital signature n
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Interesting)
As with all DRM schemes, it's only a matter of time before this is broken.
DRM being crackable is not actually that important, what matters is how difficult it is for the average user. You only have to make it slightly tricky or add some slight perceived risk to downloading pirated stuff and they will choose to pay for it instead. For most people with a bit of cash the hassle factor of DRM is what keeps them on the straight and narrow, for the people without cash who cares, they probably would not have paid for it anyway.
Some people who pirate lots of stuff eventually grow into big paid consumers of stuff when they get a bit money, but when they do they often end up forgetting about their strict stance on DRM and just sign up with Netflix or Lovefilm or whatever based on how convenient it is for them. Who cares about keeping a copy of the latest crap to come out of content permanently, just give us lots of stuff to watch on demand and most of the time as consumers those of us with money are happy.
Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content?
It's not really the job of browser vendors to make sure you can be a freeloading shithead is it? Their job is to make a product that as many people find useful as possible and that means a certain amount of mass appeal. Refusing to support this part of the standard would have robbed Firefox of more users than they will lose by supporting it.
The reality is that people who view piracy as some sort of moral duty and right like you do are in the minority, that is why most of the public quite happily go along with more stringent copyright laws being drafted by the politicians they elect. That means that creating a browser that will be unusable for certain sites that want to protect their content will just drive users away.
BTW, I actually also think DRM is a joke and a complete waste of space and that more companies should trust us to buy their content if we like it. I spend a fortune on services like netflix and cable TV. I also think though that people who refuse to pay should do without, pure and simple. Anything other than that is freeloading off those of us who pay.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really the browser's job to defend other processes from your assault, now is it? We'd call that malware in any other context.
No offense, but the industries in question are making money hand over fist. No real loss is occurring.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You only have to make it slightly tricky or add some slight perceived risk to downloading pirated stuff and they will choose to pay for it instead. For most people with a bit of cash the hassle factor of DRM is what keeps them on the straight and narrow, for the people without cash who cares, they probably would not have paid for it anyway.
Then there are people like me. I have a bit of cash but have no desire to trade any of it for a product that will be actively hostile to me, or to reward a company who continues to lump me, the paying customer, in with the same group as pirates.
If the company wants to give the pirates a better product than their paying customers, where the paid version limits me in stupid ways (aka forcing me to have/connect/power an optical drive for their installer media while the software runs 100% from internal storage
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, the Pirate Bay Edition typically has far less hassle than the official "disable CD burners and phone home" version. DRM creates a constant hassle, installing a no-DRM patch is a one time thing.
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Insightful)
>Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content? Might have to switch browsers if that's the case.
Remember, DRM doesn't just stop 'piracy', it stops fair use of copyright content too.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like Jay-Z might be ripe for parody. Something involving an elevator.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the opposite
If the plugin is running in a tight sandbox it should be easy to modify the sandbox to send the video to somewhere other than the screen without the plugin having any way to detect that this is going on.
Of course this way you will have to re-encode so there will be a performance and quality cost but it should be easilly doable and work for any website that uses this drm infrastructure.
And if you do want to hack the plugin itself (to avoid re-encoding) I can't imagine it will be too hard
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I don't understand about this whole DRM-in-the-browsers thing. It's all well and good to have the data sent as an encrypted stream, but when it hits the browser, even if it the decryption is run in a sandbox, as per TFA, eventually it needs to render the data on the browser window. And since since the browser source is open, what's to stop someone very easily building their own executable with extra code to intercept video and sound output and saving it as a video file? As far as I can see, in-b
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you had the most 100% rock solid DRM, mathematically proven to be unbreakable and cryptographically secured, you cannot stop pirated content. If absolutely nothing else, people will use screen capture software and grab it that way. If things really go to shit and there's watchdog software on every PC preventing screen capture from happening while DRM content is playing, they'll pipe it over to a separate PC and capture it there. If you manage to block that they'll take apart a monitor and grab th
Re: (Score:3)
you cannot stop pirated content
The goal isn't to stop it, it's to make it complicated or risky enough that the average person will pay for it instead of pirating.
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the last point of my post. All it takes is a single dedicated person to crack the DRM and it will be available on streaming, downloading, and torrenting sites all around the web in a matter of days. Anything even moderately popular (and therefore able to be monetized) can be found. DRM at the stream level is like going after people recording radio onto cassette tapes; even if we agree that pirating is a real problem, those particular pirates are not part of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of this conversation is beside the point. You talk like DRM is an acceptable tool for a desirable motive. It is neither.
Not only is DRM an unsound idea that simply does not work, it and the idea of intellectual property it's meant to protect are immoral. That's right, immoral. Our very ability to communicate with each other, and share valuable ideas and information, is at the core of our intelligence, and is what put us on top of the animal kingdom. Sharing is a natural right. To give that up, voluntarily give that up, is to embrace a new status making us no better than sheep, fit only to be fleeced repeatedly. These scumbags in the content industries have misunderstood, perhaps deliberately, the differences between ownership and authorship, and the material and scarce vs the immaterial. Authorship does not mean the power to deny all usage and derivate work, until they get around to individually approving each proposal and only if they please. They are out to control all communications, stifling that which they can't manage, which by necessity would be the bulk of all communication as they haven't the means to handle the sheer quantity, by asserting that they should be compensated every time people share anything they were in any way involved in, and that the only fair way to accomplish this is by controlling all copying so every single occurrence of it can be taxed. And of course to do that requires extreme control of the sort necessary to make DRM actually function somewhat.
If there are risks in fighting DRM, it is our civic duty to take those risks, to preserve the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard to win for us. The risks are in any case little enough. The control freaks who want to monopolize and monetize all content do not have the power to go after everyone. There are other ways to compensate artists. Big Media still doesn't want to be bothered trying them, and admitting that they might work. Instead they have the gall to ask the rest of us to make the truly insane sacrifices it would take to really make their horrible vision work, and act as if they aren't asking much, putting on this hurt and baffled attitude and crying that artists will surely starve. We are NOT going to give up the Internet, flash drives, cell phones, home movie theaters, or even public libraries and used book stores. We are not going to turn the clock back to the 1980s, and artists will not starve and art will still be created.
This ramming of DRM down our collective throats and into the HTML standard is at best a waste of effort that will have no effect. At worst, it will harm the Internet, slowing it down and blocking some things. If, somehow, it kills the Internet, Big Media would celebrate. That's the kind of trolls they are. But it won't accomplish the destruction of the Internet or the elimination of piracy. I think the only reason the DRM was allowed is that we knew it would be ineffective and only slightly damaging if that, and so we could afford to humor them in this matter. And they problably bribed key people, maybe tried some threats too.
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.
And you can have that because this is open source software. Mozilla doesn't have to do what you feel is important. The whole advocacy of free software is such that the user can change/remove things he/she does not want and even to fork it if they don't like the developers' ideology.
The solution is there, it's the solution you have been advocating for so stop bitching that Mozilla isn't catering to your specific needs in every way you demand them to and use it, it's Free Software!
Re:Isn't hard drive access desirable? (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't believe for a moment this is possible. Not by fault of Mozilla, but by what is necessary for the CDM to function and enforce the DRM protections.
The moment a browser (or OS) tries to put in technological measures to defend against the owner, your computer is not yours.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one is forcing you to consume the DRM'd content, if it offends you.
I think this will end up with the ideal solution: DRM good enough to make the content providers happy, but constrained enough that, well, the impossibility of the underlying task will be revealed in certain circles.
Remember, Netflix doesn't actually care whether anyone pirates their streams. They care that they have fulfilled their contractual obligations to protect their streams. The way I see this playing out, everyone wins except perh
Re: (Score:3)
but that really is an issue you should be taking up with the content provider. If you don't like it, just avoid all DRM'd content.
true. but this is only true the moment a major browser indulges in suporting this drm crap. this is not a feature the user demand, but the copyright lobby. and doing so is in total contradiction with any form of advocacy for an open web. it is clear that mozilla, under present management, has more important priorities than an open web, so all this ceo-talk is just the usual bullshit you'd expect from ... well, a ceo. oh wonder.
Re: (Score:3)
The typical user doesn't specifically want DRM, but a whole lot of them would like to be able to watch current movies on something like YouTube. Those will come with DRM, despite what Mozilla and typical users want. If a user wants something that only comes with DRM, the user is likely to want DRM available to enjoy that.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.
Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.
and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.
i see nobody demanding drm support here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... [mozilla.org] nor here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/b... [mozilla.org]
do you?
interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The principle is the same regardless of the medium - the video / audio in the stream is encrypted with a key which changes frequently. The DRM supplies the key when the stream asks for it. That's what EME facilitates - an extra events on video / audio objects to say "I need a key" and an api to plug it in. It doesn't say where this key comes from or how the video object uses it to decrypt th
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Funny)
This, or inventing javascript. Ick.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, this is a bad move no matter what. Because FF should have let third parties write a plugin and waited until it was inevitable before including it, if ever. With this move they threw their weight IN SUPPORT of it, from a practical point of view. Because now people will say: see this scheme is supported by all major vendors, let's go for it.
That it's a w3c standard, it is not relevant. In fact "we implement only the sane things out of w3c" would have been a marketing bullet point. No, not now: when remote wipings of DRM protected stuff start happening.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, Informative)
1) A third party is writing the plugin.
2) We did wait until it was inevitable. Every single other browser is already shipping it, Netflix is using it, and other sites are starting to use it. The only alternative to shipping this was to make sure Netflix and other video sites continued to work with Flash or Silverlight _and_ that Flash and Silverlight continue to work indefinitely.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where's the progressive outrage machine when we ne (Score:4, Insightful)
Mozilla just ousted their chair over something that screws over far fewer people than this.
LK
Re:Where's the progressive outrage machine when we (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla did not "oust" him. He stepped down after the wider community spoke up. This is being forced by a bunch of DRM happy corps (MS, Apple, Google) and their media industry buddies (Netflix, MPAA, et. al.)
Re: (Score:3)
It's amusing to read the reports on right-leaning news sites. According to them, he was forced out by the 'gay mafia.' They use that phrase quite a lot.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. (Score:2)
You can either have open source or DRM - anything where the end user has control of the software can be broken, period. Trying to keep people from messing with your DRM is a losing battle, anyway - there are always more bored hackers that will break whatever scheme you come up with.
Beyond that, why would you bother with a browser-specific technology? It's yet another thing that looks shiny in the 'features' column but no one will ever use, because the market share is too low to justify it. Oh, and Microsof
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that, why would you bother with a browser-specific technology?
Given that not all browsers are able to implement the same set of features, nearly every feature is browser-specific.
Personal DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
What we need to do is figure out how to apply DRM to the personal information emanating from our machines. You will then be able to lawfully defend against those who profit from that information. Of course you could work out an arrangement to get a slice of the gross coinage as well ;).
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I could do that to the DMV. Within a week of registering my car in FL I started receiving postal junk mail at my new address. I'd love to get involved in a class action lawsuit against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Its called "dont go to a website if you dont like their terms; dont provide them info if you dont want it used."
Re: (Score:2)
President Skroob: That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.
FFFFFFUUUUU (Score:2)
As I said before, this is an ideological loss for no practical gain. Now that we've lost, let's release browser plugins to break the shit out of EME, forcing DRM back into shitty proprietary browser extensions that have to be installed one user at a time!
I don't like DRM either (Score:2)
But this is an open-source browser we're talking about. If we don't want DRM, we can make a build of it without the DRM piece.
Companies will use DRM schemes whether they're supported by browsers or not. I don't entirely agree with Firefox deciding to implement EME, but it doesn't actually matter all that much.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is an open-source browser we're talking about. If we don't want DRM, we can make a build of it without the DRM piece.
Or, even better, when it asks you if you want to turn the DRM feature on, click "no." No compiler needed.
Re:I don't like DRM either (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is an open-source browser we're talking about. If we don't want DRM, we can make a build of it without the DRM piece.
Being open-source has nothing to do with this. The number of people who will use a fork is essentially zero when compared to Firefox's total userbase.
The problem is that Mozilla has thrown away the power that comes from being able to speak for hundreds of millions of users out of fear of losing some of those users. That's a path to irrelevancy, they've traded the vision that made them popular in the first place for the hope of maintaining marketshare. It is a total MBA move, as if Mozilla should be driven by profits instead of advocacy.
you're giving the crooks a pass (Score:3)
this is bigger than an open source project or even one browser
this is about the standards of the internet and openness...no DRM is just as important as Net Neutrality
the W3C are total sell-outs to corporate interests in DRM...complete and total...now it appears firefox has joined them
the WHATWG [wikipedia.org] is the only reason we are stuck with 90s-era spaghetti code on websites now...they developed HTML5 and finalized CSS3...
HTML would be spyware if the W3C had its way...and HTML5 would not exist w/o the WHATWG
Open Source Browser (Score:4, Insightful)
Making bug reporting illegal?! (Score:4, Interesting)
From Cory Doctorow's article today [theguardian.com]...
dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather that deal with it in such a complex way, they should just do what linux did for years with MP3s. Popup box "This is an MP3, we can install the thing you need to listen to it, but it's not open source. Do you want it? Yes/No" Simple as that. Let users chose. I don't see how this is any different.
Then they can let their plugin community quietly subvert the entire mechanism, just like they have everything else, and the industry will abandon it.
Re: (Score:2)
So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leaves (Score:3)
Brendan Eich may have had some opinions that people don't like, but at least he stuck to his morals. Now that he's gone, the new CTO, this Andreas Gal, seems more likely to compromise. DRM is evil, but Dr. Gal thinks he's clever, and is trying to wrap it in an open-source sandbox. Let the exploits come.
Oh well, now I do have an actual reason to boycott Firefox.
Re:So this is what happens when Brendan Eich leave (Score:4, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Well, here you are standing on principles. :)
You wanted to watch Youtube vids, so you run Google Chrome, which has even more liberal implementation of this DRM.
You didn't boycott Youtube.
So, this is why Firefox is implementing it. They no longer have the leverage. Google Chrome is bundled with Flash, with Adobe Acrobat, with Oracle Java. It is pushed on every google website people interact with - Search, Plus, Docs, Youtube, Translate. There's the google app store, ChromeOS, Android...
I doubt Brendan would have held out against this either. Firefox' choice is to accede to its users, or become even more marginalised.
I'm glad they are using their limited remaining leverage to try and at least ensure user privacy and security and offer something that is cross-platform, with an open source auditable wrapper and actually works under Linux.
Translation: (Score:2)
Oops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although until they start supporting h.264 and h.265, isn't this whole discussion a bit premature?
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox already support h.264, go to vimeo with a Windows 7 Firefox or Linux with GStreamer plugins and it will play without plugins
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no - with Windows it's handing the decoding tasks off to the OS. It's only on Windows that it does it - it doesn't work on a Mac (even though it could do the same thing), and on Linux without gstreamer you're SOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you repeating what I said?
go to vimeo with a Windows 7 Firefox or Linux with GStreamer plugins and it will play without plugins
Re: (Score:2)
They deferred on that to the platform. And stuff being routed to the CDM won't be handled by the browser anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they are saying, but it's not credible.
It's like saying 'we want to win the fight, but if we fight we might lose, so we are going to give up and not fight instead.'
If you want to fight then fight. I'd back you. If you are not going to fight, then just admit it and shut up about it, quit blowing smoke
neccary evil (Score:2)
Later, MS did it, with much secrecy, and it was rammed down our throats.
I don't like DRM one bit, but this seems like good damage control.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad seeing this (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux version (Score:3)
Are Adobe going to make a Linux version of the DRM module? Because their record with Linux versions of their PDF DRM tech is VERY POOR. We get research articles from the British Library which are DRM'd, and our Linux users can't read them. One solution is to complain to BL at which point they will often just email you a plain old unDRMd PDF. The mega-facepalm thing is that the British Library came out against DRM-content a few years ago, and have done a massive backtrack because the publishers didn't like it.
Whether DRM is a bad thing or an insanely bad thing (ok, or a good thing, whatever), I don't ever want to see "This Content Cannot Be Viewed On Your Nerdy Linux Operating System" popups ever. But if this is Adobe's shitcreek we're wading through, I think I will.
Re:Not relevant (Score:5, Funny)
(I feel like this joke is nerdy even by slashdot standards.)
Re:Not relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Gopher over TOR.
Re: (Score:3)
There are other options as well. [majorgeeks.com]
You have a LOT of Windows and Shareware, in that list. ;-)
I browse from a 1995 era SGI, and a QNX Neutrino RTOS VM. I'm contemplating Acorn RiscOS on a RaspberryPi.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, that explains it; you're the Clifford Stoll of this place!
Someday, ask me about my connection to Markus Hess. We had a Fortran 77 class together, before his infamy...
Re:What a joyous success (Score:3)
Current number of websites using EME is 0.
Re: (Score:3)
Current number of websites using MEME is over 9000.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube uses EME for 1080p streams, no EME and you only get 720p or lower
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube uses EME for 1080p streams, no EME and you only get 720p or lower
Youtube uses Media Source Extensions [w3.org] for 1080p streams. That's completely different; it's a way to source data to a <video> element from Javascript. They use it to implement their dynamic HTTP streaming, where rather than just sucking down a file you suck down individual file segments allowing dynamic quality adjustments based on your available bandwidth. There's no DRM involved.
Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Brilliant. Perfect way to kill market share! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only differences I've noticed is that they made the tabs almost impossible to distinguish, because Flat Is Cool!
I've found that it's now much easier to see the active tab.
and they appear to have moved the back and forward buttons.
They are still where they used to be, on the left side of the address bar.
Ayn Rand Quote Time (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh look. Here's a whole _page_ of Ayn Rand quotes about compromise
or...
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot to like about the Richard Stallmans of the world. They are clear about the what and the why, and they stick to their guns.
And that's why Gnu Hurd is a viable desktop alternative to Windows and OS X, and is so influential in what happens in operating systems at large.
Without the snark: if you have no measurable market share, you don't have any measurable market influence. If people can watch Netflix on Chrome, IE, and Safari, but not on Firefox, what do you think happens? How much impact can Mozilla have if Firefox becomes the Gnu Hurd of the browser world?
Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time (Score:4, Insightful)
The Hurd isn't a viable alternative because it isn't needed.
Stallman had a vision of a completely free as in speech computer system. When he started, that meant, OS, tools, and application software.
It was a radical strawman against the beginnings of an industry of for-profit software with intellectual property laws.
It turns out that Stallman and his friends created the programmable editor, the compiler suite, the tool chain, the user-space unix tooling..
and them some Finnish guy and his friends came along and made the OS kernel.
The point is that now, not only is there a free OS and development tool chain -- more successful than Stallman could have ever managed -- there is an entire philosophy around free-as-in-speech software.
Stallman has been more influential on how we think about an use computer software than arguably just about anyone. I would at least put him in the same room as a Woz or a Bill Gates.
The market share of Hurd is the wrong metric. The fact that my company -- Microsoft -- is releasing more and more of our stuff as free-as-in-speech software -- that's the metric.
Let's objectively look at what Stallman started.
Let's use this metric: how many Fortune 100 companies have capitulated to _your_ philosophical demands?
Re: (Score:2)
That's utter revisionist claptrap.
Stallman's uncompromising stance is pretty evident in the GPL, which is a relatively minor player when compared against more permissive licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD, and -- relevant to the conversation at hand -- MPL). These licenses, by allowing in the "little bit of evil" that is represented by allowing their use in commercial contexts, have been significantly more successful than GPL and similar viral attempts.
You can try to hold him out as a cheerleader in this arena, but
sharing is slavery, rape is caring (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that. Now this sentence is true.
Unfortunately you can't really assert that any of what you said is true. There are GPL projects that are equally, if not more, successful than equivalent projects u
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately you can't really assert that any of what you said is true. There are GPL projects that are equally, if not more, successful than equivalent projects under those licenses.
If his metric is "look what Microsoft has done," or even "look what several Fortune 100 companies have done" -- and that is, in fact, the metric he selected -- then I'm pretty confident I can.
Re: (Score:2)
GNU Hurd isnt viable because it never got off the ground.
Stallman had a vision of a completely free as in speech computer system. When he started, that meant, OS, tools,
I believe Linux Torvalds provided the OS, lets not get that mixed up. Stallman provided the tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Hearing Ayn Rand-- the figurehead of a school of thought that endorses such things as infanticide and genocide if they could be truly shown to be in one's true self interest-- talk about "good" and "evil" is a bit rich.
Heres a tip, if you find a good quote of hers that is relevant to a discussion, leave off the "Ayn Rand said" bit, it will get you a lot more credibility.
Re:Ayn Rand Quote Time (Score:5, Funny)
You don't think quoting a crank is insightful or useful in any way, do you?
No, but I just did so anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, because I think she's neither foolish nor hypocritical.
There's a class of people who respond to Ayn Rand with ad hominem. Which is funny -- She wrote a lot of pages -- more than I care to read in one sitting. In all that, somewhere, you'd think there's be fertile soil for a response more intellectually stimulating than, "she's a crank".
Fault her for whatever reasons you've faulted her, but to me, nobody has more constancy and conviction in their writing in favor of doing the right things for t
Re: (Score:2)
you'd think there's be fertile soil for a response more intellectually stimulating than, "she's a crank".
You'd think that people who think she's neither foolish nor hypocritical would realize how wrong they are when they realize that in all that writing ... the only response needed is 'she's a crank'.
Though I prefer the word quack to describe her and what she spewed.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the explainations for why "shes a crank" are out there for the world to see. For starters, a school of thought which teaches that "self interest" can somehow be equated with "ethics" should raise some eyebrows right off the bat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a method to run untrusted, potentially hostile code in a jail to minimize the harm it can do to the user and the host system. (In an open source setting you must assume all closed code is hostile)
Can they do this to other plugins too? Like flash?
All plugins that Firefox uses run in a separate container already. I do not know what the cost of jailing said container would be.
Native Client (Score:2)
All plugins that Firefox uses run in a separate container already. I do not know what the cost of jailing said container would be.
Google created Native Client [wikipedia.org], which includes a statically verifiable subset of x86 instructions that a compiler can target, which makes a userspace jail straightforward to implement. Mozilla has no interest in implementing any of the Native Client stack [theregister.co.uk]. Instead, it wants people to compile C to JavaScript using Emscripten and then run that JavaScript in an optimizing virtual machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pragmatic, makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
We've tried sandboxing the plug-in process Flash runs in. It breaks all sorts of existing Flash-using stuff, unfortunately.
The benefit of having a sandbox from day 1 is that you don't have that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention GnuZilla [gnu.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, looks like it's not updated anymore so probably not ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah..
anyways, the idea is that closed source plugins would talk directly to signed video drivers.
now, nobody could have an open vision of web where thats feasible.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that the CDM will be sandboxed in a low-privilege process with no direct access to the OS and kernel, which is not at all how Flash works.