Adobe really doesn't have versions any more, at least not in the traditional sense. They have Creative Cloud, and it has the "latest" of everything. I think the idea is that the update cycle doesn't matter any more. New features are added on a constant basis, just how a Web application works.
For this to make sense for end users, they can't make any more major changes, like Microsoft did with the file format and Ribbon interface. Photoshop's file format and interface has remained the same for years; it's just the new whiz-bang features you get if you subscribe to their cloud. As Microsoft also pushes Office from the cloud, I imagine their game-plan is similar.
"The cloud" reminds me of "time-sharing" back in the '70s. Microsoft's claim to fame back then was breaking the bonds of dependency for the little guy upon the big guys, like IBM. Now that Microsoft is the big guy, the tables have turned. From where will the next revolution of independence come?
I want my PC back, and I don't expect to have to rent software. If I pay for it, I want to own it.
"The cloud" reminds me of "time-sharing" back in the '70s. Microsoft's claim to fame back then was breaking the bonds of dependency for the little guy upon the big guys, like IBM. Now that Microsoft is the big guy, the tables have turned. From where will the next revolution of independence come?
I want my PC back, and I don't expect to have to rent software. If I pay for it, I want to own it.
...I want my PC back, and I don't expect to have to rent software. If I pay for it, I want to own it...
-Phil
@Phil,
as usual things are way worse. @Clock Loop provided a link already but there is more to come!
One Swedish and some German auto maker already work on 'Law' to use the Millennium Copyright Act to prevent independent shops and yourself from working on the vehicle you purchased from them, arguing that you just bought the car, but not the right to modify the software contained in it. Yeah, right. You do not own the Mercedes Benz you buy. You do just own the right to use it.
I personally do like Mercedes Benz, even own two roadsters, but older ones (>20 years).
The amount of electronics in cars is intimidating nowadays and I doubt seriously that ANY Mercedes Benz or other new car will be drivable and serviceable in 20+ years. Mine may still run.
Like software, things are now build not to last and be not repairable. Throw away and buy new! And if you dare to fix things by yourself you may pretty soon violate law by doing so.
Sad state the world has come to. Fuel goes bad in your lawn mover or boat after 6 month, but apples from Walmart have a shelf life of a couple of years(?) without getting wrinkles. I have a bunch sitting on my kitchen desk since 9 month. They look like new. Funny isn't it?
That is why I still advocate for @Chips plan of a self hosting environment on the P2. The monitor is a start. @mparks Sphinx was what drew me to the propeller. So I am biased there. But Sphinx will run without modification on any P1 chip in 20+ years. Propeller Tool and Friends will probably not be running then without being modified, updated or rewritten.
So - yes. I also would like to own the computer I use and pay for. But since a while now I don't. The last one I really owned was (possible) my last Atari 1040 STFM(?). Since then it went down.
I can see the value of a simple OS on the P2. CPM would be cool, but the main point is that it can last without changes for years and still will do its job.
You do not own the Mercedes Benz you buy. You do just own the right to use it.
Fortunately, my '82 240D (275K miles) is eminently repairable, and there are gigabytes of info on the web about how to do it. Recently, my odometer quit -- well, sputtered in a slow decline, leading me to wonder why my fuel economy was tanking. Took the speedo out (easy) and found a website that addressed my exact problem (a shaft got polished smooth, not gripping the gear that engages the little numbers). A few swipes with 60-grit sandpaper to roughen the shaft, and the odometer is good as new.
I wouldn't trade this car for any that lacks the "gear that engages the little numbers."
I want my PC back, and I don't expect to have to rent software. If I pay for it, I want to own it.
Problem is much of the software we use today is not on our computers. That includes Google, Wikipedia, and this forum. We really only use a portal into the data structure provided by these other sites. We don't own anything any more.
Turns out many companies are fine paying for software as a service if it means they don't have to maintain it. There are no upgrade cycles, so no shelling out every few years. The cost is more over the long run, but support costs are hidden fees, and companies like the budget planning of renting software. It just works out better for them, so we have this slow acceptance of service-based software. I think it's a problem for independent IT consultants who manage a company's applications for them. I wonder what their business will be like in 10 years.
Today I had a person I've been doing business with ask for an invoice so she could "put it through NetSuite" before the weekend. I had to look up what NetSuite is. Apparently, it's a back-end business management cloud-based service. The funny thing is that this person works for a fairly well known software company who doesn't currently "rent" their software. I guess whatever works for them.
It's much better to write to your members of Congress. Only Congress can pass or amend a law. The US Copyright Office is tasked with promulgating regulations based on legislative statute, and while they must accept public comment (all rulemaking agencies must), those comments are almost always just a feel-good exercise, and at most lead to clarifying the law's position. Obviously, they are not allowed to actually change the law on their own.
The issue with the DMCA is that it's being used to control second-hand sales. That's what some of the auto-makers (and electronics makers and even book publishers) have attempted to do. It was the Supreme Court that heard the famous Wiley case regarding used books, and the Copyright Office was powerless to decide one way or another. For those who were sleeping, SCOTUS ruled against Wiley, saying DMCA could not be used to restrict the resale book trade.
Congress maintains comment forms for every member. It's the best way to make your voice heard. Typed letters carry even greater weight.
I don't expect my representatives to read my letters. But based on the replies I get, if I get a reply, the staff doesn't read them either. I shouldn't fell bad since apparently they don't read the bills they vote on.
Get with the program. You don't have representatives. Paying lobbyists have representation. They are not supposed to read the bills, just rubber stamp the ones that have been paid for.
Then I wonder how Congress got the idea about SOPA. They must have figured it all out by themselves then. Or I guess it was that very vocal pro-piracy lobby group they're known to listen to. They won out against MPAA and RIAA, no small feat.
Snide aside, if the push-back is significant enough, and directed against the people who actually make the laws, amazingly things can still happen.
It's a foregone conclusion there will always be these attempts. Rightsholders have legitimate reason to combat counterfeits and bootlegs and otherwise protect their business interests, but it has to be done within a framework of Constitutional law and accepted personal rights.
Oddly enough, DMCA would never pass today, even though it's credited with enabling the creation of video sharing sites like YouTube, and the growth of search engines like Google. The Internet makes everything everyone's business, and the Internet is everyone's bullhorn. That may sound Pollyannaish, but it's true. However, it takes lobbying the right people to form a resistance.
With reference to the exemption sought by the EFF, among others, to allow reverse engineering of computer code (otherwise against the DMCA) for the purpose of repairing owned equipment. While the Copyright Office can promulgate the rule, only Congress can allow it, and only courts can decide it. Even with the ruling by the Copyright Office, companies and individuals can still sue in federal court seeking authoritative resolution. That's invariably what happens in these cases. The usual legal arguments is that Blah Blah Agency overstepped its bounds and acted unconstitutionally in amending the regulations.
The Copyright Office publishes the comments received, and perhaps unknown to those who submit a comment through a third-party Website, all those comments are aggregated. It pretty much counts as one entry. Most of these comments are also not rooted in legal rationale. They tend to be "it's only fair" or "it would be nice" arguments. Those are discounted out of hand.
For those who were sleeping, SCOTUS ruled against Wiley, saying DMCA could not be used to restrict the resale book trade.
This is an example of the firmly-entrenched first-sale doctrine, whose legal precedents date back to 1908. From the Wikipedia article:
"The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit."
Comments
For this to make sense for end users, they can't make any more major changes, like Microsoft did with the file format and Ribbon interface. Photoshop's file format and interface has remained the same for years; it's just the new whiz-bang features you get if you subscribe to their cloud. As Microsoft also pushes Office from the cloud, I imagine their game-plan is similar.
I want my PC back, and I don't expect to have to rent software. If I pay for it, I want to own it.
-Phil
We need a new architecture.
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-breakthrough-heralds-super-efficient-light-based.html
https://dmca.digitalrighttorepair.org/form
[size=+2]You own nothing, get with the program phil.[/size]
The goal is ... they want it all..
YES!!! I am 100% with you on that!
@Phil,
as usual things are way worse. @Clock Loop provided a link already but there is more to come!
One Swedish and some German auto maker already work on 'Law' to use the Millennium Copyright Act to prevent independent shops and yourself from working on the vehicle you purchased from them, arguing that you just bought the car, but not the right to modify the software contained in it. Yeah, right. You do not own the Mercedes Benz you buy. You do just own the right to use it.
I personally do like Mercedes Benz, even own two roadsters, but older ones (>20 years).
The amount of electronics in cars is intimidating nowadays and I doubt seriously that ANY Mercedes Benz or other new car will be drivable and serviceable in 20+ years. Mine may still run.
Like software, things are now build not to last and be not repairable. Throw away and buy new! And if you dare to fix things by yourself you may pretty soon violate law by doing so.
Sad state the world has come to. Fuel goes bad in your lawn mover or boat after 6 month, but apples from Walmart have a shelf life of a couple of years(?) without getting wrinkles. I have a bunch sitting on my kitchen desk since 9 month. They look like new. Funny isn't it?
That is why I still advocate for @Chips plan of a self hosting environment on the P2. The monitor is a start. @mparks Sphinx was what drew me to the propeller. So I am biased there. But Sphinx will run without modification on any P1 chip in 20+ years. Propeller Tool and Friends will probably not be running then without being modified, updated or rewritten.
So - yes. I also would like to own the computer I use and pay for. But since a while now I don't. The last one I really owned was (possible) my last Atari 1040 STFM(?). Since then it went down.
I can see the value of a simple OS on the P2. CPM would be cool, but the main point is that it can last without changes for years and still will do its job.
my 2 cents
Mike
I wouldn't trade this car for any that lacks the "gear that engages the little numbers."
-Phil
Problem is much of the software we use today is not on our computers. That includes Google, Wikipedia, and this forum. We really only use a portal into the data structure provided by these other sites. We don't own anything any more.
Turns out many companies are fine paying for software as a service if it means they don't have to maintain it. There are no upgrade cycles, so no shelling out every few years. The cost is more over the long run, but support costs are hidden fees, and companies like the budget planning of renting software. It just works out better for them, so we have this slow acceptance of service-based software. I think it's a problem for independent IT consultants who manage a company's applications for them. I wonder what their business will be like in 10 years.
Today I had a person I've been doing business with ask for an invoice so she could "put it through NetSuite" before the weekend. I had to look up what NetSuite is. Apparently, it's a back-end business management cloud-based service. The funny thing is that this person works for a fairly well known software company who doesn't currently "rent" their software. I guess whatever works for them.
It's much better to write to your members of Congress. Only Congress can pass or amend a law. The US Copyright Office is tasked with promulgating regulations based on legislative statute, and while they must accept public comment (all rulemaking agencies must), those comments are almost always just a feel-good exercise, and at most lead to clarifying the law's position. Obviously, they are not allowed to actually change the law on their own.
The issue with the DMCA is that it's being used to control second-hand sales. That's what some of the auto-makers (and electronics makers and even book publishers) have attempted to do. It was the Supreme Court that heard the famous Wiley case regarding used books, and the Copyright Office was powerless to decide one way or another. For those who were sleeping, SCOTUS ruled against Wiley, saying DMCA could not be used to restrict the resale book trade.
Congress maintains comment forms for every member. It's the best way to make your voice heard. Typed letters carry even greater weight.
John Abshier
Snide aside, if the push-back is significant enough, and directed against the people who actually make the laws, amazingly things can still happen.
I hope you are right and we can continue to resist.
Oddly enough, DMCA would never pass today, even though it's credited with enabling the creation of video sharing sites like YouTube, and the growth of search engines like Google. The Internet makes everything everyone's business, and the Internet is everyone's bullhorn. That may sound Pollyannaish, but it's true. However, it takes lobbying the right people to form a resistance.
With reference to the exemption sought by the EFF, among others, to allow reverse engineering of computer code (otherwise against the DMCA) for the purpose of repairing owned equipment. While the Copyright Office can promulgate the rule, only Congress can allow it, and only courts can decide it. Even with the ruling by the Copyright Office, companies and individuals can still sue in federal court seeking authoritative resolution. That's invariably what happens in these cases. The usual legal arguments is that Blah Blah Agency overstepped its bounds and acted unconstitutionally in amending the regulations.
The Copyright Office publishes the comments received, and perhaps unknown to those who submit a comment through a third-party Website, all those comments are aggregated. It pretty much counts as one entry. Most of these comments are also not rooted in legal rationale. They tend to be "it's only fair" or "it would be nice" arguments. Those are discounted out of hand.
This is an example of the firmly-entrenched first-sale doctrine, whose legal precedents date back to 1908. From the Wikipedia article:
-Phil