/tech/ - Technology

>DRM
>hardware
You've diluted the term to mean nothing useful at this point. DRM is everything and it is nothing.

>>12821
"Hardware DRM" (technically just software drm that runs on a different chip) has been on consoles for a long time, but gets cracked anyway.
But it will make a great case for piracy, because pirated shit will work more reliably unironically. Imagine the hilarity ensuing, if everything gets tied to a few license servers, and then a single cyber-warfare hack can bork billions of computers at once. That will be the year of the Linux desktop. The GNU/+prophesy will come true afterall.

>>12826
What happened when DVD encryption was cracked basically.

>>12821
>now
"Was" a thing since the intel management engine which has protected audio and video path

>PAVP (Protected Audio Video Path) is a feature available on some Intel chipsets with integrated graphics. It ensures a secure content protection path for high-definition video sources like Blu-ray discs. It also controls the hardware-accelerated decoding of encrypted video streams by the integrated graphics processor

>>12826
>That will be the year of the Linux desktop. The GNU/+prophesy will come true afterall.
fuck no I'm already fine with what FOSS OS's and open source in general is, I don't need it to become windows

>>12857
it would be nice if proprietary software makers saw the light and switched to a foss license model.

>>12876
Stop it with the idealism, FOSS is good as it already is
Plus you can't exactly put food on the table from FOSS unless you sell support for it

>>12877
>FOSS is good as it already is
Sure, but ideal would be if about 1 out of ten used Linux, that's my guess for the amount of people that would derive value from switching. That size of userbase would also be big enough to have good compatibility. Proprietary software is the equivalent of a monopoly, i hope you aren't saying that only monopoly capitalists can put food on the table ?

I have not looked how MS makes most of it's money, but i guess it's from contracts with corporate and government bureaucracies. Changing the license to foss wouldn't change these relations, they are based on bribes anyway. MS probably has ugly source code, and they don't want to spend the effort to make it presentable enough for open source.

>>12876
The only way that will happen would be by expropriating existing proprietary services and turning them FLOSS.

>>12877
>FOSS is good as it already is
Not really, it needs to be more radicalized. FOSS as it is is largely libertarian, almost as impotent a movement as anti-consumerism.
Sure, we all installed Linux on our computers and whatever, but the majority of people will still use Windows, Google, Apple, etc.

>>12879
>it needs to be more radicalized
How do we even do that?

what is the solution?

>>12879
>expropriating existing proprietary services and turning them FLOSS
What problem does turning proprietary software into FOSS solve?

>FOSS as it is is largely libertarian, almost as impotent a movement as anti-consumerism
>but the majority of people will still use Windows, Google, Apple, etc.
Because to be anti-consumerist, you have to learn and take a more active in controlling your technology
I just don't think thats possible with all of society, its just us who actually have the drive for it

>>12935
>What problem does turning proprietary software into FOSS solve?
Is this a serious question lmao

>>12935
Also,
>Because to be anti-consumerist,
The SI already realized that anticonsumerism was already doomed to being just as impotent as these movements we're talking about ITT a century ago.

>>12877
>you can't exactly put food on the table from FOSS unless you sell support for it
You wouldn't go "my hammer is broken, but fixing it won't exactly put food on my table". You wouldn't go "I'm underpaid, but unionizing won't exactly put food on my table". Right? Right?

Free Software is not the product, it's means of production. On the financial side, you use them to do your work, and pocket the difference between their cost (zero) and the cost of proprietary licenses you'd otherwise have to buy. Exchange some of the money you saved into labor time for the software's maintenance and development, and you're still benefiting on net. But more importantly, you benefit because you genuinely control it, and no capitalist company can ever fuck you up by making arbitrary, unavoidable changes to its licensing or code.

Consoles have been doing this shit for literal decades, It was a matter of time.

Actually microsoft tried to do it in 2005 but abandoned it because public pressure, time to revive the idea.