Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I wish the FSF was a bit more nuanced. For example, if DRM causes ordinary computers to come with proprietary code that is impossible to remove, then that is bad indeed. Then you no longer control your own computer. The same computer that you might use for political activities, for example.

On the other hand, if entertainment computers, such as blu-ray players or gaming consoles are locked-down and full of DRM, then I don't see a big problem. Sure, the government could potentially ban some movies in the future, and require the manufacturers to update the firmware on your machine so that it will no longer play those movies. But movies and games are expensive to produce, and without DRM most of them probably wouldn't get produced in the first place. In any case, movies and games aren't really that important, compared to say books and articles.

The FSF seems to be against DRM EVERYWHERE! They don't seem to realize that DRM might actually be a good thing for some things. Are there any organizations out there that I could donate to, that fight/work for open hardware for general purpose computers, without trying to prevent locked-down entertainment computers?




Disclosure: I became a member days ago, and did not want to mention it. Reading this article made me super proud to have chosen to fork the cash over before reading this crap as it gets worse all the time.

At the end of the day, I want a hardliner in this space pushing that line because I know, practically, he cannot win. But if consensus is drawn between him and the other extremes I find distasteful, I want him to pull the resolutions and positions as far left as possible, even if that is slightly left of center.

I worry, as current events show, anything less means that counter-forces to the free software movement will wear you down with abject greed by slowly going right of center and taking as much time as it takes to restore the balance back to their proprietary interests after the initial battle has gone to free software advocates. And that is how I see it. Very few of my friends understand the value of highly technical manuals, and that is what open source is about. My brother recently saw my side with automative hacking and experimentation countermeasures on the rise, as reported today on HN. But when I tell non-technical people these manufacturers hide secrets in their faulty designs and let you pay for their ineptitude, even if you want to fix it for yourself on your individual unit without harm or influence on them, they do not get the argument and ask why I think I know better than the compant. They only get the argument when they are locked out of a system they need for their very personal context.

Oh well. This is a very personal choice. I love GPL, I love MIT, and I smile when I think how all these hippies made a world for me in the 60s and 70s I could not live without today.


I totally agree with you that many corporations seem rather greedy. I wish those corporations were more nuanced, too. For example, I don't mind if Intel and AMD make locked down CPU and GPUs for entertainment computers, but it would have been nice if they also made some open CPUs and GPUs.

I wonder if this greed will be profitable for them in the long run? Obviously, most people don't care whether their hardware is open or not. However, a tiny minority of (very) computer literate users do care (a lot). Will it have any impact if this tiny minority abandons the x86 platform?


How long will "entertainment computers, such as blu-ray players or gaming consoles" remain separate from ordinary general-purpose computers?


I suppose they can remain separate forever. I'm certainly ok with owning a separate computer for games and movies.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: