> It is putting the livelihoods of those content creators in danger.
If Nintendo has shown to be hostile towards their own userbase, then really the only complaints should be about existing content. If creators keep paying for Nintendo games and content now that they've seen how they act, then the creators bear a substantial amount of blame going forward.
I guess you have a point, but I personally wouldn't blame creators for sticking with Nintendo games if that's the primary thing they're doing and moving away from Nintendo would mean completely reinventing their business.
It's like telling Apple developers who complain about Apple's bad developer relations to move to a different platform. I don't blame developers (or users) for these issues because I completely understand not wanting to transition your whole life and career to a different platform that you might enjoy less.
> if that's the primary thing they're doing and moving away from Nintendo would mean completely reinventing their business.
Isn’t that just part of the risk you accept by doing that kind of job? Every job has some risks attached to it and this is not unusual behavior for Nintendo.
Unfortunately regex is the best we have. A bunch of if statements is also a whole less efficient and prone to errors than a regex statement. Once you start to learn regex, it actually isn't that bad. The challenging part is that a lot of people cut and paste not really understanding it and you end up with a bunch of bad regex examples.
Eh, I think the challenging part is understanding a complex regex that's already been written. You really do need good comments and unit tests to go along with a regex in order to understand the intent, otherwise they rapidly become unmaintainable.
I for one am very concerned that someone may be able to spoof a device on my WLAN and listen to plain text packets or spoof packets of a device. Do you know how many users would click proceed if they got a certificate mismatch warning not even knowing what it means?
I used JSON-LD spec because it is preferred by Google, but it requires a lot of duplicate effort of the actual page content. Its almost as if it is designed for sites that use heavy JavaScript frameworks and not for HTML/CSS sites.
Usually the dynamic data would be generated by the server. eg. if you have an eCommerce site, it might update prices, stock remaining, applicable regions, etc. That would then be pulled into Google Shopping or whatever other service might consume it.
Libraries' ebook lending programs are not legal because they require membership and use DRM. They're legal because they're authorized by the copyright owners, and those are the terms the copyright owners choose to impose (along with licensing fees).
But if I purchase the paper book, there is - thankfully - no shrink-wrap licensing anywhere that tells me that I can or cannot lend it to anyone, yet I sure hope I can. Why IA can't?
Which might be legally sound (so says this court, we will presumably hear from others), but it’s logically balderdash. The copyright applies to the “intellectual property” content of the book, not its paper and binding. (I’m sure there are some esoteric exceptions to this because artists gonna art, but I feel confident that I’m representing the vast general case correctly.)
If I rightly own a copy of a book, I don’t think any court within the bounds of absurdity would say I can’t make a digital copy for myself because that’s how I prefer to consume it. Being allowed to lend one finite form but not another equivalent one is definitely something law or license might specify, but that doesn’t mean it makes any kind of sense.
I believe this court ruling suggests that, while you are free to make a copy for yourself of a work you legally acquired, and you are free to lend or re-sell the original work you acquired, you are not free to lend or re-sell the copy you made, even if the original doesn't exist anymore.
Basically, the only thing you are legally allowed to sell is the exact copy you bought of a physical representation of a work, assuming it was created by an authorized entity. You do not legally own an abstract copy of the idealized work, you own a physical object which happens to represent a copy of that work.
Note that this is in fact very much how most people would think of copyright. If I buy a book and someone steals it from me, or it is there in my house and it burns down, I don't have some right to now obtain another physical representation of that novel free of charge, or to obtain a copy made by a friend with a xerox. My sole right was to that one physical copy I bought, and that no longer exists.
you can make 100 copies for yourself. what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy).
the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession, which replication would circumvent.
> what you can't do is make a copy that you give to someone else while simultaneously retaining access to the original (or another copy).
I’m pretty sure I can do that.
> the way libraries work is by relinquishing posession
I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it.
Any individual in IA’s position could do this without fear of legal scrutiny. An organization doing it is under scrutiny not because there’s actual, meaningful copyright violation happening but because they systemized a thing no reasonable person would object to individuals doing.
> I almost included that I could shred my copy, keeping only the digital equivalent, and still retain the same rights to the work and lending it.
This is the part that is not true. For example, you are free to transcribe a book onto a parchement and read it that way, and store the parchment separately from the book for archival purposes, and keep the parchement even if the original book gets destroyed.
However, this is a limited exception to copyright. You are not in fact allowed, at any point before or after the original copy is destroyed, to lend or re-sell the parchment you created. That parchment will forever be an unauthorized copy, but one that you are allowed to use in certain limited ways.
The only wrinkle is that, at least in the EU, when you acquire an authorized digital copy of a work, you are allowed to lend or sell that copy as long as you don't retain access to it during the lending/after the sale. This is allowed even though technically you are technically creating a new copy of the digital work and destroying your own afterwards, but this is an exception specific to digital realms, it can't be extended to digital copies you make of a phyisical work.
Obviously there are lots of jurisdictions and you have to hit a broad brush with answers, but generally, no. Your reproduction is only considered to be reasonable by law while you retain the original.
Now I'm wondering how this would apply in situations where the person doesn't know if they have the original or not.
Inspired by the fact that my emulation of Link's Awakening to play on a screen I could see is technically legal since we had a cartridge stuffed away in a drawer. But for 10-15 years that cartridge lived in a limbo land of 'we used to have that, it might still be around somewhere...'
I 100% think they should prioritize this. They've added a bunch of cool stuff to CSS, but half of it is useless unless they actually implement a standard document type of interface so that HTML can be used to create paged media.
Maybe, but it seems bizarre that open source developers go so far to contribute to a closed source proprietary ecosystem when the manufacturer doesn't only make it difficult but they at times actually intentionally impede their work. That is a lot of time and effort of someone doing something for free that the manufacturer should be paying them to do and assist with.
I’m pretty sure the asahi developers themselves would totally disagree with you there. Apple themselves have confirmed with them they have no plans to lock their boot loader out from folks like them. This project is no different than Linux in the old days: it’s just a piece of good hardware that kernel devs have reversed to run an alternate OS on and they’ve become quite good at it.
I don’t see people making the same statements about work on the nouveau driver or on the Broadcom opensource wifi drivers. But somehow because the hardware was built by apple folks seem to think it’s more proprietary than anything else linux has run on.
> Apple themselves have confirmed with them they have no plans to lock their boot loader out from folks like them.
Didn't they make an undocumented change to the boot loader that serves literally no purpose other than to give Asahi a somewhat stable target than what they were using before?
Yeah something like that. While I’m sure they don’t like folks reversing their hardware I doubt they care to stop this if they know there’s nothing that can be done to prevent it. I think it’s more likely they become consumers of asahi Linux’ work than it is for them to actively take measures to break them.
> Apple themselves have confirmed with them they have no plans to lock their boot loader out from folks like them
No, a person who used to work on the bootloader at Apple said on Twitter they did it because they wanted to enable different OSes. That's not an "Apple confirmed", that's "employee X said".
Regardless of all the points the siblings make, first and foremost this is fun. It's fun to reverse engineer stuff. It's fun to get things working that were previously not working.
A lot of peoples careers start this way. A lot of the hacking and the cracking scene was born this way. There is a certain kind of pleasure and satisfaction involved when you get a device that was previously not designed to do a certain thing behave in that way.
I think that's not an unreasonable point, but, well:
1. I try not to tell people what to do with their free time. While you may think it's "bizarre", this use of their time has value to them, not only in the hopeful end result (fully-functional Linux on ARM Macs), but also in the satisfaction of the technical challenge, bragging rights, and general reputation. I'm sure there are some people who might look at what you do with your spare time and think you're "wasting" it sometimes. But that's in the eye of the beholder, and at any rate, that's your prerogative, as this is theirs.
2. I used to run Linux on Mac laptops (gave up around 2016 or so, tried again in 2018, gave up again shortly after), and I get the appeal: the hardware is really nice. And by all accounts, the ARM Macs are even nicer than the Intel Macs. Sure, they're not perfect (lack of upgradeability/repairability, etc.), but running Linux on them can be great, if the hardware support is there. "I like this hardware and I want to run Linux on/with it, so I'll figure it out myself" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Many of the drivers in the Linux kernel for various bits of hardware only exist because someone adopted this attitude.
I also just think your premise is a bit flawed:
> open source developers go so far to contribute to a closed source proprietary ecosystem
This is a little bit of a weird statement, because these developers aren't doing that. The "closed source proprietary ecosystem" is macOS and its app store. The hardware itself is more or less just as open (or closed) as most non-Apple hardware. I mean, I can't rewrite the BIOS in my Framework Laptop, nor can I make heads or tails of any of the binary firmware blobs Linux loads into the WiFi chipset, graphics chipset, etc. Apple's hardware is undocumented, certainly, but that's pretty common when it comes to Linux hardware support.
> but they at times actually intentionally impede their work
Do they, though? From what I've read of the Asahi project's progress, they didn't run into cases where Apple intentionally tried to make things harder on them. Sure, some things were harder, but I don't think we can ascribe a malicious motive to Apple. The most likely explanation is that they just decided to design things in a particular way because they felt it would be best for their own purposes, and didn't really care to think about anything else.
They could have decided to actively cryptographically lock down the boot process to prohibit other OSes from running, but they didn't do that.
> That is a lot of time and effort of someone doing something for free that the manufacturer should be paying them to do and assist with.
Why "should" they? All hardware manufacturers decide what software to write, and what platforms to support. If they don't think the cost of writing and supporting drivers for Linux is worth what they'll get in return, they'll make the logical choice to just... not do that. We've seen plenty of vendors over the 30-odd-year lifetime of Linux do that math and decide Linux support wasn't worth it to them. It's a shame, but I don't think it's fair to come down on them hard for that. Certainly some vendors (nvidia comes to mind) have been actively hostile toward the Linux community at times, but I don't think we can say the same of Apple.
In fact Asahi team have argued before that Apple has actually gone to great lengths to provide documentation and tools to enable the development of third party OS kernels.
The TPM chip is really just another little computer your main computer talks to over a special network; it has no access to the rest of your computer hardware, so when you type your pin or passphrase in, your computer needs to put it in memory and send it to your TPM chip over this special network cleartext.
The touchid interface is part of the secure enclave packaging, so the activation command (fingerprint, nearby hotdog, whatever you've trained the sensor with) isn't ever in memory.
This difference makes attacking keys stored in the secure enclave a lot harder than attacking keys stored in TPM, because with TPM, you have this second thing to attack (the cleartext channel) but with secure enclave you don't.
If you want to do this on Linux, you can get bluetooth fido2 apps for your phone which work pretty well, but bluetooth is very complicated and Linux doesn't have good support for pre-login bluetooth setup afaik, so (re)provisioning can be tricky. I like these little USB-attached smart-card readers with integrated PIN-pads (either on the reader or on the card itself) because USB seems a little bit more reliable, but you may need one that also supports bluetooth or NFC in order to use your token (easily) with mobile devices if you like to login from your phone sometimes.
The Secure Enclave is a dedicated secure subsystem integrated into Apple
systems on chip (SoCs). The Secure Enclave is isolated from the main
processor to provide an extra layer of security and is designed to keep
sensitive user data secure even when the Application Processor kernel
becomes compromised. It follows the same design principles as the SoC
does—a boot ROM to establish a hardware root of trust, an AES engine
for efficient and secure cryptographic operations, and protected
memory.
Using the Secure Enclave allows you to tie use of the key to biometric auth (which also serves as proof of physical presence). Even if someone compromises your system, they can't SSH as you without tricking you into mashing touchID.
The Apple enclave is closer to a general-purpose computer (with a bunch of cryptographic infrastructure) than a TPM, but I think for this purpose the two concepts line up.
I used to think the same thing until I caught a 40 year old man stalking my teen daughter and continually trying to peer into her bedroom windows on camera. So while it feels good to be ignorant, it doesn't make everything go away. Also, the people commiting crime seem the most concerned with people having cameras. Hmm, wonder why.
We have a few rescue cats that each have... quirks. We have two indoor cameras set up in our basement: one on the feeding area, and one on the potty area.
Sometimes they fight over food (automated feeder) and one doesn't get fed. But it's hard to tell if they're meowing at us because they were bullied out of food, or because they know we are softies and will feed them if they meow enough. We can check the feeder footage and see who got fed.
One of them is potty-shy, and about once every 3-6 months stops using the litter box and starts using obscure corners of the basement until we can coax him back to using the litter box. We check the footage every couple days to make sure he's using litter boxes.
For a software-oriented site, I'm baffled at how obtuse users can be. A lot of the negativity I'm seeing is along the lines of "I have no use for an indoor camera, therefor anyone who uses them is dumb." There are lots of legit uses (if you think about it for more than 2 seconds), and not all of us want provide the police with indoor footage of our cats shitting.
Farms use cameras extensively for similar purposes. It makes sense. I think these kinds of specific, limited applications are very different from just setting them up everywhere because you are afraid and leaving them on all the time. I'd say the same if someone had a stalker or a deranged family member who might show up at any time. There are definitely good uses for networked surveillance cameras.
If Nintendo has shown to be hostile towards their own userbase, then really the only complaints should be about existing content. If creators keep paying for Nintendo games and content now that they've seen how they act, then the creators bear a substantial amount of blame going forward.