Torvalds Describes DRM and GPLv3 as 'Hot Air' 420
An anonymous reader writes "In Sydney this week for the annual Linux conference, Linus Torvalds has described DRM and the GPL as 'hot air' and 'no big deal'. From the interview: 'I suspect — and I may not be right — but when it comes to things like DRM or licensing, people get really very excited about them. People have very strong opinions. I have very strong opinions and they happen to be for different reasons than many other people. It ends up in a situation where people really like to argue — and that very much includes me... I expect this to raise a lot of bad blood but at the same time, at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters that much.'"
fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a "moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong" has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Having a "moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong" has got nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Grow up.
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm amazed that you think there is a parallel between sweatshop labor, and mechanisms that prevent you from copying the latest Christina Aguilera track.
I see no moral issue with DRM-encumbered products. If you don't like DRM, you don't have to buy them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Interestingly (or maybe not
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the high-fever melodrama of Slashdot and Digg users has drowned out this sort of calm, objective opinion. I am so tired of see five DRM articles a day on the front pages of these sites. The only DRM I interact with is from the few albums I've bought from iTunes, and I always forget the DRM is even there because it's so liberal.
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll play along:
I'm no fan of Forced Labor, but comparing the inability to have leisure and spend the time as you see fit to the plight of being tortured to death, is offbase.
As a matter of fact:
I'm no fan of _______, but comparing the inability to _________________, is offbase.
Isn't it fun? We can sidestep the whole argument at hand as long as we say "well at least it's not as bad as Hitler". I wonder if this could be something Godwin was hinting at.
But seriously, if DRM infects Linux
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about imprisoning someone for breaking the DRM and playing the song anyway? Is that off base?
In any case do you REALLY think DRM technology will only be useful and used by media content companies? It's a tool to restrict and will be used in other matters including those to do with life and deat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and Microsoft doesn't have a literal monopoly, they have a virtual monopoly, whereas you're not literally forced to buy DRM, you're virtually forced to. Microsoft and Apple are both staunch DRM supporters and between them they hold nearly the entire market.
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
But since the DMCA prohibits your owning or using a software product designed to break copyright protection, you are arguably breaking federal law every time you rip a DVD. That's not a problem? Someday your actions (to which you have confessed publicly here on slashdot) could be used to persecute you.
Not yet. Meanwhile you're making an investment in Windows with both knowledge (mostly time spent) and money (products that you have purchased which are compatible with windows but not a Free operating system) and when Windows changes over to be even more restrictive, to require a trusted computing module and the like, you will now have to give up those investments (some of the hardware and less of the software will work) if you want to move to another platform.
Just because the restrictions aren't affecting you yet, that doesn't make them not restrictions and they can still affect you in the future.
You have to break the law to exercise your rights. Is that really acceptable or reasonable? Do you really think that Fascism is a thing for other places?
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:4, Insightful)
The growth of the Chinese manufacturing sector is, indeed, a good thing. But your justification of globalization falls on the fact that, absent some tariff structure, there will always be a competitive disadvantage to pay a decent wage as long as there's one country, somewhere, where they don't. Your "50 years" claim is really as much of an act of quasi-religious faith as the old Communist promises of a worker's paradise and the withering away of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And are you willing to take the stand that the world needs to legalise slavery again in order for us to be more free?
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I feel certain it would never be anywhere the norm. I am not sure it is an impossibility though. Even if it isn't, I think we woule be "safer/better" to keep it all forbidden rather than to just forbid involuntary slavery. (I think. This is off the cuff and I am not thinking too clealy right now due to health issues.)
I asked the question because someone has taken that position with me when discussing Freedom and the GPL. So now
Re: (Score:3)
I think the deal here is that most people who post on
DRM may not rate hig
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what was so difficult to understand about "Whether or not one agrees with that view (I don't)", but to laboriously explain-- I don't think seven-year-olds should be allowed to drive, and I don't think voluntary human sacrifice should be legal, because I don't think "in order for us to be more free" is a value that trumps everything else.
The problem for the FSF and their zombie f
Re: (Score:2)
I have been known to misunderstand a thing or two in the past and I am sure I will not be immune in the future no matter how hard I try.
I guess this was one of those cases. I think I misunderstood your, (I don't) - sorry.
I have run into those taking that stand in discussions like this and when it gets near that point, I try to ask to clear things up and know how to proceed.
"Well, thank you, Drew!"
You
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
In essence, this type of activity is what the recording industry and movie industry are doing to consumers. They distract them long enough to steal a few rights from us when nobody is looking. The average person, much like the cashier in my example, is probably very trusting and open, especially to somebody they feel is trustworthy. Staying silent, refusing to point out that the consumer is being robbed blind, and then going on about how people are allowed to do as they please, is really just a way of saying you're either 1) too lazy to be bothered with doing the right thing or 2) too apathetic to care.
I really respect Linus for what he's done for Linux. I don't think it's appropriate for people to always look to him for guidance on such things, because he's consistently pointed out that he isn't an activist on any issues with which the FOSS community concerns itself. But, this isn't because he has some sort of superior view on the issues at hand. He simply doesn't care. So why don't we stop looking to Linus for answers here, and stop being disappointed by his views, and continue to fight the fight without him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that you have a moral authority to force others to accept their rights is completely - and utterly - wrong. In your store analogy, I don't know if your robber is armed - and if I'm with somebody important to me, I have a moral responsibility to NOT notice, because interfering puts my somebody at risk. To go back to DRM, I do not have any moral responsibility to educate my users about the "evils" of DRM, particularly i
Re: (Score:2)
> are creating goofball contracts that people seem to
> be perfectly willing to follow.
They also spend a lot of effort destroying alternative distribution models through various means, legislative and otherwise. If they are so confident of their contracts, why do they also destroy any possible competition?
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you could be concerned about the RIAA "destroying any possible competition" in relation to P2P lawsuits is if you consider taking peoples' work for free legitimat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the details of LimeWire's lawsuit with the RIAA, look at the history of FairPlay,
Re: (Score:2)
Because then, if you are an entertainer, and you want the entertainment you produce distributed, you'd have only one place to go and, regardless of the contract terms, you'd probably sin. And that whole process would be heped along if there were a law that preven
Re: (Score:2)
To a certain extent though. The fair use doctrine says that certain "reasonable" uses are allowed, such as copying for your personal use (e.g. to your iPod, your car or your computer-based music library). DRM is a way to remove this doctrine, so that you are forced to buy the same content again and again if you ever want to use it on another device, or if your copy breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether their new rights should trump the consumer's existing rights, including "fair use", "first sale" and "archival". I think not.
--
*Art
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one is restricting your rights to use your hardware to it's fullest, your hardware works exactly as it was intended by the manufacturer. They have just as much right to sell you hardware that has DRM capability as the media companies have to sell you DRM'd content. If you don't like those restrictions find an alternative.
Also you are free to inform other people of the "evils" of DRM and bring them over to your cause, thus fu
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the software is GPL'd and so meant to be free, you might be unable to change it (whether to remove DRM or anything else) because of 'trusted' keys and signing. That's what GPLv3 aims to fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:5, Informative)
What? You never heard about the TiVo, the device that brought the DRM clause to the GPLv3? The operating system of the TiVo is Linux, probably not only the kernel, but also other GNU utilities. It is supposed to be free to modify for the user. But TiVo signs the software with their private key, and the hardware verifies that the operating system image contains a signature created by their private key. If it doesn't, the system refuses to start.
This is effectively a DRM system that removes the ability to modify the software on the TiVo, even though it is mostly free software, where allowing modification by the user is a crucial part of the license. It barely complies with the GPLv2 by supplying the source code, but requiring that the modified software is used on another hardware device (not a TiVo).
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-circumvention laws are such a dictate.
"It takes control away from the user and in most cases puts it in the control of the works publisher."
Essentially, it's approximately the same as other forms of taxation, taking away part of owners rights to their property and giving them to someone else (in this case the economic value of being able to reproduce the item).
Wether taxes are good or bad is certainly debatable, but personally, I'd say taxin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Re:fine line between "moderate" and "apolitical" (Score:4, Informative)
I think he just means that if someone wants to write code that implements some sort of DRM scheme, he thinks they should be allowed to do that. What he should be saying is that he is OK if they do that with HIS code, because that is his position.
If he is really OK with "letting people do what they want," then why force them to allow further modification of works derived from your code?
Why not just let them take your code, create their own version and use a signed key to make any further modifications unusable on the device? Oh wait. That's what DRM does. He **is** OK with that.
Linus sure is a confusing guy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people write some code, and they want people to be able to do whatever they want with that code, so they put it in the public domain.
Some people write some code, and they want people to be able to modify and run the code, so long as they keep the code available and don't restrict others from using modified
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes he is. Like I'm pretty sure that if he was making hardware, it would be GPLed (or equivalent) too. But that doesn't mean that he wants to force everybody to use an open source license for what ever they create. In the case of the TiVo example, TiVo made the hardware from scratch, they didn't use a GPL design, so he accepts that they want to use a DRM scheme, even if he doesn't agree on the principle. That's the o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think your freedom is being impinged by DRM-encumbered music and movies, you are free not to purchase them. No one is taking away your freedom - music and movies are not necessary for life, and there are plenty of independent musicians and cinematographers who are willing to sell you music without DRM.
The media companies are free to sell products with DRM, and you are free not to purchase them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem in this whole argument is perspective -- what works on the micro-scale is not necessarily what works best on the macro-scale. While I enjoy my freedom more than anyone, I realize that my freedom and my beliefs do not necessarily match up with the majority of the population. I am a belief system of one. I am accountable only to myself and those I interact with. A corporation is a large entity, with thousands or tens of thousands of employees, hundreds of thousands of shareholders, and perhaps mil
Re: (Score:2)
The root of the problem is not DRM or even the movie studios; It's morons. It has been this way since the start of time, not going to change anytime soon either.
So either I lose my rights, or I lose the ability to see the (few) true qualit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A "moral responsibility to intervene when you see someone doing something wrong" is the only reason which has ever been used to censor things. The concept that it is moral to intervene when somebody else breaches your concept of 'right' and 'wrong' is the very antithesis of liberalism.
*Not* pragmatic (Score:5, Insightful)
People often contrast Torvalds and Stallman as being pragmatic and idealistic, respectively. I don't think this is the case. Stallman *is* pragmatic - the only thing is, he's pragmatic about the long-term consequences and Torvalds only looks at the short-term consequences.
One example of this is the version control debate. Stallman rightly pointed out that Bitkeeper was a problem waiting to happen, and Torvalds didn't care until it was too late. Sure, you might say that the problem was avoided because Torvalds wrote git. But if he'd have done that in the first place, git would have been years ahead in development by now, and the Linux community could have avoided an embarrassing debacle.
This isn't an isolated incident - there is a history of Stallman making a point about something, a lot of people laughing at him and saying that it won't be a problem, and then a few years down the line, it becomes a problem.
Another example: the GNU project has required contributers to sign copyright waivers on the code their contribute, or have their employers do it if necessary. If Torvalds had done this from the start, half of the things SCO were complaining about to the press would have been more readily rebutted and easier to face in court. But Torvalds didn't bother with this until it was too late either.
Now I'm not saying that everything Stallman does is perfect. But he has a history of being right, even in the face of people saying that he's wrong or that it doesn't matter. So instead of simply writing him off because golden boy Torvalds says so, perhaps it would be prudent to take a closer look.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, he thinks that everyone should have root. Even Uncle Bob and Aunt Mabel in Pahrump, who have neither the expertise nor the interest in using all the possible capabilities of their computer.
It's not okay to say that people should write reliable code (because they don't), or that users should behave responsibly (I'm of the opinion that if something intuitive, like opening an attachment, has far-reaching negative implications, then it's the software's fa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh please. What embarrassing debacle? I'm an avid Linux user, read news sites constantly, and only heard that they were switching to git from BitKeeper. If it was a "debacle", I'm 100% sure it would have been more newsworthy than it was.
Now I'm not saying that everything Stallman does is perfect. But he has a history of being right, even in the face of people saying that he's wrong or that it doesn't matter. So instead of simply writing him o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is that exactly? SCO is claiming IBM breached their contract, and if IBM signed a license or copyright waiver w
It's a difference of philosophy (Score:2)
Liberal. If there's a problem, someone will do something.
The first is the planned economy of the socialists and the second is the free market economy of the liberals. Over the years, it's the liberal philosophy which has turned out to be the most profitable. The former controlling philosophy there's the belief that you can control events, the second is the understanding that most of the time you can't.
I'm not saying that Stallman
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So far as I know, Linus still doesn't have such a requirement. But in any event, you can only call one way right and on
He May Be Right (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm going to skip DRM. It's an ad nauseum discussion.
I've watched the arguments on the GPL 3 and it seems like what some of the louder voices are saying is, "GPL is all about freedom. Our version of freedom." It smacks of the voices from ages past that yell, "Heretic!"
To draw upon the analogy of religion, and those watching the discussion know that the movement, FOSS, GPL, OS flavors and distributions, has become a religious discussion, and in some circles holy war cum Jihad:
We are told that early settle
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What Would Bill Gates Do? (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly you need to examine the issues much closer. One important example that needs to be examined carefully is Tivo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization [wikipedia.org] This is a novel form of theft that made GPL V2 meaningless. Maybe you've heard about Novell and their "innovative" end-run around the GPL? GPL V3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, that is pretty much the situation with anyone choosing any Free Softwarre license instead of putting their code in the public domain.
It is especially true re people using the GPL2 versus BSD. Isn't this the same accusation the BSD folks have been making against the GPL2 folks all along? (In a very loose way.)
[A license that grants absolute freedom to the users, and follow on deve
And when they came for the hackers, I said nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Linus assumes... (Score:2)
With the _Democrats_ in the Senate now introducting
Torvalds is a brilliant programmer... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why I take Torvald's world on any programming issue related to the kernel and support RMS's position when it comes to freedom, content industry issues. While RMS may not be legally trained, he realises that and has a team that is competent in legal matters. Of course Linus is entitled to his opinion on these issues, but I believe that his take on it is harmful because it's the "famous people slightly connected to the issue seeming to be expert on the issue to the public" syndrome. He is no more competent in this case than the celebrities ridiculed by the bbc in a previous article.
The problem with DRM and the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
For DRM to work, it has to use technical means to prevent modification of the code. This is open source we're talking about. If they don't prevent modification of the code, a crack will be easily implemented.
The GPL prevents a party from relicensing your code with a modification restriction... but DRM allows them to use technical means instead of legal means to accomplish the same result.
DRM (or at least, that part of it that I've described) is a loophole that should be closed. We are not talking about "someone's right to create programs that use DRM". We are talking about someone's right to modify **your** code, while preventing further modification by others. That's one of the core rights that the GPL is meant to preserve.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No and no.
The point of the GPL is to allow sharing and modification, while disallowing activities that would prevent further sharing and modification.
If you don't prevent others from restricting sharing and modification, then you might as well release your code into the public domain.
No - IBM has made censorship an issue NOW. (Score:5, Interesting)
"both DRM technology and GPLv3 will cause "lots of arguments" but in the bigger scheme of things, neither will stop good technology from prevailing."
He doesn't seem to be aware of the current actions to limit his options here.
The problem is that IBM appears to be trying to take control of Linux via software patents. Specifically, censoring it when a Linux solution gives them competition that they don't like.
And they are doing this in the fashion of a Patent Troll, with some rather questionable software patents.
I've mentioned this before; here's the link again. "IBM's decision to sue Platform Solutions is another indication that the company is becoming more aggressive about defending its intellectual property in an effort to extract more revenue from its extensive patent trove." [informationweek.com]
What is especially disconcerting is that if IBM wins this lawsuit, it means they will have extreme influence (if not effective control) over most (if not all) Linux products out there, given IBM's vast Patent trove.
Note very well that this is what people were worried about with Microsoft and Novell. The sad news here is that this may have already arrived, via IBM. Which is probably why IBM wants to keep this quiet.
Hello - where's the Linux community on this one? People (myself included) were up in arms when Microsoft and Novell tried to skirt the GPL. IBM's approach strikes me as much worse. It's here. Now.
While Linus would like to keep adding good technology to the kernel, if IBM's lawsuit is allowed to stand, Linus doesn't seem to recognize that his options may be taken away from him. He will no longer be able to publish software without IBM's blessing.
What's next? Is he going to need Microsoft/Novell approval after that?
The only option that I can see is the GPL v3 license approach. One wonders how long Linus can keep ignoring this issue. It would be much better if he were taking a proactive approach here, because simply ignoring the issue doesn't seem to be working.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the quote, for different reasons... (Score:2)
Yeah, Linus is right: "...at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters that much."
Why? Because all DRM will eventually be circumvented. Look at DVD, HD-DVD and (soon would be my guess) Blue-Ray. Even on Windows and Mac OSX, with Microsoft's / Apple's blessed and fully supported state-of-the-art DRM solutions, people will come up with ways to achieve what is rational: fair use. So yeah, develop away. Stuff as much DRM as you want in Linux as well. At the end of the day, I'll still want to be able
Maybe he is right... (Score:2, Insightful)
I see thousands of posts when someone mentions DRM, how much it is misunderstood by the mainstream users, and how evil it is always assumed to be.
And then I see the SAME people post how they love their iPod and fill it with DRM Apple songs that are not only lock them into Apple, but lock them into iTunes and lock them into an iPod for the rest of their life since they can't put the music they have bought on any other device.
What I don't understand, is how the same people can scream about
Meta-thought (Score:4, Insightful)
I tend to deplore DRM. But I also agree that GPLv3 won't stop it. The value of the GPL codebase above BSD and above the cost of proprietary code just isn't that great: neoTivo would just go BSD if not MS-proprietary.
DRM will stand or fall one-by-one as users accept the deals offered. Or reject them. The iPOD is currently the biggest successful implementation of DRM. Consumers apparently accept the deal, irrespective of RMS' dire warnings.
Re:Shows it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shows it... (Score:4, Informative)
The technology of DRM is hardly even worth discussing, because it's inherently flawed. There cannot ever be a 'perfect DRM' system, because of the model's fundamental problems. So whatever gets implemented, will be broken -- the discussion is whether the people who break it, and others who subsequently take advantage of the break, will be criminals.
Re:Shows it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Another one is China: they don't even care about DRM. But who produces most of electronics? Who sets the prices?
IMHO there are more factors that US Congress. It's an important factor, but not everything. Canada still didn't ratify anti-piracy laws. And they're just over the border.
Plus there's a Linux that is gaining very strong foothold especially in Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If China doesn't care about DRM - why have both their attempts to compete with HD-BLU-DVD-RAY included DRM? First, the apparently dying on the vine EVD and now the HD-FVD [theinquirer.net] system?
Re:Shows it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
yet. from what i've heard, they're reving up to try again. time to start mailing some letters.
Re: (Score:2)
The REAL battle will be in the courts.
It will affect Congressmen as well (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just going to get Congress to mandate it, and that will be the end of the discussion.
But then again, it will affect congressmen and their families/friends. They will sit down to use a new piece of technology and become frustrated with the artificial limitations. This will become more prevelant as the baby boomers move out of office and younger generations move in. The knife will cut both ways, and will probably end up being its own undoing.
I agree with Linus; there is a problem, but its not a
Both. (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM is flawed and will always be broken, but not easily; it will probably always be obnoxious and intrusive, and the continuing arms race between DRM-builders and DRM-breakers is destructive, and may have a lot of "collateral damage" (not to mention a waste of time and skill that could be profitably spent elsewhere).
But to be honest, the problem of DRM is really only a symptom of a far greater problem, which is the influence that industries (in particular, the entertainment industry) have on government. I would be ready to just let the DRM/anti-DRM war play itself out on the technological front, except that there's no way that it's going to stay there: as new DRM systems fail, the media lobby is going to look to the government to shore up the failed technology with draconian legislation. Those laws will have effects far beyond any single DRM system, or virtually anything that either the content industry or the anti-DRM programmers could do by themselves.
That we have entities other than natural (in the "natural persons" sense) U.S. citizens contributing money to politicians and their campaigns is absolutely ridiculous. So if you want to look for hypocrisy, just find a politician railing against 'corruption' in one moment, while begging for cash from lobbyists in the next.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not just Free OS users these days; pretty much everyone owns a device that is technicall
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM is getting more pervasive and he says it's no big deal.
You didn't RTFA did you?
According to Torvalds, both DRM technology and GPLv3 will cause "lots of arguments" but in the bigger scheme of things, neither will stop good technology from prevailing.
How is that point not valid?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shows it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here we go. Bring on the legions of dorks who are hell-bent on appearing more intelligent than Linus. Boy, it sure would be great to be smarter than the guy who wrote Linux, wouldn't it? I would sure love to warp every fucking thing he says in order to make him look stupid, even if it's only to myself! That way, I can cling to my private little fantasy of being smarter than him!
Come on, the guy makes it clear that he is only sharing his gut feelings and personal opinions. He doesn't claim to be right -- unlike you. He's very careful with his words, and we should at least recognize that.
By qualifying his opinions, he's acknowledging that they are only opinions, and not facts. That's what keeps him in touch with reality. Pay attention to that. We should all choose our words so carefully.
And don't call me a fanboy either, because I don't even use Linux.
Re:Shows it... (Score:5, Funny)
It has its pros and cons.
KFG
Torvalds is a True Neutral Druid. (Score:5, Interesting)
... the colors in between (Score:2)
Okay, say that you're trying to talk your girlfriend (I know, this is Slashdot, but this a purely hypothetical situation), into letting you take naked pictures / movies of her. She doesn't want to, because she doesn't want you posting them to the internet should you ever break up. If there were a way for her to place DRM on the files, so that you couldn't go printing them out, or giving the
Re: (Score:3)
It reminds me of another programmer I used to work with; He and I disagreed on almost everything. So we ended up telling people that 'we', collectively, were always right no matter what because I would take position A and he would take the opposite position B.