Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

KDE 3.1 Delayed - For A Very Good Reason

Posted by timothy on from the measuring-twice dept.

woobieman29 writes "KDE.news reported on Saturday that the KDE 3.1 release that was scheduled for this week has been delayed until early January. This is happening due to some security concerns that have arisen during a security audit of the 3.1 CVS tree. Kudos to the KDE team for making sure that the product is fully baked before release.!"

31 comments

  1. Thank God by roseblood · · Score: 1

    Software release delayed over a security concern. Great! Now if the BIG makers of software (and OSs) would take this up.

    --
    There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    1. Re:Thank God by roseblood · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, and I forgot. First post.

      Imagine the mess we'd be in if Microsoft could do this? Half of my gripes with M$ software stem from bugs and security holes. Now that they've become a monopoly by killing the competion, as opposed to outselling them via a offering a better product, they could take the time to squash bugs and plug holes. If all my practical reasons for disliking M$ go away, I'm left with nothing but dislike for their business practices...which are subjective decisions. That would certainly be a major blow to the anti-M$ crowd.

      --
      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    2. Re:Thank God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Oh my god. Your post is soooo insightful. +500.

    3. Re:Thank God by Randolpho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know... Microsoft gets a big bum rap for a lot of its security holes. I will admit they tend, like every other major software company out there to release programs that need a patch or two, but (aside from those dreaded buffer overflows, which they still can't seem to get around) most of the stuff that is considered a "security hole" by the fine *nix crowd is really what they claim it is; a feature.

      You can blame market research for finding the desire for those "features", to be sure, but a lot of this stuff was put there because people wanted it there.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    4. Re:Thank God by Cutriss · · Score: 2

      Please direct me to the user(s) that claimed that being able to format your hard disk by visiting a website is a feature, and not a bug. I'd like to introduce them to my friend, Mr. Aluminum Bat.

      If adding features to your product introduces potential for known exploits that didn't previously exist (the potential, not the exploits), then you don't add the features. Doing so is brain-dead. And *that* we can scream at Microsoft for.

      If I know that language X was designed to be sandboxed by a bytecode interpreter, and I remove that sandbox, then I'm perfectly responsible for any behavior that didn't get contained by that code.

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    5. Re:Thank God by Nevyn · · Score: 1
      Please direct me to the user(s) that claimed that being able to format your hard disk by visiting a website [extremetech.com] is a feature, and not a bug. I'd like to introduce them to my friend, Mr. Aluminum Bat.
      Sure, happy now?
      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    6. Re:Thank God by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Regardless of what users ask for, if they do not have the bugs worked out of a "feature" or they aren't able to provide a convience without introducing a security hole, then they aren't technically equipted to provide that feature yet and should not. It's part of the trust buisnesses provide microsoft millions for, security, security and stablity is first, next comes user interface. If you keep up the security and stablility, then there is plenty of time to work on the user interface. If you develope thinking about features first and fixing bugs and closing the holes you've already got second then your always going to sit where microsoft is (quality, stability, and security-wise, not profit wise, their code has nothing to do with their place in the market).

      Microsoft actually spends more time developing new features than fixing bugs... as a programmer I can tell you, working out the kinks in a program takes longer than writing a first draft (ie microsoft final release).

      For starters it gives people a false idea of where technology is... Microsoft releases "features" and "conviences" before they are safe and bug free... this is technology that doesn't really exist yet in a stable and/or secure state (although there are other alternatives of the same "features" that are usually put out not long thereafter by those who were working on the same thing but bothered to run a debugger.).

      I'm not saying every other developer is more responsible than microsoft, I'm saying microsoft is irresponsible.

      They aren't the only ones, they are just the only ones with a 90+% desktop market monopoly that shapes the minds of those first getting into computers.

      People complain about those who single out microsoft. i can't speak for anyone else, but for the most part when i complain about microsoft it is due to something bad they are doing, that is bad because of, or a largely impacting issue because of their blatant monopoly.

  2. Um, baked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for making sure that the product is fully baked before release.!

    I think I'll have to get fully baked when I install it...

    1. Re:Um, baked by someguy42 · · Score: 0

      I think I'll have to get fully baked when I install it... Umm, I'll have to be fully baked before I install KDE at all...

      --
      The probability that someone is watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
  3. RC? by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Obviously delaying the release until the security holes are fixed is the only course of action.

    Since the betas and RC are now going to be exposed to the world for longer, are the security holes going to be disclosed so that we can take some action to secure our systems that are running these pre-release builds?

    1. Re:RC? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Since the betas and RC are now going to be exposed to the world for longer, are the security holes going to be disclosed so that we can take some action to secure our systems that are running these pre-release builds?

      I'm not going to karma whore and give you links to the holes themselves, but this is a good place to start. They disclose holes as they happen; it's open source. Systems that choose to run thes pre-release builds accept such risks anyways.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    2. Re:RC? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ``Since the betas and RC are now going to be exposed to the world for longer, are the security holes going to be disclosed so that we can take some action to secure our systems that are running these pre-release builds? ''
      They don't have to. After all, betas and even RCs are clearly not guaranteed to be bug free. Developers don't even have the moral obligation to support them. If you are concerned about [security] bugs, run a stable version.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:RC? by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

      Just downgrade them to stable. They're PRE RELEASE builds ya know. They might not work right...

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

  4. This is indeed awesome news by Tim_F · · Score: -1, Troll

    KDE is the most professional (and non-microsoft) looking desktop available for Unix (and Open Source) systems. Gnome, while it may be a nice system if you're an illegal h4x0r, is an ugly looking system. It uses the hideously ugly GTK widget set. God do those things look like arse. While Gnome is only at Version 2, the JDE people have skillfully released 3 different versions of their desktop in less time. All while coming up with a better office app (KOffice), a better groupware implementation (Kroupware), and an Outlook/Evolution killer in KMail. Three cheers to the KDE developpers! You make using Unix fun!

    1. Re:This is indeed awesome news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I always thought that KDE looked blocky and its' icon set was just bizarre (Win 3.11 wasn't as weird as KDE was - the house icon is a pet hate of mine). The original Gnome had a muddy colour scheme, I didn't like it, but with Gnome 2 and Tigert's new style it's just gorgeous.

      KOffice can't handle half the files I throw at it. Kroupware is vapor at this point, right? I prefer Kmail over Evolution because it's simple and dumb.

    2. Re:This is indeed awesome news by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      Try using OpenOffice.org instead of Koffice. Ive been using it recently and everything that ive thrown at it its been able to open perfectly.

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    3. Re:This is indeed awesome news by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      except password protected M$ word (.doc) files.
      I have a number of them and I have to download a monthly price list from a vendor that is a .doc password locked file. No go.

      I guess I'll have to figure out how to install Office 2k2 under WINE... :((

  5. Good for Them by MBCook · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is good to see. Not only are they doing this for security, but this means it won't have too many bugs when it's released (which doesn't seem to be the case with alot of software these days).

    In other news, uppon reading this, Microsoft declared a company wide day of laughing, stating "...this is the most rediculus strategy we've ever seen! Why if we did this, we'd still be working on DOS 4 or 5." Later in the conversation, the spokesperson asked to take back that statement and said if we printed it the BSA would come after us for liscenses.

    Gotta go, there is a knock on the door...

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Good for Them by jsse · · Score: 5, Funny

      Kudos to the KDE team for making sure that the product is fully baked before release.!

      On the contrary, MS makes sure that their products are fully toasted after release.

  6. Good stuff lets squash some bugs too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just hope they enter a phase of polishing KDE and squashing bugs soon.

    I hate hearing about extra features when there are still nasty bugs (and poor default settings) lurking about.

  7. Details on the concerns? by alanjstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about some links to what was so suspcious?

    1. Re:Details on the concerns? by Randolpho · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's on a need to know basis, and you don't. :)

      Well, I suppose they could tell you, but then they'd have to kill you.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    2. Re:Details on the concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the most of KDE is coded in C++ and C, which are known-broken languages where one has to make special effort to write secure code.

      Now, if KDE was written in ML or Lisp, it'd probably be much more secure, but much slower...

      I am, however, unconvinced that the speed increases for unsafe languages like C are worth it anymore.

    3. Re:Details on the concerns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure - people already complain about KDE's speed.
      If it were coded in ML or Lisp - then it would not even work. It would consume 10 times as much RAM. Your plan is a non-starter.

    4. Re:Details on the concerns? by anno1602 · · Score: 2

      First of all, here's a link to the story on The Dot, and Dirk Mueller's explanation. In summary, the Hackademy Audit Project discovered some bugs in KDE 3.0 some time ago, which have been fixed in 3.0.5 and 3.1RC4 (which was not released to the public). However, this also started a KDE-internal security audit, which, while not being completed yet, warranted a delay of the release. As soon as the audit is completed, a security fix release for 3.0 (3.0.6?) will hit the servers, along with patches for 2.2 and KDE 3.1. If you are interested in what exactly has been discovered, I suggest looking in the KDE mailing list archives.

  8. More would remain by korpiq · · Score: 2


    You still wouldn't be able to reconstruct the system to do anything else than what you've been given dialog settings for. Unless the Windows Registry is considered as efficient a way to configure things as configurations files + man pages + source. Or rebuilding that is considered part of the bugsquashing campaign. Which it should be, given the design.

    And then there's the price. And spirit. Like, what fun would it be running around rebooting machines instead of chatting in irc about configuration details?-)

    --

    I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
  9. Plus ca change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MSIE doesn't render a page right: Front page story

    Linux gaping security hole: Buried.

    1. Re:Plus ca change by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MSIE doesn't render a page right: A perpetual bug that will never get fixed, probably doesn't render standards based code right due to some microsoft "proprietary" adaptation they call a "feature" and implemented intentionally to insure that since they have a monopoly web developers will code to match their "feature" and thus only MSIE will render the page right from there on. Linux gaping security hole: A MCSE who doesn't know how to properly configure a server and thinks he's hot for setting up a linux system. Or if it is an actual hole, something that will be usually be squashed within a couple hours of being discovered, most likely by the hacker who discovered it since he has a sense of community and is confident there are enough of the former to keep him in buisness for eternity.

  10. Double standard. by eatenn · · Score: 1
    And yet, when Microsoft delays their products (even though they delay them for a long time), they get severely criticized.

    Sure, they might not say they're doing security audits, but who can blame them? They have many corporate partners who would see security auditing as an indication of flawed software.

    Just keeping things in perspective.

    --
    "But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
    1. Re:Double standard. by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Could be... since until the longhorn statement microsoft has had a really bad history of early releases their gonna need time to figure out how to look for bugs. First they have to get tutorials and figure out how to use debuggers and such. It might also confuse their programmers when they see a piece of code after the initial draft, they might scratch their heads and twitch in their cubicle not really understanding why someone would want them to look at code they already wrote.

      Or maybe they are waiting for the monopoly lawsuits to have time to blow over so nobody will be looking very close. They could also be giving people time to swallow the XP license, I mean, if they delay the next release the subscribers might think "that wasn't so bad" and then they will start churning them out at their usual release cycle, what is that, 200mb of first draft code (that never goes past first draft) a week?

  11. Double standard? No. by Butterwaffle+Biff · · Score: 1

    People give microsoft a hard time about delaying releases because they have purposefully made unrealistically optimistic announcements of release dates in the past to stifle competition. An example: Borland announces Turbo Basic and Microsoft quickly preannounces Quick Basic 3 to chill the market. Furthermore, there is evidence that this was the intent. A microsoft internal memorandum stated, "The best way to stick it to Philippe is preannounce ... to hold off Turbo buyers." For a monopoly like microsoft, this action is illegal under antitrust laws.

    See http://www.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Vaporware.htm
    for the full story. That is where I got this example from, but there are many others.