Slashdot Mirror
RMS Immature, Slashdot and Community Arrogant?
Non-Newtonian Fluid writes "There's an article over at ZDNN that claims RMS is "immature politically" and "insists on a reward for [himself]" for claiming Linux should be called GNU/Linux. Furthermore, in a lengthy talkback article, Slashdot and the Linux community as a whole are accused of the same arrogance. Perhaps this merits a discussion of the way our community deals with outsiders.... " Now, before everyone turns on the flamethrowers, let's think about the matter-is this true? The problem with most of these situations is that they do have some inherent truth to them. The question, of course, is how much?
Seriously, people who know something are often percieved by thos who lack the same knowledge as arrongant. How many uneducated people feel scientists are arrogant ("How *dare* Darwin imply I'm desceneded from mere animals!"). Slashdotters as a whole are very knowledgable people. Linux users in particular are either very knowledgable, or at least fully engaged in the often painful process of becoming so. Having gone through the trial-by-fire to reach such levels of expertise, a certain amount of arrogance is probably to be expected, as is a certain amount of impatience with technically illiterate or incompetent people trying to drive the industry and/or the discussion of where things should go from here.
... perhaps those of us with more abrasive personality traits (and I definitely include myself here) can do likewise. A wise, helpful, and patient guru is worth 10,000 of us who are irritable, impatient, and insulting
In short, we know our shit, and we know that the world is in desperate need of people like us who know our shit. We have this reinforced nearly every day, with our phones ringing off the hook with people desperate to hire us away from our current employers. Arrogant? Maybe. But at least we have something legitimate to be arrogant about. (Not that arrogance is an attractive attribute to have, no matter how well justified).
The important thing here is, as someone else noted, to take this selfconfidence and, where it manifests itself as arrogance (whether real or percieved), to transform it into something positive which contributes to the free software movement rather than detracts from it. Linus Torvalds appears to have done this very well
You can check out LCC (which also has a book) here. The cool thing about it is that it's written using a technique called literal programming designed and championed by the Mighty Knuth. Ah, Knuth. Now that's a programmer. Everyone else just suck.
I would have to say ?[yes] there is truth in the statement the the Linux Community (of which I claim myself as a silent member) is elitist. I don't think this is unusual in this situation. I am sure the first American Western pioneers had the same attitudes as the second and third waves of populous moved westward from the east. Every culture has it's trend setters and trends, It's leaders and it's followers. If Linux doesn't become a standard and starts to feel hackneyed to us then we have failed as trend setters and pronounced ourselves technical elitists.
I really felt I was part of a trend when I first started banging out code on my Trash-80 model 1. I followed that road through various PC's, into PC networking, and onto Internet development. I look back at that as a personal success! I was part leader and part follower (as we all are). When I hear my newly connected Father-in-law talk about this 'new' Linux OS I do feel my ego kick in a little when I tell him about the v0.9 that I downloaded from the CompuServe UNIX forum way back when. And how I built my company on Linux. It's a good thing, I am glad that the general public knows about Linux. I'd like it to be as popular as Windows. Unfortunately that won't happen without crafty marketers selling the brand and making us all gag
We will all move on... and lead... and follow... and set trends elsewhere...
So because nobody would hold your hand, you finally decided to Read The Fscking Manual. Why are you acting like this was a bad thing? Hackers give GNU and Linux to each other; you're getting it as an afterthought in case you turn out to be a useful hacker, and step one is learn to RTFM.
...but to read into what you're ranting about,
why should the Linux Zealots just pack their bags and disappear, making your life easier?
That's cool that you like having all the crap in Windows being added to IE instead of existing on its own. More power to you.
But, Hmm... VMWare... VNC... All good Microsoftderm patch products to help ease the withdrawl...
No, the system, and everything else, is being integrated into IE (but only on Windows).
No, it's because he really really liked the HP9000 he used to work with.
I had a big e-mail talk over about 10 days with him.
What is the #1 point of computer security? Physical security. What is the other axiom about computer security? If it's on a network it's inherently not 100% secure. He didn't want to grasp those points.
All the things he talked about, in HP9000 terms as being secure, could be subverted by non-straightforward means. Need the data, but can't get it through the OS? Then take the HD. The data is encrypted? Hmm... somewhere there's a key to get the system to boot.
His big fear was someone coming aroudn and installing something on a LInux PC. Fine, but those security problems (boot floppies) are problems inherent in PC Architecture, not the OS.
Etc.
I gave up, because I had to get back to work.
I don't think RMS's intent is in anyway motivated out of a desire for status -- rather, it's motivated out of a concern for the free software movement. If GNU, and the FSF, is further pushed back behind the scenes, diminishing its role and stature within the community, then this would be rather bad, IMO. The price for freedom, as they say, is eternal vigilence. Very few people understand the implication of this. RMS is one of those few. For the sake of freedom and the future of this movement, it's in our interest to keep RMS (and the FSF) in a position of significance. GNU / Linux helps acknowledge their role.
Linus Torvalds is a grunt coder, to entrenched in the details to see 'the big picture', or at least the likely consequences of certain trends.
Linus emphasizes the superiority of the free software developement model, where RMS emphasizes the freedom aspect of it. This is an important distinction. The former view is more vunerable to corruption -- it can fall prey to things which will generally undermine freedom, however subtle. And without freedom, we'll have the Microsoft Age all over again.
I, for one, have opted to keep quiet rather than make a fool of myself and make the Linux community look bad. ]=)
It's worked so far.
But now I've said something.
Ahh.
Help.
Wow, I wrote this a long time ago.
It really would be a good idea to remove the Talkback link up above.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
RMS is making himself look like a crybaby. It doesn't take too many thought cycles to realize that nobody's ever going to start calling it GNU/Linux. Granted, he's done some great things and whatever, but he's still obviously capable of acting like a total git.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Immature whining is refusing to answer questions unless they use the term GNU/Linux. RMS might just as well have yelled "You must respect my authoritah!" at the top of his lungs for all the effect his little tantrum had.
Remember: Just because someone does some cool things doesn't mean that they're not also capable of acting like a complete nimrod.
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Okay, so RMS is getting annoying. He's right that we should be thinking more about freedom, and it's true that without the GNU project we'd be nowhere: but unilaterally trying to change language is not only a waste of time, it pisses people off.
/bin/login with a back door? There are plenty of rootkits out there for proprietary systems! And has this guy never heard of MD5 checksums and hardware-locked volumes?
Just like it's true that women are discriminated against in almost every culture, but spelling it "wimmin" just makes you look stupid.
I'll call it GNU/Linux if the maintainers of the distro do. So it's "Debian GNU/Linux" and "Stampede GNU/Linux", but it's "Slackware Linux" and "RedHat Linux".
As for Mr. Mettler, "Esq.", I can't figure out what the hell he's talking about in his article. Does he mean that because the source code is available, it's easier to for an attacker to create a
When it comes evaluating the security of a system, you should look at real-world track records. And if you'll do, you'll see that while Linux doesn't come out on top, another open-source OS does, viz. OpenBSD.
--
I am afraid that this criticism is well founded. For a community supposedly predicated on 'Freedom', it is very intolerant of dissenting views.
Witness the flamefest that ensues whenever a slashdot poster dares state that they like commrecial software, or preferrs M$ products.
IMO 'the community' should realise that bludgeoning people with your attitudes is not an effective way to change their minds. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Take a picture of Linus. Nice clean cut boy. Short hair, no beard, no pocket protector. Wife and kids. Soft spoken, very modest.
Take a picture of RMS. Lived in his office for years. Typical "MIT nerd". Outspoken in his dislike of commercial (proprietary) softwate. Known (in our circles anyway) to incite people to the verge of riot (take the Tcl/Tk flamewars).
Now, if you were an editor of a major publication, who would you put on the front?
Let's be honest here. RMS has the right idea, but he's going about it wrong. To go around changing the name is just whining. Somehow, I don't think the press likes to be corrected that much.
FUDmeister Charlie's article was really nothing more than fluff. Its nothing we didn't already know: RMS has done some great things but he makes a lousy spokesperson. What is signficant is people are starting to notice.
The talkback article deserves more attention however. Some people are too quick launch flames before they examine what someone has to say...And you can see its starting earn us a bad reputation.
If someone points out a shortcoming of Linux, it isn't necessarily FUD; When someone points out a legitimate problem, it actually helps make things better. One of the reasons a certain other OS is so crappy is because its creators won't listen to its users. If every person who says something about a problem with Linux gets shouted down, they're not going to be very inclined to mention any other problems. Not to mention earning ourselves a reputation of being arrogant, foul-mouthed, wackos.
Remember...There's criticism and there's FUD. Know the difference.
VENI! VIDI! VICI!
As for myself, I like Linux. It does what I need it to do, and exposure to it has helped me learn things that I might not have learned otherwise.
Linux is an OS, though, not a religion. Linux is not the One True Way (nor any Unix per se), and its acceptance by a user should depend on whether it fits the user's needs. You have decided for yourself that Linux doesn't meet your needs and Win 95 does. So be it.
I may not like the OS you use, but I'll contend that it is your privilege to use it.
Posted by ChristianC:
I saw RMS talking in London a couple of nights ago. I couldn't help feeling he was being a bit over-the-top with the moral crusade aspect of Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux).
He was very insistent that it was everyones moral duty to not only use Linux, but make sure every app you run has the saintly blessing of being released under the GPL.
Strangely enough, he doesn't see anything strange about releasing an OS for Intel machines, despite Intel using slave-labour in Malaysia.
Posted by wadageek:
When you are a memner of a special community there is almost a need for some arrogance otherwise you would not feel that it is a special community. People from outside see it as arrogance while people inside see it as something special, and incidentlty, something to treasure.
Knowing and using Linux is a little bit like knowing and using Latin. It is unique and special and not everyone does it.
Does the knowledge of Latin make doctors and Catholic priests arrogant? No, but it does cast them in a special class. Does being a member of a boy scout troop make a boy arrogant? No, but some may argue that it makes him a better person, someone who is willing to apply himself for personal growth.
Being a member of the Linux community when viewed from outside makes you a member of a special club. One that has a special language and is a society onto itself. In some ways, even though there is nothing to hide, it looks like a secret society to those who do not know the language. No wonder they see an arrogance.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
I like RMS. We've traded e-mails about GNU and Linux and this whole debate after one of my Linux stories ran and I didn't reference "GNU/Linux" throughout. He tried to convince me to change my site's entire style, but I can't and won't. People know it as Linux, and I won't confuse them because someone feels he's been given short shrift.
I think RMS does indeed feel left out, in a way, because of Linux' rampant popularity. But he shouldn't. The FSF did a great job with GNOME 1.0, and he's definitely got something with his views on intellectual property. I don't think RMS is any kind of has-been looking for his fair share of past glory.
THAT having been said...Linux is Linux, and trying to relabel the damn thing is counterproductive. Everybody wants Linux to succeed, but having RMS snipe at people for forgetting to place the GNU in front just won't help.
I fully believe in credit where credit is due. RMS and his GNU project have done some pretty incredible things. But this whole name game just makes him look like a cranky has-been rather than the dynamic, thoughtful visionary that he was, is and should be.
As for accusations of arrogance...well, yeah. The folks on here, and to a certain extent, programmers in general, are very proud of their abilities, and rightfully so. But for some, that ability also brings out a disdain for those who don't have it. If y'all want Linux to succeed, you will, at times, be forced to look at ineptitude in the face...and smile. Then help the people learn.
Again, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
um.
he's got some serious flaws in his thinking.
here's the scenario. it took me a bit to figure out what the hell he was talking about.
1. you're a company.
2. you install open source desktops.
3. your employees are bad, evil and write hax0r patches into their machines' OS. consultants do it too.
4. there's no way to detect it.
5. your company goes down the toilet.
here's my problem with this.
if i'm going to roll out unix to all the desktops in a company, I'm not going to give users root.
that's just asking for trouble. Also, unless maintenence (patches, upgrades) is done on the machines (any machines, even wintendos), there will be security problems.
If my employees want to be screwy, and start finding out secrets by installing bad software, I'm much better off running unix where they dont have access to promiscuous mode and only run applications that are company standard. Windows is much more of a hole in this regard.
although he points out a scenario that 'could' possibly happen, it's unlikely that it would in a well managed shop.
there is always a chance that your employees will steal from you. I really doubt they're going to hack their OS to do it.
if you're worried about people changing your binaries, install tripwire.
If you're worried about people sniffing your network, install a switch.
If you're worried someone is going to steal from you, dont hire them.
If you're worried that people are going to hack your OS to get a company secret, you're worrying far too much.
right. I'm assuming he gives them all root and says 'have at it, i trust you'
Mettler's argument is akin to that of a child math prodigy who has just independently stumbled across pi. He thinks he has discovered some great new property only to learn that his "discovery" has long been known.
/bin/login unless he has access to /bin/login in the first place.
What is disturbing is that Mettler is unable or unwilling to accept that his premise is well known and not entirely completely thought out. A regular user cannot install code. Nor can he run code that, say, directly accesses the hardware unless he is already root. A regular user cannot spoof
Even worse, Mettler believes that closed-source is less vulnerable to this sort of trojan attack. Perhaps he should visit http://www.rootshell.com . Actually, it would be nice if Mettler would do any research at all.
His position is based on apparent willful ignorance. Consequently, I, for one, am not inclined to feel sympathetic towards him.
Factual error. IIRC the XOR cursor plotting trick was patented by a company called "CADTRAK"; in any case it definitely wasn't Microsoft.
I disagree with pretty much everything you say, BTW.
--
Xenu loves you!
GPL keeps the software Free, which is what really counts in the end. IMHO, of course. I just hate the idea of people proprietarizing others' contributed code. Something doesn't smell right about that to me.
I work with a lot of Free/Open Source software every day, and quite frequently, with proprietary Windows software (usually on a few NT servers I deal with). The Free/Open Source software is solid, dependable, and generally works like it's supposed to. Most of the Windows stuff is shoddy, unstable, and unpredictable. And since it doesn't come with source, you don't have much of a chance of trying to hack/recompile.
Some of us don't like that sort of thing, even for home use. I prefer to use software that is not rubbish, even if it doesn't have "Wizards." I prefer decent logging, so that when something does go wrong, I have some hope of pinpointing it and fixing it. Not much chance of that with the "black box" that is NT.
Linux might not be ready for *your* desktop, but it's certainly ready for mine.
I won't call Linux "GNU/Linux," just because it's kinda silly, and there are plenty of others (yes, the BSD and X11 people, even if I don't like their licenses), who are responsible for significant portions of what people commonly refer to as "Linux." Still, I am more and more sympathetic to RMS's plight, and am convinced that he's just trying to do the right thing, as he sees it.
Sooner or later the press is going to have to come to terms with the fact that the "leaders" of the community are fallible because they're just people and they don't get to hide behind the PR team. To put too fine a point on it: my reaction to the article is "No shit, Sherlock. That's humanity."
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The arrogance of this community obviously exisits and in many respects is out of control. However, you must also factor in the "ZD" effect. Here's the equation:
Community Arrogance * 2 - ZD FUD + # of comments on this article = True Community Arrogance Factor
heh.
If you can read this message, your threshold is too low.
Probably the biggest shortcoming of UNIX is also it's greatest strength: it contains a lot if different ideas from a lot of different people. The command syntax varies anywhere from elegant simplicity to unfathomable complexity, but in general it's not particularly hard to use once you learn it. After a while the frustration of not knowing how to perform a certain task will be replaced by the satisfaction of getting more out of your computer with less effort.
TedC
There are three chapters covering BSD UNIX, Linux, and Windows NT in detail in "Operating Systems Concepts" fifth edition by Silberschatz and Galvin. The material is pretty good, but you should either have prior experience in operating systems, or time to read the entire book.
TedC
I'd rather have that than spend my days playing the tactful-nice game and not getting anywhere.
Wouldn't you?
Larry Wall has some good things to say about this in the O'Reilly Open Source book that was just published -- I wish that I could remember what they were. :-) Something about being liberal on your input, and careful about what you output...
Does anyone have that book handy?
TedC --
If we're going to get more people using Linux, then we're going to have to quit calling them clueless!
TedC
The problem with calling people clueless is that everyone is clueless about something, and of course don't even realize it. :-)
TedC
Preferences aren't religion. Prostheletyzing is. RMS preaches, I'd rather teach.
I love Linux, and Windows pisses me off, but I'm
not about to force anyone to change, and I don't
think I have an immortal soul at risk here. I'm
quite happy to show dissatisfied Windows users
the power I have in UNIX, but I can do this with
facts. UNIX has a split command, and joining
files with cat is simple. DOS can join files
with copy, but it's really ugly. Macintosh and
Windows GUIs have no support for these basic file operations. It just depends on what you want.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. I always thought that the "learning curve" was had amount of work you could do on the x-axis and amount of stuff you had to learn on the y-axis. (Come to think of it, that's bad--the knowledge is the independent variable.) With that setup, things like UNIX have a steep learning curve for many people, i.e. there is a lot that they must learn before they can use it well. The point I often make is that Linux often has a longer learning curve than other OSes, like NT. IOW, if you're willing to put the time into learning it, you can do more with Linux, even to the point of rewriting portions of the kernel (or the GUI, or your editor, or your favorite game, ...). Thus a graph for NT might look like this:
- ---------------------
| *
K| *
n| *
o| *
w| ****
l|****
e|*
d|*
g|**
e|****
|***
+---------------------
Usefulness
Whereas Linux might be:
| ****************
| ********
| ***
| *
| *
| **
| **********
| ****
| *
| *
K| ***
n| *****
o| **
w|****
l|***
e|**
d|*
g|*
e|*
|*
|*
|**
+------------------------------------------------
Usefulness
(Pardon my lack of artistry)
Each OS has its own features. NT is easy to pick up (point, click), then you have to learn about networking and such to use it well, and there are a lot of things you can't do with it. Linux, being more unfamiliar to more people, takes more effort to learn, but the usefuless extends far past that of NT.
--Phil (Graphs not necessarily to scale.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
I'd just like to address a couple of points you mention.
You make some good points here. If a program doesn't compile and you can't program, it's pretty worthless to you. However, just because you can't program doesn't mean that having the source does nothing for you. Because the source is available, anyone can play with it, even if you don't. And when someone else finds that bug keeping the program from compiling and submits it back to the author, you benefit from it. Just because you can't program doesn't mean that having source available does nothing for you.Of course, it does help if you try to contribute to the program. If you can't program, you can usually at least give bug reports. I often don't have time to fix errors in the programs I use, but I generally submit bug reports, which can range from "The program segfaults. I tried to do this, and here's the output leading up to the problem," to "The program seems to be choking on my input in fuction derf(). It's being called from asdf() on initialization of the main widget.
Keep going. I started with Linux on a 386 I picked up cheaply. I played with it and learned Linux there. Now, I use Linux exclusively on my main computer, and the 386 serves as an internet gateway for our home LAN.
Linux isn't ready for everyone's desktop yet, but it's getting there. I use Linux primarily for writing papers and analyzing data from my labs. (I'm a physics student.) Web browsing, too. I think that Linux is rapidly approaching the point where the average person can easily use it. Compiling the kernel isn't really even necessary any more. Debian and Red Hat both compile stock kernels with modules for everything. Just tell it what hardware you have (and people are working on autodetection), and it'll install the necessary modules.--Phil (Keep working at Linux--we'll make you a convert yet.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
I've never heard of him before, either, but I read the "article" on his webpage, and it is consistent with what cranks tend to put out.
His rant is that whoever most recently installed the system could compromised security, particularly by modifying the source for the kernel to change root privilidges or something similar.
He is upset that Slashdot and elsewhere won't "discuss" this "problem" he's found.
But it's far from news. Physical access is an absolute breach of security. Pull the hard drive; anything but an encrypted file system has already been defeated. Boot from floppy (if not disabled). Whatever.
THe "problem" has nothing to do with open source. If the system isn't open source, the same thing can be done, either by a custom program, or even splicing in open source programs, installing a trogan, etc. The "problem" is that someone has root access.
hawk, esq.
I'd say that most if not all the people on /. know about (not necessarily agree with) the GNU project, the FSF and Free Software. The people who don't know about these things are the "sound bite" reading masses and their reporters. If RMS, or anyone, can get the media to use GNU/Linux then every new GNU/Linux user, every initiate, every PHB will ask what GNU is.
What is the GNU part of GNU/Linux?
It means GNU is Not Unix. It is Free Software created by the FSF.
What is the FSF and Free software?
*grin* Glad you asked!
This way the ideals of the FSF are made known to the masses.
Media is important in informing the masses.
-Viper
No,Mettler whole viewpoint come from the Windows world where *ANYONE* can slip in a hacked program with little or no trouble. His whole line of reasoning falls apart when he tries to apply it to Unix/Linux and it infurates him to no end whenever anyone points it out to him Hence his ZDNET postings....
However, this fellow was not labeled aprori at all. He was labeled a crackpot purely on his personal merits and conduct. He EARNED the title of net.crackpot and continues to live up to it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Let me quote (from the IRC talk you were on, I remember you :)
Aweful damn pissy, IMNSHO.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
It happened almost a year ago, I believe, but the occasionally happened on irc.ggi-project.org (I forget the real name of the server).
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
I agree with the RMS immaturity. I picked up on the slight tinge of bitterness in RMS's attitude long ago, but now it looks like this guy is going over the line. RMS is getting older and older. He's still paying rent. He can't afford a replacement for his beat up laptop. He can't afford clothing. His gut hangs out like a spare tire. He's never going to get married.
3000 miles away Linus is young and as buff as a linebacker. Linus got married younger than most. Linus makes more money than most physicians. Linus has all the latest hardware. Linus is on eternal vacations.
Indeed, there's some grounds for bitterness on RMS's part as far as the GPL goes, but he's exascerbated it to the point of naming licenses the "Lesser GPL", blasting Linus for getting celebrity status, ranting about deserving all the credit for all things big and small.
5 years ago I would have agreed with RMS. He had just coded emacs and contributed a lot to GCC. Times have changed, more due to his developing insanity than any wrongdoing of Linus's. RMS needs to stop ranting and calling names and go back to coding. In the end Linus's prosperity won't be the result of unfair credit but his only competitor turning into a lunatic.
I'm sure people thought Jesus was naive. I'm sure people thought the American revolutionaries were naive. I'm sure people thought Steve Jobs was naive. ;-)
;-)
The truth of the matter is, whenever you try to change the fundimental perspective of things, you look naive to the people who have accepted the status quo. Richard is a "fundamentalists free software advocate" in the sense that his views are driven by what he sees as being the right way for the world to be, and traditional pragmatic arguments don't make a lot of sense in that case.
If you want to change Richard's mind about his ideas, you have to show him how they'd be harmfull to society. Keep in mind though, his perspective turns traditional notions of what's good for society on it's head.
The comment about Slashdotters thinking it doesn't matter what they do is fair, if you are looking at the barrage of postings that appear on this site. What you have to keep in mind is that a lot of those posting are from people who are largely NOT contributing to the direction of Linux or OpenSource beyond their small little worlds.
If you talk with the Linus Torvalds, RMS's, ESR's, and Alan Cox's of the world, they all have well developed perspectives on what they're doing and where they intend to go with it. They don't all have the same idea, but I'm sure fate will sort the good ideas from the ones that aren't as good.
The irony of all this is that news.com had an article on the APSL debacle, and it talked about how intelligent and sophisticated all the various free software/open source people were when evaluating the license.
It's all about how you spin it I guess.
sigs are a waste of space
I honestly think that Richard would be ok with GNU not getting all the headlines if he thought that the message about the name "Linux" were freedom. The problem is, he feels it isn't, so by forcing "GNU/Linux" on the table, it gives GNU some name recognition, and he hopes it will get people talking about freedom?
sigs are a waste of space
I've debated stuff with him through e-mail as well, and I think a lot of people talking with him are missing the point. The guy definitely has a lot of experience with secure systems, although he doesn't have a lot of experience with security theory.
He's talking about what I refer to as SOHO security: the kind of security that a small business can afford. Yes, software security could be cheap, but hardware security is never cheap, and as such, provably secure software systems frequently don't do the average SOHO users a lot of good (because the hardware is insecure). Instead, they rely on making it cumbersome to crack their systems. In such an environment, a binary only system is helpfull, because an attacker has to work just that much harder to introduce an unobtrusive security hole.
This in no way improves the actual, proveable security of a system, but it does make a difference.
sigs are a waste of space
As has been said by many (perhaps most notably by ESR), the primary motivation for many free software developers is recognition. In many ways, RMS has been short-changed of the recognition he deserves for his work. I think it's perfectly reasonable for him to be upset that he, and the FSF / GNU, receive very little recognition for their work. I would be--wouldn't you?
As for many Slashdotters being arrogant, no argument there.
> on should we be required to also recognize the suppliers
> of the tools used to build the table?
??? Linux never created a single distribution. People did it themselves (private or Debian) or (small startup) companies did it. Linus didn't even contribute the majority of current kernel code, he's just the maintainer mostly managing the input of many. The kernel is only a small part of the entire system. Your comparison is BS.
--
Michael Hasenstein
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/
I think that there is obviously a lot of truth in this. However, it's really only a half truth, in that while the observations may be correct, the conclusions the writers have drawn from them are less so.
For the RMS article, one has to agree that at times things do get sidetracked on to silly issues like the GNU/Linux one. However, the writer of the article fails to realise that to a lot of people, the political (ie freedom) aspects of open source/free software are just as or more important than the code itself. Thus it's neither surprising nor counter-constructive that a good proportion of discussion about such software is spent discussing these sorts of political issues.
Basically, the author looks on from the outside and percieves a problem that is only there because of his ignorance of the people and issues involved. Yes, it may look bad to him, but what would be worse is that people who don't know about free software never got the chance to hear about what the free is really supposed to mean.
Are some elements immature politically? Again, probably true, you can't expect everyone in a group as large and diverse as those who write/use/advocate open source software to all be informed or even interested in politics. In RMS's case, I believe this is true, he is politically immature in that he desperately clings on to the idea that he's a capitalist when all his writings on GNU's philosophy page are far more compatible with a socialist system. But he's not the only one guilty of this, or other contradictory political thoughts.
As for the second article, well, that is the nature of the beast that is the internet. If you speak out in a forum where there are enough people, you're bound to get flamed by at least a few. It wouldn't matter if it was Linux, MacOS, Windows, BeOS, FreeBSD, or something non computer related. He even acknowledges that he did get help, so I'm not quite sure what his problem is. He should just ignore the flames, and use the useful information, rather than taking them personally.
And it hardly takes a genius to point out that zealots of all OS religions are pretty much the same. That's why they're called zealots, dammit! If he's going to judge the usefulness of the software, or even the quality of the "community" based on the rantings of a few quick to flame zealots, then he's going to come up with the wrong answer every time.
As for his thoughts on slashdot, well, since he calls it a Linux site (It's news for nerds: stuff that matters - which is a whole lot more than just Linux), I think he shows himself to be so ill informed that it doesn't even need a response.
There are things we can take away from these articles, but nothing that wasn't already known by a lot of people - that some people in the open source/free software community are too quick to flame, and also that some of our "celebrities" aren't perfect, and don't necessarily know everything about everything.
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
I think the Linux community handles "outsiders" just fine. After all, I think just about anybody could be a potential Linux user.
I think this editorial was just about a "journalist" feeling free to insult people who don't have a lot of industry clout. Tyranny? Gimme a break.
According to my dic, and esquire is a candidate for knighthood e.g. an attendant to a knight or a shieldbearer
or
a member of english gentry ranking just below a knight
or
and english gentleman
or a womans escort
it didn't say a thing about lawyers, etc
--shine, software bumpkin
Is it really such a bad thing.
Linux kernel was developed by Linus because he thought he could do it better than a computer science professor with years of experience what arrogance.
The whole GNU project was founded on the permise that there could be something better. What development tools are you currently using ?
Most open source software was designed to be better than another piece of software.
To be able to do this you need to be arrogant, and a few other non flattering personal attributes assosiated with youth.
The secret is that the open source (actually open development) environment allows for this and rewards you if you where right and flames you if yo where wrong. But you still need to try.
RMS made a major contribution GNU is the license that most of us use and of course this comes up at least once a week.
The answer is very simply who cares. Whether it's called GNU/LINUX or Linux (Linux being just the kernel) I can setup a linux system with no GNU tools. Again something like GNOME runs on top of Linux on top of GNU software on top of X. But something like a router can easilly be setup to just run on top of Linux.
I've started testing reading /. at threshold=+2. It's an interesting read - better than before, especially with many posts like this topic. But I'd like to see more moderation of the replies too - When I switched to +2 there were only about 10 replies to this entire topic! (OK, so that was exhagerating a bit - but not much)
Thanks.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
No, there is no security issue with "Open Source". L.A.M.E. is a first class moron and should be ignored.
/mill
Read what Bruce Schneier has to say about obscurity vs security and then apply that on what L.A.M.E. is saying and you will see L.A.M.E for what he is - a moron.
It's is never used verbally in introductions or such, and is somewhat fading out of use.
--
Erskin
geek.
Bah!
--
Erskin
geek.
Why should I stop calling people who are clueless just that? I *should* only use the term in context (as everyone *is* clueless abot different things and clueful(?) about others.)
I don't think that the whole "Open" philosophy supports being very subtle, and hence tactful. Both of those leave too much room for ambiguity and confusion. The point to be direct and open with information and the access to it. Euphemisms(sp?) are not the way to do that.
It really is a sort of meritocracy around here. You can be pissy, arrogant, emphatic, humble, long-winded, or anything else, and still be right.
It is that "still be right"-ness that we value. (Or at least _I_ do.) Just like we are all clueless somehow, we all make mistakes in other ways, including our social interactions. What I strive for and appreciate finding in the "Open" community is a willingness ot accept that and mov past it to get the good part, a better OS/Program/Hot Chocolate Recipe/Whatever.
I can be very arrogant when I have worked hard to earn my knowledge and abilities and someone challenges them. I am almost always arrogant when I do so and someone who _hasn't_ worked so hard is the chellenger. I don't think it's a problem, I think it's what makes this work.
If you can survive honest, open, unfettered criticism, you must be doing pretty dang good.
I'd rather have that than spend my days playing the tactful-nice game and not getting anywhere.
Wouldn't you?
--
Erskin
geek.
No probs. Delete all the GNU stuff, and let's see how usable your system is.
Hint - likely most of your standard UNIX utils (ls, grep, sed, awk, tr etc) are GNU flavoured, and lots of basic system functionality (like the scripts in rc.d) need these, so you'll need to install the BSD equivalents, or write your own.
Then you'll need to work through your system and find all the calls to these programs which use GNU extensions, and rewrite them.
Then you'll have to stop calling it "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", and take to calling it "BSD/Linux". And I'm sure you'll be much happier for it.
Me, I'll call it "Linux", but if anyone asks, I'll be sure and tell 'em it's shorthand for "GNU over Linux".
--
Most of you Linux users, please consider, what is it you love about Linux? I like:
Like many of you, I got into Linux because I wanted my PC to behave like the UNIX (Solaris in my case) boxes at university. I even ran ovwm for a while!
It wasn't long, though, until I wanted to make my university environment more like my home machine. I moved
Guess what - run GNU software on Solaris, and it's as good as Linux. Run *enough* GNU software on the Solaris kernel (like, replace init), and it's damn near indistinguishable to all but the most observant (those who go looking at the boot messages, and look for
If Linux (the kernel) were to disappear tomorrow, I could live with other kernels. But I couldn't do without GNU software.
--
I found little interesting or newsworthy in either of these links. Surprise! Someone thinks RMS is a little kooky. Surprise! Many people getting involved in a rapidly mainstreaming technology can be arrogant and childish!
What we need are better ways to transform that arrogance into something that is less combative and more helpful. Obviously these people have time and energy, let's use that to continue the "revolution".
"Sebastian you're in a mess. They called you King of all the Hipsters, is it true or are you still the Queen?" -- B
Ummm. Technically it is true that the Hurd 'never got finished'. However, it is not a failed project. In fact, Debian is preparing to launch a hurd-based distribution. Guess what we call it in Debian-land?
GNU/Hurd.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Linus wanted Linux to be called Freix. I hereby christen my system GNU/Freix, thus respecting the intentions of both Linus and RMS. :-)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The sanest way to try to explain why Linux is GNU is to do this on a typical Linux box: ;-) ) from GNU. I think that the numbers that you're quoting come from the "Demon Linux" article; if I remember correctly, that article included lines of code in X and Perl as part of the "operating system".
(a) remove Apache. Your Web server stops working.
(b) Remove Perl. Perl goes away.
(c) Remove the BSD tools. Calendar and reminder services and a few minor system utilities (hexdump, write) stop working
(d) Remove the GNU fileutils, binutils, shellutils, and sh. If your box keeps working after this, count yourself blessed and try the ultimate experiment:
(e) Remove GNU libc. Pretty much everything breaks.
If we're going to do things by lines of code, I believe that the same statistics you're citing show that the kernel is also a relatively insignificant part of the code. So why even call it Linux?
Obviously a silly argument, but the classification of the system should include the kernel and core libraries and tools. The core tools and libraries are primarily (last time I did a finger count, admittedly not terribly scientific
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Whoop! Bring on the Legions of Immaturity!
That'd make a nice t-shirt...
And on a calmer note: There is truly a difference between arrogant and deliberately obnoxious. I sometimes think RMS works at obnoxiousness simply to get noticed and make people think.
We are the flaming, exploding, CGI-movie saturated MTV generation after all. If it isn't bright pink and green, naked, on fire and computer animated, I just yawn and walk away.
--
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)
It's definitely /g'nu/. Most people I've met (all American) pronounce Linux as rhyming with "cynics". I believe that is supposed to be pronounced lee-nukes (as Linus is pronounced lee-noose).
For commonly used programs, there is some validity of his main point in that even with a lot of people looking at the source something could STILL go undetected for awhile. But it's just one aspect of security.
His take on insider security is considerably more flawed. He seriously misses (besides the root thing) the fact that as a developer of in-house applications I want to put the bad code in the financial application itself, and the way most companies work THAT could go undetected for years! In many companies, even large ones, a single programmer may be in charge of an important application. Code review wouldn't keep you from sliding something in at link time, a little fooling around in the source code control system... the possibilities are endless.
I think he's mainly interested in self promotion. There's no point in getting sucked into a ZDNET talkbalk or InfoWorld forum with a guy like that, because his whole interest is to generate controversy and get himself on television, or get quoted in industry mags. The best thing you can do is ignore him, or just continue to point out real security procedures.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Reminds me of the classic "Dilbert" strip:
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer."
---------------
From what I see, Richard is asking for credit for the tremendous amount of work that many developers have put into the GNU project, often with little or no reward. All they ask for is recognition! Is this so hard to give?
Richard's job is writing GNU code, with proceeds from talking. He gave a presentation on the GNU project a short while at my school (University of Waterloo) and he did come across as a very driven man. Driven by GNU? Driven by his ideals? Driven by his war against proprietary software? Driven insane? I'll not make that judgement. But I respect his views.
Personally, I view the name "Linux" as a short form for GNU/Linux. It means GNU software running under a Linux kernel. The name "Linux" is also easy to throw around verbally. Short and quick.
I disagree with this. RMS had nothing to do with Linux, other than writing the license. Any attempts by him to change the name, or promote another name, is simply egotism. If Linus had wanted Linux to be called GNU/Linux, he would have called it that.
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com
Wow... good post.
Well, I'd call it Linux to his face, and I would have done so if I was there. Linus created his operating system, pure and simple. The fact that the GNU tools were used (as per the compiler and other stuff), and then later involved with the OS is irrelevant. Someone will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, but I highly doubt that Linus's intent with Linux was to be the "missing piece" of the GNU puzzle.
I still think Stallman's just has his undies in a bundle 'cause the HURD is no where near to useable yet, and with Linux, he got beat to the line.
It's always been one of the huge advantages of the net that we can communicate at 10 times the speed. This isn't just because we have huge light pipes to transmit stuff, but also because we've had the priviledge to be able to put aside some social graces and just say what we mean.
I remember being flamed by JWZ once over some idea I randomly sprouted, and I sat there thinking that yeah, this guy who's smarter than me told me his opinion, and I could change my ideas accordingly. It works.
--Joakim Ziegler
If 99.99999999% of the population doesn't give a rat's ass about moral, does that make moral wrong? Since when do we have a responsibility, or even an *interest* in *marketing*? It's so totally uninteresting.
As for where you come from and what they call people with ponytails, where I come from, people like the ones where you come from are called "Rednecks", and are considered laughable. If you're seriously suggesting that anyone's hairdo is what's important, and that for instance RMS gave us a hell of a lot more code than Linus ever did, then I urge you to think again.
The world, the opinions of the people in your town, and whatever software the "mainstream" uses is of little interest. Make your own choices. Use Free Software because it's good for you. Don't be a marketer, evangelist, or media whore. ESR's already tried that. It takes the soul away.
--Joakim Ziegler
I can't remember who's doing it, but someone's working on porting the *BSD tools to Linux such that there could be a GNU-free Linux distro. Apparently it wouldn't even be all that difficult; GNU did less than ten percent of the Linux code (defining "Linux code" as the kernel plus the core set of tools) as it is.
When GNU code comprises a quarter of Linux, they'll deserve the co-creator credit they are essentially asking for. But they don't even have half that yet (if you look at the number of lines of code in the kernel and core tools GNU barely has a tenth), so they have a lot of work to do.
Let me put it another way: GNU gets as much recognition as any other Linux developer working on the OS. To ask for more when they haven't contributed enough code to deserve it is simply wrong. I read the article RMS wrote on the issue, and it seems to me that he's just mad that Linus and the gang has stolen the spotlight from him.
Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. 8-)
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
yep, mechanics (and their skills) are severly underated... re-building yr kernel is much like stripping down an engine on a car. y've gotta be skilled in the basics to rebuild
linux users, car mechanics in the future
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I'm really not sure of what to think about this. RMS seems a bit strange, but on the other hand, most tech people appear strange to at least some others. And I still prefer a bunch of weird people working on something rather then having a group of think-alikes.
/. should worry about people like him. So he got flamed. So he had a security issue that, judging from a short glare at it, wasnt that interesting. So he didnt get to plug that story on /. (well, apparently he got to, now).
/. shouldnt care about people who apparently dont understand how (internet) communication works. With all that could be said against Katz - he definately understood that.
/. or even OSS community gets labeled 'arrogant', why bother. If that's bad for marketing decisions I just wonder how Billy G. and Larry Ellison (and Jobs and blarh blarh... you name them) make their living. After all, this is 'news for nerds' and people with a real issue will get to discuss it seriously if they just ignore the flames.
;)
Now for that guy in Talkback. I dont think
What I think is that although I'm not a fan of the whole flamebaiting here,
Now if the
Besides, he's a lawyer and (ab)uses Frames, why do I even care
>Set a bios password, and someone will just use one of the many known BIOS backdoor passwords...
:)
Or, for that matter, short-circuit the mainboard battery. At least that had helped me in my early days when I set (and forgot) a BIOS pw, set the boot procedure to C-A and then wrecked the HD.
The support guy I called needed quite a while to stop laughing.
At first I was mad, then upset and depressed when I found out they were right.
Then I decided to do something about it.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
All it means is that there are people out there with different ideas who refuse to agree with the accuser just because he wants them to.
By that yardstick, being called "closed-minded" by the grand-mal idiots at ZDNN is a huge compliment.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
And there are other kernels out there, and other open source OS's. Linux just happens to be (IMO) the most mature.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The solution to the RMS compulsion to call Linux GNU/Linux is easy. Call the next version of Linux (2.4 or whatever) , New Linux but spell it like Gnu Linux. Then when someone asks you what version of Linux you are running the conversation can go like this:
"What version of Linux are you running?"
"The new one."
"You mean the new (Gnu) Linux?"
"yep. thats it."
That way everyones happy as long as RMS doesn't insist on calling it Gnu/Gnu Linux.
Of course the whole linux community and slashdot are arrogant. Usually when people are going from one majority to a minority, they believe that it's because ther minority is better. I seem to remember a Dr. Seuss about some strange yellow bird-type things on the beach which preached alot of the same point. Once you switch, you don't want any part of what you came from.
We become heretics because we're still a minority. It might be that when the majority becomes Linux, we might be a little less arrogant about it. Of course then there will be some other arrogant minority...
You can't see this if you have sigs turned off.
Now, the Open Source people are disconnecting the wagon, and keeps selling the Open Source idea. The GNU/Linux phrase is RMSs way of connecting the wagon to the horse.
To me, this sounds like part of a defensive business philosophy to compete with free software. RMS does a great job to raise awareness of licensing issues. I do not feel threatened by freedom and as a result, do not have an issue with RMS being very vocal about anything less than free.
See Why GNU/Linux and not just Linux... as gnu.org explains it.
He's not an idiot, but you are right, he doesn't know much about computer security. He doesn't understand digital signing or what, user priveledges or secuirty policy. He doesn't understand that sometimes having source code only shows you that something is bullet-proof (knowing the 3DES algorithm doesn't really help you crack it). Yet, he claims to be a lawyer and programmer. Amazing.
Still, I have yet to see a really good answer to his scenario about trojan horses in the code. Bruce Perens raised this issue and there was a trojan horse in something (I forget).
For a good introduction to history of "crackpotery" see Martin Gardneer's book "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" or his most recent "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus".
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Reading through the threads I see that stupidity reigns yet. Most are agreeing that yes the community is arrogant. Yet, none of you seem to care! As long as this attitude prevails within the community there will be absolutely NO hope for linux becomming a main stream OS. Again and again I see the bigotry in the community. If it ain't linux it ain't worth your time.
I hate MS so much, but, MS HAS done a lot. They've taken the mystery out of computers for the common man. Most americans have a computer or access to one. Why? Because MS made it easy!
Now here is a better OS. Yet it is difficult for anyone not a techie. The new OS community says "We want to kill MS yet let's keep this OS too technical for the common user!"
As long you maintain that attitude you will never defeat or even compete with MS. Get a friggin clue people!
Get off your high horse and help make Linux usable by the common user!
Help support WINE! Help support KDE!
Help make it easier to migrate over to something BETTER!
If you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem!
Arrogance is for the close minded. And personally I really don't think this attitude is one that Linus T. envisioned.
Yes, Linux is much better than MS. But, on the flip side it is too difficult currently for a common user to use. Not enough apps to make it worth his/her worthwhile.
We have a lot of extreamely sharp people out there in the community. Let's take all the energy you are spouting off in stupidity and make some useful apps!
'Nough said and feel free to respond to me via email if you want to.
dman39@hotmail.com
LrdNomad
Why doesn't Albert Gore ever get the credit he deserves. Since Al Gore invented Linux (after inventing the Internet) it should be called GORE/Linux.
-Eric
Why was my comment marked down to a -1.
A 0 I can see, but marking every comment
that makes fun of Al Gore down to -1
smacks of POLITICAL BIAS. Any moiderator
care to respond? Defend your action?
I'm listening...
-Eric
As for the accusations of "censorship", you're completely off base in my opinion. If people want to bother reading every single
comment in every discussion, they can set their threshhold to a lower number. If they don't want to read the AC comments or stuff
that none of the moderaters think is really "important", they set their threshholds higher. Is this censorship? No...it's for convenience. I
regularly set my threshhold to 2. This lets me get a pretty good overview of what's being said and saves me from having to load a
rediculously large page that consists mainly of single one-off posts that have no replies. If I'm bored (like I am now) I'll lower the
threshhold to 0 just to see what sort of other stuff people have to say.
I take your point, but keep in mind that most users will keep their threshold at the default of 0. When you lower a post to -1, you effectively hide it from the 90% of users who simply don't want to wade throught the 30 or so "First Post" comments. Now, I would not object if the moderation was enforced consistantly and with scale, but the moderation is currently very inconsistant and largely dependent on whether the moderators _agree_ with the opinion expressed in your post. Or so it seems to me.
I wish I had a solution, but there is nothing Rob can do about it. The moderators, en masse, decide what the moderation policy is, and it is just a shame that they have decided to use their power of moderators to silence those with different opinions.
-Eric
I posted a comment about renaming GNU/Linux to GORE/Linux (since he probably invented it) and it got down graded to -1. Now, I would not object to a 0 rating, but a -1 rating smacks of either political bias or out of control moderators. Jokes that are not in bad taste and at least slightly topical should not receive a rating lower than zero.
Moderators (I feel) are using their power to up the ratings for posts they agree with and lower the ratings that they disagree with. Look at the Utah/censorship discussion for some perfect examples. Anti-censorship posts often received a 5, while pro-censorship (or posts perceived as pro-censorship) could hope for a 2 at best.
It is ironic that a community so anti-censorship is working to silence and hide posts they consider unpolitic. I have no doubt that this post, if noticed, will be quickly downgraded to a -1, but hopefully a few people will read it before it disappears. I would appreciate honest rebuttal from moderators if they disagree with me. If you have a defense of what is happening I will read it with an open mind, but I AM SUSPICIOUS.
-Eric
Since I'm not a moderator, I wanted to just say that that is an excellent post.
Good job.
Yeah? Why? Can you state your reasons why he is a crackpot?
I've never heard of the guy.....
...and a McArthur Genius grant isn't enough? For most people, such an award is a crowning acheivement.
Yes, but why must that recognition come in the form of calling Linux "GNU/Linux"?
As I posted elsewhere, a McArthur Genius Grant is a rare honor, which for most people would be wonderful recognition.
I read the article,
I read the talkback,
I read the essay on the "security hole" in open source.
By the same token this fellow should watch his back. His mechanic might put a bomb under his car just in case he doesn't pay up. His banks can be robbed by their employees, and his system administrators may design back-doors in his trusted networks.
After all the IE security holes, backorifice, the PGP exploits etc... this fellow has the gaul to say that a closed source system is immune to malicious backdoors? The only peer review closed-source seems to get is in backdoor exploits!
Excuse me while I kill my locksmith. He knows too much.
If he wants to make a point, he should at least place emphasis on the kind of subtle attacks which are possible. Unfortunately, I don't think he knows enough about computers to be able to recognize them.
I think I'll go put a floppy in my drive and "comprimize" my "top dog" access on my NT box. It is certainly harder to prevent than slipping backdoors into Linux.
(Damn, I've just wasted a half-hour of my life... oh well.)
By that argument, you should remove the Linux kernel itself, and guess what, everything breaks. Your logic therefore forces calling it "Linux" and nothing else.
I don't accept that conclusion nor that reasoning, and after seeing this reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'll want to find either a new conclusion and/or new reasoning. ;-)
(I favor the "call it whatever you like" argument, since I'm already gauche enough to talk about "X Windows".)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
I have an organization I founded a few years back called No-Code International that is trying to get the FCC to drop the Morse code test for ham radio licenses. The argument between hams on that is much worse than anything we argue about in the free software community.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The fact was that you had physical access to the system console, and you could bring the machine down to single-user to install all sorts of setuid-root hacks if you wanted to.
That place was so anal-retentive they even locked up the office supplies at night. I got very good at knocking hinge-pins out of closet doors.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The role models of the Linux community--Linus, Larry Wall, Alan Cox, many others--have it, at least one-on-one.
But it is well known that there is something about a lists and BBSes like Slashdot that promotes putdowns, grandstanding, and discourtesy. A look at Kernel Traffic (mostly reprints of the kernel list) shows that Linus and Alan Cox not too irregularly flame each other brutally, producing hurts that later must be smoothed over.
It is high-schoolish--just wrong--to assume that this is a model for collaboration, even if it works most of the time.
Everyone on Slashdot and who counts him/herself as a Linux community member should once and for all give up the notion that it is funny or cool to be a smartass, and instead strive to be reasonable and friendly as much as possible.
Why? Because that is an appropriate way to treat others, and becuase that really is how you make friends and influence people--something I think most of us really do want to achieve.
Matt
The argument essentially is "If a hacker reinstalls your operating system, and they have the source code, they can plant trojan programs." This seems to be the computer equivalent of "If a murderer is hiding in your kitchen, and you own steak knives, they can stab you when you come to breakfast." Technically true, but missing the point entirely. If someone is trojaning your Unix, then they already have root, and you've already been cracked - it doesn't much matter what tools they use to make use of that crack.
He also argues that closed source makes this impossible because they can... er... put up really distinctive splash screens... no, wait, that's not enough... dialog boxes! They can put up distinctive dialog boxes so that the users will see the dialog boxes and know they haven't been hacked.
Would someone please send this guy a trojan Solaris login binary or a copy of Back Orifice to look at? Hell, with the obvious emotional investment and feelings of martyrdom he's showing, even a VB app that puts up the Windows login dialog might be enough to shatter him psychologically.
In my view, RMS is incredibly arrogant, and the vast majority of Slashdot seems to be very immature. Granted, both of these are rather unfair statements.
As has been said earlier, arrogance among hackers is a well-known trait, especially in a culture such as ours. RMS is just living up to the personality profile. I do not begrudge him his desires at all -- I tend to agree with him alot. I just feel he could be a good deal more respectful and tactful in trying to get his way. But I'm not one to speak for arrogance; I tend to be highly arrogant myself at times.
As for Slashdot, I would like to think (and I feel it is true), that the majority of the readers are lurkers, and of a general clueful nature. But for the most part, of the ones who post, a high percentage are of the teenage know-it-all testosterone charged hate everyone who's different from you mindset, which just gets further complicated by the fact that many of them seem to believe that by just being able to install Red Hat, they are suddenly some part of a magical club in which they are a big fish. It bothers me to a high degree that Linux should be branded by these kinds of morons, where there are so many other worthwhile people out there who simply do not feel the need to prove their testicular fortitude by flaming about KDE/GNOME, RMS/ESR, or what have you, endlessly, day after day.
So, actually, I see a high degree of truth here. And I also consider it to be on par with the general level of stupidity and arrogance within the human race. It is our nature, for some sad reason.
The free software community had always been relatively closed and confined -- it seemed to only attract the cream of the crop. Now that it has become popular, every scum of the earth is drawn to it, especially those with a need to show their rebellion. The bigger a trend gets, the higher the SNR in it. We need to live with it if we ever want to achieve World Domination (which is actually not a goal I strive for -- I'd be happier with a smaller community where people are worth knowing, not unworth the bullet it would take to put them out of their misery.)
And maybe I've proven my own arrogance.
While I agree that there is a security issue with Open Source and that Mr. Mettler has a point - he seems to be making a fairly pointed accusation at Slashdot.
Even Slashdot refuses to publish any article discussing it. Slashdot does promote Linux. But, they also claim to be open about their discussions. I would guess otherwise. (They do help publish any insults issued to anyone not supporting Linux 100%.) Did Rob send him a message saying I will never post anything detrimental to the Open Source movement, go fly a kite. Slashdot is a large system that doesn't post everything that it is presented. Having presented some insulting material regarding someone who does not support Linux at all, I can personally vouch that Slashdot isn't as one-sided as Mr. Mettler wishes the world to believe.
I've been attacked by the flame-throwers before regardless of what I am trying to convey. It seems to be a fact of life on the Internet, but it appears that Mr. Mettler is either taking it personally or assuming that the vocal attackers are the only Linux Supporters out there. Some people do actually follow the rule of If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
Having said all of that, I find it hard to imagine a perfectly secure system, whether it be Open or Closed source. As any experience hacker will tell you, anything is possible given the proper incentive.
Having the source out there just makes it a little bit easier to find the holes, but that works to both sides advantage. The programmers of the world can find them and fix them just as easy as someone can exploit them.
I agree that Mr. Mettler is an obnoxious fool - he makes an obvious point - if you have access to root at the console you can do anything, the part that seems to elude him is that that is true regardless of whether the system is Open source or not.
Allan HoltzmannThe Gene Pool needs some Chlorine.
</sarcasm>
I think the problem stems from the fact that we know what we like, and we're not willing to let anyone tell us what's wrong with it (because nothing is wrong with it).
Security holes come and go. They just go faster when it's an open source syste. (yay, distributed effort!)
Some of us pronounce "new" as "nyou".
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
The original post to which he is (presumably) referring is most likely http://forums.infoworld.com/threa ds/get.cgi?74142. A number of people have pointed out that he won't actually argue his point; he just restates his views repeatedly without supporting them. I just figured that it'd be better for you interested slashdotters to go read the original thread. It's enough to convince me that the guy's a schmuck (although I shouldn't say that, since it will just give him more ammo to use in his fight against the arrogance of the Linux community).
-mike kania
Er.. don't even ask me why I called him Lawrence Livermore.. I'm not thinking clearly :P
-mike kania
Again, this doesn't seem to be an issue specifically with open source. As was shown with the ProMail thing for Windows (don't have a specific link; go check hackernews.com for info), a trojan can be slipped into a Windows program pretty easily, and running some sort of installation wizard is no safer than doing "rpm -Uvh *.rpm".
You say that it's more vulnerable because of the "highly configurable set of tools/packages that one can choose to put on one's system," but there are a wide range of tools available for Windows systems as well, so I wouldn't say it's vulnerable more often than Windows. Again, I'll point to ProMail, which got on download.com & simtel.net, huge, supposedly safe software archives, and was downloaded thousands of times before someone realized it was sending people's passwords to a net@ddress account.
-mike kania
That's because they often are arrogant.
Surely you jest! Certainly there are many Slashdot users that are very knowledgeable about computer technology. I think they are a minority now. There are a lot of intemperate, ignorant, illiterate users that have little to say but make sure to say it anyway. (e.g. the absurd calls for software to be made free right now, or the equally absurd calls for people to shut up about licenses.)
I think not, especially if you include the nearly 50% of users that are still students.
So you admit it here! It is easy to become arrogant when one does know a lot more about something than most other people. It's never really justified.
Quite true. That's why it's best to have a local friend help you to get started with Linux or other "alternative" OS.
I'm sure Linus considers the freedoms of free software to be useful and important to its success. I think the difference is that he and ESR don't consider there to be a moral issue here.
That should be "GNU/SunOS" since the kernel of Solaris is SunOS.
Call me nutty, but I always define an OS by its kernel, and what it has in and around kernel space, not what is in user space. Calling linux GNU/Linux is certifiably wrong on several fronts. First of all, applications are not part of the OS in the strictest sense (the sense I work in). It was B.S. when MS said IE was "an integral part of the OS" and it is equally B.S. when RMS says emacs or gcc or whatever is an integral part of linux. Second, even if you accept applications as part of an OS (which I will not), if I replace some apps in Solaris or AIX for example with their OSS equivilents, does it then become GNU/Solaris or GNU/AIX? I think not. Third, it is possible to run a linux box with a lot, a little, or essentially no GNU software (although the last is a bit hard, but minimizing it isn't). Finally, it is a simple case of RMS claiming what is not his. I will call GNU/Emacs by that name or GCC the GNU C Compiler because it came from the GNU project. The GNU project tried to make an OS. It was and is called the Hurd. It generally failed. Now Stallman, seeing the Hurd fall on its face, and seeing another group (which he discouraged, trying instead to recruit them to the Hurd) have a great deal of success is trying to take the credit from that which is not his.
Finally, one should remember that historically the linux community and the FSF has had a love-hate relationship. The FSF wrote some apps that linux people love, and linux took many GNU apps to the forefront. However, the two sides have feuded over everything from names, to philophies, to licenses, to libraries, and on down the line. IMHO, recently RMS has done more harm than good for Free Software. I thank him for his contributions, but I really wish he would stop trying to control OSS, kill or disable projects that disagree with him (witness QT/KDE and the withdrawl of glibc-2.1 after they commented correctly on how much gcc-2.7 and 2.8 sucked), and claim things that are not his. Stallman has become an obstacle in many ways.
here here
I kinda like RMS too, I would prefer this to be a moot point, GNU tools are almost always the best, there would be no Linux without gcc; Linux would not be as half as stable or fun to use with out FSF, but to call it GNU/Linux? Not me.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Please don't pay attention to LAME (Lawrence A Mettler, Esq)
His major point was that someone with root access to an open source system could install a trojaned program. Duh.
I remember him from the infoworld forum he was talking about. Everyone was paying attention to what he was saying, but he wouldn't argue, he would just repeat the same thing over and over, even though several people were refuting everything he had to say.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Yes, but people are used to being manipulated by the media. And they expect it, and have become rather cynical.
Especially if you don't know a lot about Linux ando/or don't WANT to know more about it, you tend to automatically discount what the media is hyping simple because you think that it is really serving for someone else and not your own. You don't want to find out that you've been manipulated all along;
They just don't know about the community or the history of Linux, otherwise they wouldn't believe what they do.
What if this is part of the attack on Linux by M$? Certainly, this is one area that has enough truth to it for people to come out with examples of how mean and nasty we are. Then again, maybe I'm paranoid about everything, since I would hate to see Linux coopted so late in the game.
OTOH, Free Software also has some of the best support out there, and that is another reason it has done so well. So, while we may have our little brawls, we still support our users, as a community.
So what if there is infighting. The same thing happens in any community. The people that make this community possible are the doers, not the talkers.
Regarding that last paragraph:
I'm only 21 now, but I remember Compute! magazine, with my trusty TI 99/4A, and then my trusty Commodore 64 computer, where I would type in programs from the magazine and learn programming by doing that.
Maybe I was naive those days, but I didn't know anything about marketing or corporate control, or how patents ruin things, or how the world was screwed up, so I always look upon those days fondly.
Then Compute! stopped printing programs, and stopped publishing, but I always seem to have come back to the programming community.
For some reason, I've always identified with them and their ideals. Maybe it's just that programming makes me intrinsically happy, but programming is always a discovery, a way of taming the world and understanding it in new ways. And when you're respected for your ideas and your contributions, by a large community, that has got to be a great intrinsic motivator (although I've never experienced it).
What I'm trying to say is that programmers are greedy for knowledge and for understanding. We're arrogant when we feel we have understanding and are trying to share it. But it's the same character traits, in many cases, that also make for good programmers.
...and other sundry Unixen. Some of the developers are avid FreeBSD users, which is one of the reasons for the switch to an X/BSD-esque licence from the LGPL.
DNA just wants to be free...
:%s/\$/\$/g
DNA just wants to be free...
His intent is that GNU/Linux be used to refer to a primarily GNU toolset running on top of a Linux kernel. I.e. Linux = kernel, GNU/Linux = kernel + GNU utilities.
As long as it's understood that GNU/Linux only applies to the GNU tools + Linux kernel combination, I think the title is appropriate. It has to do with the relative importance of the GNU component of the system.
Take your average Linux distribution, and try each of these in turn:
Try removing X11. You don't get your GUI.
Try removing the BSD-derived tools. You don't get much of your network software anymore, as well as missing ps and df and some other genuinely useful things.
Try removing all of your GNU tools. _NOTHING_ will work anymore.
That's also why something like cygwin32-compiled GNU utilities don't make GNU/Win32 -- you take the GNU stuff away in that case, the system still works fine.
Ironically, if the Daemon Linux folks have their way, we'll _need_ to use this appellation to differentiate "normal" Linux environments from a pure BSD toolset running on top of the Linux kernel. The latter would -- suprise -- need to be termed something like BSD/Linux.
(as an aside, I think that Daemon Linux is dangerous; do we really want to reintroduce the BSD/AT&T split that was the first wedge in the original fragmentation of Unix? Before you answer, see what something basic like $ does in an AT&T-style make(1) [i.e. GNU make], then try it in a BSD-style make(1).)
In a similar manner to the GNU/Linux being used to differentiate toolsets, this distinction also serves to differentiate a Linux-based GNU system from a GNU toolset running on top of the HURD.
For instance, Debian has both GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD distributions now.
Anyway, personally, "GNU/Linux" as a term isn't that important to me at this point; all of the current Linux distros use the GNU toolset, so differentiation isn't important (yet) -- I generally just say "Linux".
The GNU/Linux label is perfectly fair and valid when applied to a compound GNU/Linux system, so don't criticize anyone for using it correctly. I personally don't have any qualms about using it when I need to.
DNA just wants to be free...
I have a theory that explains why RMS feels this way. The original goal of the GNU project was to create a useful kernel. RMS has been working on this for well over a decade, and then this young guy from Finland pops out a kernel. RMS's original goal of creating a GNU kernel becomes redundant. GNU tools were added and a usable system was there.
RMS had his life's work pulled out from under him and I imagine that he resents that. I can understand that. He basically accuses Linux of riding on his coattails, though he didn't seem to care until it became popular. Now he wants to ride on the coattails of Linux. Keep in mind that in the early days of GNU, RMS said that the utilities were only a sideline that was needed for creating the GNU OS.
GNU does not make Linux. I beleive that if the GNU tools hadn't been available that tools would have been written. The GNU project has created many, many useful tools and RMS/GNU deserve credit for that. However, I do not beleive GNU deserves credit for Linux. There's more to Linux than GNU tools.
Personally, I find ZDNN articles extremely suspect. Clever, yes, but at some deep level pure FUD. For example, it was ZD with the bogus story about "Microsoft porting Office to Linux" (yeah right!) and with talk of MS splitting into 4 companies, I read ZDNN are on the one hand trying to 1) pretend MS is going the way the DOJ wants and 2) using FUD to maintain MS's illgotten position.
(Me? Bitter? It only took 3 weeks to upgrade my NT system at work....)
All your ghosts are just false positives.
I have read Mr. Lewis's posts on the PCWeek forums and let me tell you this guy made a complete fool out of himself in the process. He is a known Linux AND open source basher. Mr. Mettler mistakeningly believes that Open Source itself is a security risk. He calls himself a programmer, yet he's not produced one single line of code showing how Open Source, I.E. Linux itself can or would be insecure because their sources are available. In the end, this individual is a Microsoft Troll. He wants to make a name for himself by spouting non-existant security flaws in Linux and OSS in general, without offering one single bit of evidence to back up his claims. He can be safely ignored as being yet another sleazy attorney trying to ride on the coat tails of Linux and OSS, backstabbing it for the duration of the ride. This individual is best left ignored and he will go away.
Leiws A Mettler: Just go away. You have lost your credibility. No one takes you seriously. And by the way, so that you know: Unix/Linux people might seem arrogant to you because of the way you carry yourself in public forums. Everyone seems arrogant to a simpleton.
You have been assimilated.
Hi Anonymous Freak,
:(
When it comes to that person and his article I can just recommend you to check their message board again. Quite a lot of people wrote comments explaining why we shouldn't listen to him and some explained it quite well. He seems to be a quite wellknown troll...
When it comes to your thoughts about MS integrating Explorer into the desktop I can just agree with you, I like it too and it seems to be the way of the future since both BeOS and KDE have done the same thing. The reason it has been so heavily discussed is not some technical facts, but because of Microsofts business tactics. MS did this in an attempt to completely destroy Netscape's market and that way used a monopoly in one area to try to get themselves a monopoly in another area. If Netscape hadn't been there they would most likely have sold their browser as a standalone product instead (and possibly included a much downgraded version with Windows).
If you're looking for a Window-manager that has the refinements of Windows I can highly recommend KDE 1.1. It seems to have *everything* that Windows has, including bult-in webbrowser and e-mail client and some additional very usefull stuff that you don't find in Windows (the normal Unix features for example). The Mandrake 5.3 distribution that comes preconfigured with KDE and was a breeze to set up was what certainly got me to entirely jump the Windows ship and join the Linux crowd. Before that I had been stuck in the position I believe you are in now, looking at Linux and hoping to be able to skip over but finding that it simply doesn't provide you with the ease of use and functionality that you have become dependent of for your daily use.
However, I don't know of a good Illustrator clone for Linux, so it might still be too early for you to jump off the Windows ship...
And just too avoid flames: Nope, I haven't tried Gnome yet and that might be a very good environment too, but for the moment I'm using KDE and recommend it for anyone attempting to switch over from Windows since I'm more than satisfied with it. However, I do intend to try Gnome some day in the future and I might switch if I find it to be better for my daily use.
Some people go to extremes when it comes to boycotting MS products, I don't. However, I do agree that many of their products are terribly bloated. But the main issue is that their methods of doing business are more or less criminal, making them a serious threat to most other software companies. When I find a serious alternative to a Microsoft product that I use (at work) I always gives it a try, mostly for the cause.
BTW, Speling is optional....
jf
Oh heck. All I said was that I respect him for having principles.
Sheesh
Although I don't agree with all of RMS's political agenda's, you do have to respect the man for sticking to his guns and principals.
GNU/Linux? Well, Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, etc.. are definately a large percentage, so I would agree that they should probably be called GNU/Linux Distributions (tm).
The kernel is Linux. Period.
But RMS is trying to bully people into calling Linux what he feels it should be called. My freedom of speech says that I can call it anything I want. Trust me I think about freedom all the time, just not soley about software freedom.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
Many slashdotters feel the need to shift discussion into one of their favourite few topics. Some of the top ones include:
1) Bill Gates is evil. Jon Katz is utterly worthless. Linus Torvalds is the messiah. CmdrTaco cured cancer.
2) People who can't (assemble a computer from a stick of gum and a piece of string\compile kernels\install Linux\get rid of ?s in their posts) should be burned alive
3) I know a lot and you don't. I have always known this much and was never a novice. You don't deserve my help.
This is a very unfortunate state of affairs, because there are always gems of wisdom amidst the normal Slashdot effluvia. The moderation does wonders in banishing some of the worst of the drivel, but I think many new users would rather go somewhere and be treated more civilly.
Indeed... this looks like what's been described over and over again for years on any of my old unix sysadmin manuals.
So RMS's has a deficit on social and communication skills (at least when seen from a 'mainstream' frame of reference)... Well?
Myself, i do hold as RMS a spiritual father in many ways, despite all the personality 'quirks' he might have (and seems to even treasure), like them or not. We are all human after all, and we all have our naughty sides that other people might not like (or even ourselves!).
I don't think it makes his ideals, work and contribution to make this world a better place for all of us less valid.
Let's give him the credit for that.
This is straight from Why Software Should Be Free, by RMS, under "How Owners Justify Their Power".
Why can't RMS be like those great artists and atrisans? Why can't he merely be content with the fact that "the work was done--and the purpose it would serve"?
Actully, I agree that RMS should want recognition. But then that goes against some of his arguments in the GNU philosphy. If RMS wants recognition, then shouldn't all developers? And if that's the case, how does one reconcile this with the fact that GPL lets others take your code and then sell it?
Sorry that contradicts my second law, "anything that needs advocacy to survive doesn't deserve too".
Wait, there's more....
I presume the 'security issue' that the guy in the second article is talking about is the one in the disadvantages section on his web site. If so, it's a little unreasonable to expect Slashdo to publish it when Bruce Pernes(?) has already done so in a feature article that also proposed solutions to the problem (the problem being that anyone can maliciously alter software with open source code, so how do you go about establishing trust in a given set of source code).
If it was something else he was refering to, he didn't bother to say, and I didn't see any discussion of it on Bugtraq. Anyone else got any idea?
logan
logan
I think some slashdotters are arrogant. Comes with the territory, like it or not. But while there is a kernel of truth here, in true ZDnet form, this is more FUD than Fact.
I think it would be more accurate to say that many in the technical community are looking for the Right Thing, both in coding practice, and in social convention. This doesn't suprise anyone one bit - except people new to the way things work around here.
--
The 1st talkback implies that Linux's 15 minutes of fame are over. WHAT?!? 15 minutes of fame describes media hype stories, not stuff like this!
That person is severelly misinformed, because people don't like Linux because its in a media spotlight, they like it because ITS BETTER.
Err.
The Security Problem Caused by Open Source:e r-software-engineering/SecurityProblem.htm l
...");
/etc/passwd.
./ to put the "2dumb4us" filter on this guy and not post
./ !!
by Lewis A. Mettler, Esq
See:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/le/lewismettl
Simply put, this guy doesn't understand Security at all. The point he
is trying to make is that since anybody has access to the source code
anybody can modify the OS to grant user 'xyz' root priviliges.
Simply by modifying the source code, reinstall the OS, and : voila,
you have a root called "mburns".
/quote/
Can a similar attack take place without the source code?
The short answer is "No, it can not".
/end quote/
I doubt this guy has ever heard of "wrappers" and how they can be used
to make the system do whatever you want. And you don't need a single
line of the OS source code:
Here is one:
#include
#include
main(int argc, char *argv[], char *env[])
{
char *args[]={"/usr/sbin/in.ftpd", "in.ftpd", 0};
umask(0755);
execve ("/usr/sbin/in.ftpd", args, env);
perror("Something is seriously wrong mister
}
Complicated ehh, ? (I made it all by myself ma !)
All it does is change the default umask before running the actual
ftp daemon. (You point inetd to the wrapper instead the ftp daemon)
As a programing exercise you can let it grant write permission to
everybody on
(Or set the password of 'sync' to "abcd" and give it a proper shell.)
I also think this guy has never heard of how to hide your tracks on
a unix system. (Playing hide and seek, Unix style (Phrack magazine))
The bottom line is that what this guy is trying to state is a non-issue.
Yes, it's possible but it's not an problem. Somebody stealing your
RAM is a real problem.
If you are an administrator and your users have means of reinstalling
the OS on whataver platform you happend to be running, "You got problems
mister !, and your users actually replacing the OS with there own version
is the least of them."
Thanks to
his writings (as he's complaining about))
Viva la revolution, viva la liberté, viva
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I think I actually saw the original post Mr Mettler got flamed for. I think it was on comp.os.linux.advocacy, and that makes slashdot look really tame.
The thing is, that the point he raises, while real, is not a serious one, because sysadmins only install software from known sources, and only sysadmins can install software that runs as root. People were rude to him because he was arrogant, and either refused to acknowledge or failed to understand this point.
If that is arrogance, then so be it.
As has been pointed out hundreds of times, in any circumstance where security matters, you do not give users root access to machines. Root access is limited to a small number of trained staff. Root access is needed to install anything than could potentially damage the system.
Access to the source code thereby does not improve anyone's ability to sabotage the system. Abuses by IS staff can happen on any system regardless of source code.
I've read lots of L.A.M.'s posts on ZDNet, mostly on the subject of the DOJ vs Microsoft. His repeated point was that, speaking as a lawyer, Microsoft has acted illegally, and should be found guilty for their crimes. L.A.M. tends to be somewhat pedantic and repetitive, but his posts were also intelligent and entertaining, and I used to watch for them.
Regarding Linux's security, he has a point--opening the source does introduce a new security risk. It is ESR's point in reverse. If opening the source means many eyes to look for bugs, then it also means many eyes to look for weaknesses to exploit. It's not a fatal flaw. As others have said, the large number of reviewers makes open source the antidote for the very problem it introduces.
Regarding physical access versus root-authority-based security, I don't think that is his point. The point is as follows. With proprietary software, the company buys an official copy of the software, the sysadmin loads it onto everyone's PCs, and no one is expected to ever change it. In fact, all the anti-virus software needs to look for is whether anything has changed--if it has, that's a problem. With open source software, on the other hand, everything is expected to change. Individual users are expected to pick up new software or new versions and add it to their systems, even to the point of recompiling the kernal itself. That's a security risk because, it introduces a dozen new avenues for attack. Who's to say that every user has obtained his software from only trusted sources. Of course, the problem is not unique to Linux. Word macros, and IE's VB-Script represent similar open source, "anyone can pick it up and run it" security problems (in many ways, the Word and VB-Scipt problems are worse, because the user can end up running the virus when all he intended to do was browse). This other security concern means that, as others have pointed out, we need better tools for ensuring that we are working with correct versions of the libraries (I forget the details of the exploit that recently reignited this discussion).
Mettler's other point is that when someone tries to discuss these concerns, he runs headlong into the rabid response that "Linux is perfect, therefore there can't possibly be anything wrong with it, and curse you for even suggesting it". Then, when he tries to point that out, he runs into "The Linux community is perfect, therefore we can't possibly be arrogant". I think there are enough posts here to demonstrate that there is some truth to those points as well.
I didn't see any of the earlier discussions, so I don't know if Mettler has become angry and pedantic to the point of leaving the field of reason. What I do know is that we must not ignore the new security issues that are raised by opening the source. Rather than burying our heads in the sand, we must identify the risks, discuss them openly and rationally, then, using the benefits provided by open source, create the means to deal with them.
In most Windows shops, the users are given full access to their machines. While ultimately this may be unwise, the sysadmin knows that it's extremely unlikely that the users will start replacing parts of Windows, let alone hack the binaries.
:^), I can be fairly confident that I am working with the bona-fide original versions of Windows and other programs. While it is possible for an unscrupulous sysadmin to hack the binaries, doing so is generally beyond the ability of most sysadmins (or at least more effort than he is likely to expend). With open source, however, my sysadmin could quite easily introduce changes that would give him access to all my data (he could, for example, modify the shop's encryption program to store passwords in a hidden file). This means, as Mettler has pointed out, that as a user of open source software, I need better tools for ensuring that I am using the (unmodified) version of the code that I think I am. Other open source advocates have suggested the same thing.
I am not saying (and I don't think Mettler is either) that Linux has a fatal security flaw, only that open source presents some new security issues that must be taken into account by taking extra steps. You have described one of those steps (obvious in a Unix shop), that of denying root access to the users.
Looking at it from the other side, as a user in a Windows shop (shudder
We can't assume that normal Unix security is enough to make us safe. We have to consider the new challenges presented by open source, then do everything we can think of to deal with them.
One thing to remember is that Mettler has made a hobby of pissing off people in the Talkbacks on ZDNet. I can remember people fuming about him nine months back, here in the comments section of SlashDot. I've seen a few of his head-firmly-up-his-arse postings, and I refuse to be baited into reading this one.
The essence of his argument runs like this: the bad evil hackers can change system binaries because they have the source! ph34r them! Closed source systems such as NT are perfectly safe, because the evil bad hackers will never be able to install any malicious software.
I got news for you: your gate is only as secure as your gate-keeper. If you're afraid of your admin and how he might be corrupted by having all that source code lying around, you need to find a new admin. Here is the letter I sent him.
I must say respectfully, sir, that you have only a dim illumination of what you are talking about. As far as I can tell, the crux of your arguement against open source is that a person can recompile and install software with hidden trap doors. Please correct me if I am wrong.
To be able to install software (especially system software such as a kernel) on any normal Unix-like system, one must already have root access. How did one get that access? One is either already a trusted administrator (most likely) or one has "hacked" into the system by whatever method.
Let's look at the first scenario, and the one you seem to address most directly in your article. A person is able to modify critical system binaries because he or she already "legal" root access (they are the designated administrator of the system.) It is no big surprise that the administrator is able to easy do a wide variety of damage, both overt and subtle, on *any* machine, including closed source systems such as Windows NT. They do not need source code for this. They can just walk over to the machine hit it with a hammer, or simply rm -rf /. Or they could install their own version of sendmail that cc's everything to their inbox. Why? They are root. They can already do *anything* they want, read every users' files, and so on. Sure, having source code availible greatly simplifies some of the more subtle tricks. But not having it availible certainly doesn't mean the system is now secure even against a malicious administrator.
Regular users cannot do any of this kind of damage unless the particular system is hopelessly buggy or malconfigured. In which case they deserve to be hacked, as it will teach them a lesson. So, besides administrators and regular users, that only leaves outsiders who gain root access to worry about. Never mind how he got access ... maybe your sysadmin talks in his sleep, or maybe he just guessed passwords, or maybe he exploited a hole in network software. All systems, closed and open source, are vulnerable to "social engineering" hacks. And it has been well demonstrated that open-source systems are much more likely to get security holes patched in a timely and efficient manner. No matter what kind of system you have, if it is mission-critical, it pays to keep up with security announcements and updates.
Do you think not having source code availible will prevent a stranger who has root access from being able to do harm? Let's say I gain root access on a closed source system such as Windows NT. I then proceed to install my replacement login program that I wrote & compiled on my own system to *appear* to be the NT login manager. I now have everyone's passwords forwarded to my hotmail account. How is a closed source system more secure because the kernel source isn't availible?
You say:
How do you attack an open source OS? Find the rule that gets into your way and change it. Compile the program. And, install the new build. Simple and unlimited. And, possibly not detectable.
If someone can "install the new build" of system software, or install a hacked Windows explorer.exe they can F*CK you over no matter what. And if you don't trust your own system adminstrator, who can you trust? Find someone trustworthy or do it yourself.
You present no convincing arguements whatsoever. I wonder if you have ever administered a real system in a production environment. Your lack of insight into the way security works in the real world is astounding.
Thank you for your time,
Anonymous Coed (I sent him the email under my real name.)
If he's going to stand there and tell everybody questioner that uses the term "LINUX" that they MUST say "GNU/Linux", then yes he is immature.
As much as he speaks about freedom, it seems that he is only for the freedoms that he agrees with.
I will continue to excercise my freedom and call it just "Linux"
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I don't think we should use the term "proprietary software" anymore-- proprietary has become a negative word. We should call it "differently licensed". ;^)
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
but see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. Here RMS (I assume this was written by RMS) argues against the "obnoxious" BSD advertising clause. Yet RMS seems to want an exclusive, GNU-only advertising clause in the Linux name
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I remember a compiler named LCC that ran on Linux, I don't know what the status of that is, however.
To really yank RMS's chain, the name of the new BSD-based Linux should be named GNU-free/Linux!
(Ok, I'm not THAT evil)
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Just because RMS explains it doesn't mean that you have to agree with him.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
He wasn't asking, he was DEMANDING! Big difference.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
If GNU is about freedom, then why not the freedom to not use the term GNU/Linux?
I've always seen RMS as being hypocritical on freedom, because he has a very "You MUST do as I say" way about him, and I just can't equate that with freedom.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
What sacrifices has he made exactly?
Just curious.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
He explained it first.. by not using the term, the person is pretty much invalidating what RMS just told him.. I can understand why RMS would be insulted.
It's like telling somebody something, and then finding out that they wern't paying attention to you.
Maybe I'm just a little wacked out, but I can understand where RMS comes from.
Language shapes how we think. By insisting on saying GNU/Linux RMS creates a mindset in the people who do it. I don't think it's an ego thing for RMS, I actually don't think he cares if he get's the credit, but he does want The Free Software Foundation and GNU Project to get credit, if for no other reason than to help promote their cause. (he dosen't want to call it RMS/Linux)
People do this sort of thing in general. We teach children not to swear. We in trying to promote equal rights take offense to the term Nig*er. We are right to do these things, for it is a positive change to be made in the society.
RMS is an idealist. Frequently people confuse idealism with immaturity. I think this happens because people start out more idealistic when they are young, and then become more cynical when they get older. When people encounter an idealist, they confuse if with youth (and immaturity).
I like RMS for his being idealistic.
This SHOULD NEVER be confused with his being immature. (just because the press is cynical dosen't mean that RMS should stop trying)
I find it quite humorous that RMS is frequently refered to waging a holy war, as he is an atheist.
But I can understand where he is coming from, he sticks to his principals.
So, if you agree with him, change your language. If you don't, be vocal in not saying GNU/Linux.
But stick to what you believe. Thats what's amazing about this group.. you stick to what you belive and focus on being productive, and working together on common goals. This is exactally what Christian Churches are unable to do, Ironic isn't it. Don't end up where the christian churches are!
In short: Stick to what you believe and go code!
("I am Religous, but I frequestly find my self respecting those who aren't, and what they say."
-Play on an RMS quote)
It seems that the new moderators are moderating based not on what is a 'good' post, but rather on what they agree/disagree with.
I can see why he is getting flamed so nicely.
Has he not read Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust , from 1984?
It says in that post: "Date posted: Sat, 19 Sep 1998" -- that's long after L.A.M., E's original appearance on the IWE fora. IIRC, he first showed up back in May or June -98; the forum you point to is from his second or possibly his third "run" at IWE. (Which would explain, if not exactly excuse, my own somewhat hot-tempered and short-shrift responses to him; I *was* among those who tried to argue rationally with him at first.)
Christian R. Conrad
Opinions are MINE, not my employer's -- Hedengren, in Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
Sorry, Sir Nyet and Pope Lx, I beat you to it; and Erskin, while you are essentially correct, you are only partially so.
:-) boots and generally maintains the knight as a fighter; a one-man support unit for a one-man army. In mediaeval times, it was a fairly coveted position, and thus a title of some respect.
:-)
/. as well as at IWE), I think, who dubbed me "Sir Cyclic", for my initials and the checksum concept. Then the whole thing rapidly got out of hand, with me and khasim competing for who was "the boss": We progressed through various titles like Baronets and Counts through Dukes up to Kings; I can't recall for sure but I think khasim became an Emperor just before I became the Great Khan (from which title I claim the victory; Genghis/Djingis [="the Great"] Khan's empire was the largest ever to have existed); and I think we explored the religious angle too, possibly up to and including the Holy Seat.
The word "Esquire", or "Squire" (also "Equerry"?) originally meant "assistant to a knight" -- the guy who hands him his lances at a jousting tournament, and in between that travels with him and carries his weapons, keeps track of his possessions, shines his (steel?
Then, after feudalism was dropped in England, they kept (and still keep) the concept of nobility; the Queen "knights" people annually, and they become Sir whatever. Or nowadays, when women can be "knighted", Dame Whatever (the only example that comes to mind is Dame Judi Dench, the actress); "lady" is an attribute for the wife of a nobleman, who wasn't nobility in her own right. And, since they didn't have serfs or thralls any more either, "Squire" or "Esquire" became the term for all non-noble men or "ordinary gentlemen"; later, when the Victorian class system was fully crystalized, the form "squire" had negative connotations for a while (kind of like "Sir"-in-a-disdainful-tone as an insult, I guess).
Anyway, what with really poor folk, day labourers and even "lower class" (down to what is called "homeless people" nowadays, I suppose?) apparently not rating even "esquire", it became the mark of a "gentleman of quality" to call himself "Esq."; and this title has for some reason survived among (or perhaps rather, "been appropriated by") the lawyerly profession -- at least in America, I don't think they do it in England -- probably originally just because some lawyers wanted to show that they were trustworthy "gentlemen" and not just any riff-raff. (Heh -- *that* plan sure worked out fine, considering the abundance of lawyer jokes...
Be that as it may, when L.A.M.,E first showed up at the InfoWorld fora, I and another IWE regular called khasim (I think I've seen him here too; I know he sometimes posts ZD talkbacks) got annoyed at this affectation and started calling ourselves "Sirs" -- knights being one step up from squires, you see... And it was Ben Kosse (who posts as "bkosse" here on
To summarize: "Esq." is just a silly affectation among American lawyers, and doesn't really mean anything better than any man can call himself. It certainly isn't an abbreviation of any scholastic degree L.A.M.,E (or any other chaser of ambulances) has earned. And the only positive contribution L.A.M.,E has ever made to anything, AFAICS, is providing the inspiration for why I still sign some of my posts (especially off-topic or jocular ones) on IWE as
Sir Cyclic
Opinions are MINE, not my employer's -- Hedengren, in Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
we just happen to be right... :))
I shouted out loud when I read that the arrogance comment was posted by Lewis Mettler.
He's an open source basher, well known as an idiot on the www.infoworld.com forums.
The security issue that he's talking about have to do with embedding bogus code into open source projects. After all, if anyone can contribute, then why can't someone stick malicious code into the mix?
He got all pissy when someone asked him how to activate the flight simulator that some dork "slipped" into Microsoft Excel.
Folks, this is a non-issue. If the idiots are all pissed off at us, calling us names, then we must be doing something right.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The problem is that RMS is asking for recognition on his own terms -- no one else's will do. So it's not good enough for Linus and other Linux proponents to credit GNU when they talk about Linux; instead RMS insists that we must use the politically correct name GNU/linux. This seems unfair to the Linux community; by and large, Linux people credit GNU's role when they talk about Linux's heritage -- it's the twits in the press who lump all the credit on Linus's plate.
--JT
This is a problem, but we've seen the games embeded in Excel, and we've all seen what information goes into Word documents without your consentment.
This obviously is NOT an Open Source invented problem.
First off: I mean no offense to Richard Stallman in this...I think that he is a giant upon who's shoulders we all stand.
Stallman's insistence that people call Linux "GNU/Linux" is, in lots and lots of ways, completely understandable. As many others have said, in the hacker community "recognition" is pretty much the name of the game. Recognition is our currency.
On the other hand, Stallman's insistence that people call Linux "GNU/Linux" bears a striking similarity (well...in abstract ways quite possibly limited to my own mind) to the reaction of the Music Industry to the MP3 phenomenon.
The Music Industry (MI) is trying to deal with MP3 technology in a violent and purely reactionary capacity: MP3s are currently threatening their mainline profits. Rather than innovate and try to build a new economic model or cope with the new technology in a constructive and positive manner, the MI is going ape-dung over the whole thing, flinging about lawsuits, cracking down on distributors, banning even their own artists (Tom Petty) from taking advantage of the new technology as a form of marketing/distribution.
Pure violent reaction. MP3s are BAD, therefore they must be STOPPED.
What they don't seem to be willing to admit is the fact that you can't reverse the flows of time, technology, and innovation. No matter what they do, MP3s are here to stay.
Here's my theory about Richard Stallman (I am so hip-deep in pure conjecture here...Mr. Stallman...if you care to correct me, I would appreciate it):
Richard Stallman is threatened by the idea that he and the FSF will not get the recognition that is so obviously earned and deserved. His response to this threat, like that of the MI to MP3s, is purely and violently reactionary. Rather than trying to change his approach to getting the GNU applications and projects properly accredited within the movement, he simply begins insisting (vehemently) that it should be called "GNU/Linux" and more or less crapping on people who don't call it "GNU/Linux" etc.
The problem is that the name "Linux" (like MP3s) is here to stay. I have never heard anyone call it "GNU/Linux" in common conversation. The majority of people in the majority of media just call it "Linux". You cannot reverse the flows of time and innovation. It's a simple fact that people, both inside and outside the community, are going to call it Linux. That's something that the FSF is just going to have to accept.
Instead of standing in the corner and screeching at everyone about calling it "GNU/Linux", Stallman should perhaps begin to think of new and different ways of ensuring that the open source community understands and recognizes the importance of the FSF and the GNU projects. In doing this he will ensure that the FSF and GNU projects (and he himself) get the recongition and credit that is so obviously due.
Innovate. I, personally, have no idea how this could be done. I do know, however, that sweeping and reactionary tactics in attempt to force people into some sort of open-source-political-correctness is just not the way to go about it. Not only do people not change their behaviour, you also manage to annoy them (or downright p*ss them off) while you're at it.
I support Richard Stallman in his drive to ensure that the FSF and GNU projects get the credit and recognition they deserve. I suggest, however, that a different strategy be devised, because vicious and reactionary actions rarely make anyone any friends.
Politics is as much about personality as it is about philosophy.
A rose by any other name...
- deb
I'm not a moderator, but I'm going to respond anyways.
I, personally, really really really like the new moderation system. Why? Because it seems to me that people are actually beginning to put some thought into their posts. Maybe this is to avoid the dreaded "-1" rating, maybe this is so people can increase their overall average "score". Whatever. I don't really care why it's working, only that it's working.
As for the accusations of "censorship", you're completely off base in my opinion. If people want to bother reading every single comment in every discussion, they can set their threshhold to a lower number. If they don't want to read the AC comments or stuff that none of the moderaters think is really "important", they set their threshholds higher. Is this censorship? No...it's for convenience. I regularly set my threshhold to 2. This lets me get a pretty good overview of what's being said and saves me from having to load a rediculously large page that consists mainly of single one-off posts that have no replies. If I'm bored (like I am now) I'll lower the threshhold to 0 just to see what sort of other stuff people have to say.
It's not censorship, it's selective reading. I don't have *time* to read all the comments, and from what I've seen so far, I trust the moderators' judgement about what post are worth taking a look at and which should just be skipped over for the sake of brevity.
If it were real censorship, your posts would be removed in their entirety, not just downgraded a point or two.
I was going to email Rob about how much I like the new moderation (and threshhold) systems, but I've said it all here now.
The moderation system is making it worth my time to look at the comments where before I would just skim them or scan the titles if I bothered looking at them at all.
- deb
The TalkBack article, while I won't go so far as to dismiss it as FUD, strikes me as whiny, at least... 30 posters flame poor Mr. Berst, and suddenly the Linux community is a bunch of immature brats. Heck, if a news agency can't get 30 flames out of an article, it's not doing its job.
The security problem that this article refers to (http://lewismettler.software- engineering.webjump.com/) seems accurate, but obvious. The gist of it is, with totally open source, there's nothing stopping Bad People from rewriting the code to do Evil Things. However, this just isn't all that startling a revelation. If an intruder can't get into your system, it won't work. If it's someone who already has access, Open Source is irrelevant to the issue -- anyone with the time and know-how can patch or introduce malicious software to any OS, open or not. In short, this seems to me like a rather shallow observation. Maybe I missed something.
As to the other article, I'm not sure whether Stallman is becoming a crank in his old age, or if the media is simply overeager to paint him as such. Obviously, a breakdown of the cooperative culture of Open Source is just the sort of thing any number of journalistic doomsayers would love to see -- not to mention The Redmond Menace. On the other hand, Stallman's behavior of late bespeaks an individual with a dire need to chill out a little. I guess my perspective is, I don't care what Stallman wants to call it, I'm just happy that it works.
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
An interesting anectdote. 20 years ago, Bruce Perens and I were working at New York Institute of Technology's Computer Graphics Lab, and he worked with the other sysadmin there to secrete the root password away from all of the animators; breaking a precedent that had never been abused (to my knowledge, anyway). This bothered me for all the obvious reasons...so I hacked the copy of 'su' that we had to leave the typed-in password in a file in my home directory.
Took them two years to find it.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
> In what way, exactly, does a flame threaten freedom?
It doesn't. However, flames only harden the flamer and flamee into their respective positions. They rarely communicate anything beyond hostility, no matter how factual or well-argued. It's just one of life's little truths. Ignore it if you want to--you have that freedom--even if flaming actually marginalizes your point of view rather than conveying it.
This is actually the crux of the whole matter. Showing by example and patient explanation may seem a tiring way to convince someone, but it is the only way that works. And even then it's not sure-fire. RMS used to be a leader, by his own uncompromising example and his tireless explanations of his point of view. But lately he's seemed to have a large chip on his shoulder. What's worse, the media seems quite willing to goad him into keeping it there. (Makes good copy.)
This is an unfortunate situation, since many people's first awareness of free software will be focused on what seem to be petty disputes between embittered men. They aren't going to have much incentive to look further and see RMS and others as the remarkable individuals they are.
I love your point about the locksmith, it made me go rofl :)
Why does it come with the territory? I mean it seems like people who love linux live in two horrid extremes. Either they are really nice and help you out constantly when you have a problem or they bash you as a newbie and an idiot if you don't phrase your question correctly or mis-use a term.
I have even seen really nice people turn vicious if I choose a wimpy Linux distribution that they felt was too easy and did not give you the freedom of Debian or Slackware. These usually helpful people would start being rude or smart ass once they saw you using RedHat or SuSE. The worst of all are the people who THINK they are being nice but answer your question in a way that talks to down to you to the point of making you feel like an idiot for asking!
I love Linux. The operating system is the best and I have met some genuine and nice people in the process. Still, the community has to reach beyond the anti-social geek stereotype or the people that want to pigeon hole the community as a bunch of silly radical geeks will have one.
ACK
Isn't the sole purpose of the GPL is to keep all GPLed code GPLed? That way it can not be hidden inside of some non-GPL license (which could be source restricted).
If you use some GPLed code in your program, it only makes sense that your program MUST be GPLed as well. Granted at times, the GPL does seem a bit protectionist, but I believe RMS is scared to death of extremists who wish to lock up his code if there were any legal loopholes...
This "virus" (that IS what GPL is) makes perfect sense, and it seems as RMS's lawyers did a great job writing the GPL...
My 2 cents... - Justin
Mu. P.S. The address you see is real. =)
Now the point is that 0 is the system default, and most people choose it(me too). CmdrTaco already stated that sometimes good comments can fall into -1(the hell...), so recommended us to choose -1 as the threshold instead of 0......
But I don't have so much time to filter out the good ones from bad ones so I didn't follow his advice......
Maddog
Agreed. It's really hard to think of Stallman and the other FSF people without practically making a religious sign. I think what we're really taling about here is social graces. Richard must know in his heart of hearts that people aren't forgetting about GNU. How could we? Every time there's a new Slackware or Red Hat or SUSE or even Debein release, it's going to be backleveled on some GNU software or another. Those of us who want to be "cutting edge" will go to the GNU site or a mirror or a new (GNU?) CD and pull the latest grep or awk or GCC or libgr or Midnight Commander or Emacs or on and on and on.
To those in the "business world" who are looking for free software, I say that if Stallman feels forgotten, there's probably a good reason. You can't have free software without due respect."
To Richard Stallman, I say "You were doing a press release of GNOME. GNOME could get your FSF more in the public eye than any of your past great accomplishments. If you want that, and you don't want to be forgotten, remember that the people you are talking to have feelings just like you do, and that there's a time and place to fight over names. That wasn't it.
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
In any unorthodox movement such as OSS is, there is going to be a wide variety of people involved, from the overstating zealot to the timid, level-headed thinker. The problem we see here is not one of an overzealous and arrogant community, but one of perception. Because those who speak the loudest are heard the most, they are assumed to represent the whole, when they really only represent a small portion. I love Linux. I love it a lot. I probably love it more than I should, but I am not going to condone the actions of RMS simply because of who he is. He is human. He has done a great amount of good for the software world, but he makes mistakes. The biggest fault of the OSS movement that this exposes is not arrogance. It's that we are to ready to jump onto whatever bandwagon certain persons in the community create.
No matter what the world thinks of the maturity of the OSS movement, it's here to stay, and we all know that. Let's stop talking and prove it.
------------------------------
so what if we are arrogant....we have better software :P
I was at the UKUUG thing too (tall guy wearing a suit and a long black coat standing by the door, if anyone's curious) and RMS didn't give any indication to me that he supports slave labour.
And so what if he's a bit extreme about free software and so on? Every movement needs it's advocates...
D.
I think one thing to take into account is the new forums, like /., available for folks to voice their opinions. There are always those who "flame bait" to boost their ego or see their name in print.
There are bound to be many opinions and viewpoints, and that is the whole point. I think one has to be careful when summarizing any conclusions or general opinions in such an open forum. The louder people are not always voicing the most popular viewpoints.
Now, it took me a while to find that "reply" button. All these changes to keep up with....
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
I'm first poster!
Anyway: Before anyone start saying something they might regret, remember that Stallman deserves respect. You may not agree with everyting, or indeed anything, he says or writes, but we all owe him. He has worked passionately for a decade to give us the freedom we all enjoy now - there is no doubt he is at least sincere.
Think before you post.
Thank you
personally, i'd have to say that i picked up the good ol' unix arrogance after working with solaris (please don't flame, i love linux more!). after working with many talented, competent developers, but being forced to occassionally develop products for people who use an operating system where they press the start button to reboot the 'blurkstation,' i was never the same. when i see win32 users and hear NT admins and coder trolls talking, it's like eavesdropping on a bunch of illiterate children talking about how much they like shiny things.
i can remember the exact moment when i got the arrogance. it was a summer afternoon, and i was taking off from work early. half an hour before i left, a cloud burst passed over our building, and just as i stepped out the door to go to car, lightning struck some sort of electrical edifice, temporarily cutting the power until our generators were turned on. when the power came back on (it was only off for about 30 seconds or so), all the internal security devices in the building were reset (duh), including the front door locks. to unlock the front doors, you had to push a button and swipe your badge on a plate on the wall. i guess this is when all the NT coders decided to leave, because there was soon a herd of people behind the doors, and none of them knew how to open them. after a few minutes, someone from my division came down, pushed the button, swiped his badge, and come out. the NT coders still just sat there, even though they had just seen how to open the doors.
don't you feel like slapping them sometimes?
It's kind of like calling a modem a dem (modulator/demodulator). It's only half right.
-
It's not even a security problem inherent to source code. If you substitute the notion of "modify the binary" everywhere where he talks about modifying the source, it is clear that his argument has no merit whatsoever.
What he doesn't understand is that you don't need the source code to a program to install a trojan horse. Look at PC viruses. They modify binary programs THAT THEY KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT to change their behavior.
One of the issues that I am not sure was mentioned or stressed by mr. mettler (I haven't read his article {server slashdotted}) is that of the individual Linux user installing .rpm files that have been compiled with trojan style holes in them. As a reasonably novice Linux user, I install .rpm files if I have an option (I don't like compiling). If the code base is sufficiently large, a hole could be built in to a packeage, and go undiscovered for a good while.
I realize that this is mitigated by the relatively quicker patching of any said holes, and the signing of packages, but it still remains within the realm of possibility, and given the highly configurable set of tools/packages that one can choose to put on one's system, is vulnerable more often than a Windows OS.
Peace
I met Richard M Stallman at last year's Linux Expo. Not a horrible person, not evil (not many people are really). He reminded me a lot of a SysAdmin that I know. Long hair, scraggly beard, technical knowledge that seemed to have replaced most social skills.
As I recall, He, ESR, and Brue Perens were giving a panel discussion about the Open Source movement. Mr. Stallman did waste about 15 minutes of the discussion harping on the GNU/Linux thing, which if you've ever been subjected to experiencing it personally, you know is even more annoying and childish than people make it sound.
What I remember the best is him standing up and yelling at me for making the point that while I appreciated the work of the GNU/OSM/etc., I believed that proprietary software had many advantages, including more money for me as a developer of said software.
That background being given, while I respect Mr. Stallman's work, I don't have much respect for Mr. Stallman outside of a very narrow segment of Computer Science, or stated another way, he is a socially inept, annoying, whiny man who vaguely resembles a street person, but he's really smart/talented (at least the MacArthur Foundation thinks so).
As to the general incivility/close-mindedness of the Linux community to non-free/open/GNU/Unix software and its creators, I have experienced it. It makes me a little sad really. I remember Bob Young getting up to do a presentation at the aforementioned Linux Expo, and stating loudly that he was using Applix Presents(?) as a presentation tool, as he unsuccessfully tried to get it to work. Most of the other presenters had used PowerPoint. What frustrated me was the way people applauded him settling for software that didn't work (which is just a tool for filling up HDs), in lieu of using a Microsoft product that did the job. I turned to the my friend and said, "I'll clap when it works". Sometimes MS software is better, and when I need something done, I don't want an ideology/religion, I want a workable tool.
In general, the Linux community needs to be just a little bit more civil to the larger Computer Science/Computer Industry/Software/Internet community.
Peace
I think he was a complete whiny/bitchy ass*cough*le :)) What have we here -- he discovered an "error", posted it on bugtraq (I presume) tried to post it on slashdot, created a "security web page" (triple quotes here people!! the guy has created something that a 5yo kid would do using Netscape Composer.. and would probably choose better colour for the background) and is now goddamn whiny because NO ONE GAVE HIM THE CREDIT HE DESERVED!!! Sheesh! you should've staied just an attorney :) Or maybe post the bug report as an AC on slashdot :P
In what way, exactly, does a flame threaten freedom?
Freedom means being able to say M$ is wonderful, but it also means you can get criticized, berated, called childish names, have funny pictures drawn of your mother, and you may even be ignored (which, frankly, I think most "pro-M$" posters fear the most).
I may not agree with what your bumper sticker says
But I'll defend to death your right to stick it!
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
So, now that we are faced by an influx of PHB types, press, and other assorted newbies who aren't used to this sort of behaviour what should we do? Nothing. They will get used to it. In the meantime, the heated debate that goes on will shape our policies and make our world (and our software) better places to live and work in.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
I think one problem with Stalin's and Mao's political agendas versus Stallman's is that Stalin's and Mao's included killing millions of people. Stalin and Mao had absolute power, Stallman gave up what ever power he might have had by giving away his code. The only thing he's got is a soapbox.
The guy has a right to spout off, and you folks have the right to comment, but calling him "off his rocker", "a crackpot", and so on, is, in my opinion, really out of bounds unless you personally know the man. Unless you think it would be fair to read slashdot a couple months from now and see things like "Rombuu is really a kook because he equated Stallman with Stalin."
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I don't know. I think there is a measure of something that could be both construed as arrogance and as righteousness. Here we are--been using this stuff for a while now. And suddenly there's all this BS media press (half of which is incorrect) and companies "jumping on the bandwagon". I think it's less arrogance and more touchiness and such. Some is excitement, but as with all high-media-profile things, the number of losers that are actively associating themselves with linux and gnu and open source and the new set of buzzwords has grown exponentially. Are older folks "losing our turf"?
Mmm.... Many mixed emotions....
http://www.mklinux.org
It means that Unix is a bitch for normal people to learn how to use. Duh.
:)
-lx
I'll tell you why 'he says that'. Because anyone who has even a beginner's knowledge of open source and security knows that one has to have root to make alterations to the os unless the system is HORRIBLY misconfigured. LAME is remarkably clueless with regards to security, and it appears you are too. What kind of person sits around, comes up with an idea they think is brilliant and new, and then when it is discovered that its completely false, keeps trying to convince others its true? He needs to accept that he wrote an essay that has no basis in reality, learn from the experience, and move on. Btw, if LAME wants to actually prove his claims, he's welcome to an account on my box, so he can perpetrate an 'inside attack'. You out there, Mettler?
:)
Secondly, I don't care if you like integration. I don't. And once something is integrated, there's nothing I can do about it.
Third - A window manager that has the refinement of windows??? Where do you get that? Can you define the delay in milliseconds you want before a window autoraises in windows? Does windows have a decent FFM implementation? If the window manager is so refined, why does it crash and restart so often?
I personally don't care if you use windows or not, but running around defending it when you have little knowledge of computers in a forum primarily devoted to open-source software is going to do no good whatsoever. You would have better luck posting on ZDnet.
-lx
and sorry for the strange numbering scheme, i'm a little agitated.
The guy is astoundingly stupid. He's basically saying that if someone got root, they could rebuild or alter the os so they could get root. Whee. I'm happy that the (gnu)Linux community has taken time out of their busy lives to insult the hell out of this guy.
-lx
I'm pretty arrogant myself. I think a lot of Unix users are. It just goes with the territory of being better than everyone else. :)
There were some truths in the article - RMS is a little bit immature sometimes. I often wish that he would have remained a programmer instead of becoming a philosopher. However, Mettler is an idiot(he puts 'Esq.' after his name!), and has mistaken well-deserved insults for 'closed-mindedness'.
What I don't understand from the article is the assumption that Unix users' undying goal is to get Unix into the mainstream. Is this true? Am I the only one that doesn't care about the proliferation of Unix? Can someone who does care explain why?
-lx
First off, how does cutting off one's pony tail help the image of the OSS community? I say if we all leave our ponytails, we might gain the image of reasonably intelligent and modern people who still get laid once in a while.
Second...the kernel is not the OS. RMS HAS been ripped off. He's a better programmer than Linus, did more for the OS than Linus, and is still a relative unknown.
Third...what the hell is the rest of your reply about? does this have anything to do with the discussion?
-lx
I take it that's a lawyer thing? :)
(good post, btw)
- Pope Lx Streetmentioner LDD, POEE, R4 (arrogant)
I always say - It's not that Linux isn't good enough for the desktop - the desktop isn't ready for Linux. :)
-lx
In retrospect, I'd like to tone my previous message down a bit...I take back saying you are clueless. Windows certainly does have uses, and for many people it is appropriate. I just happen to dislike it.
-lx
Well, since my ponytail makes me morally degenerate, I guess I'll have to go bald again. My moral degeneracy, nonconformity and lack of trustworthiness has been having devastating effects on my code. Apparently if I were to burn things at a refund rally, I'd get more respect... Just where is it you come from? If this is how shallow the culture using my software is, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remain arrogant. Do you realize how much of the software you use was made by _hippies_?
Now, I don't consider myself part of the Linux community, (I don't like the penguin, even)and when I heard about the windows refund, I thought it was slightly frivolous but not without basis. A little frivolity once in a while is ok with me. It got Linux a little more popularity and let people realize they have choices, which was the intent. I don't much care whether or not the general public 'takes linux seriously'. Is that what the Linux community desperately needs, to be taken seriously? They can't content themselves with just having a great OS that they like to use?
I don't necessarily even support tacking 'GNU' onto Linux - there was a very good post(somewhere around here) that made the point no one calls Windows 'Microsoft Windows 98'. RMS has been neglected, AND is rather immature and socially inept, from what I've read. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and do not change the fact he is an outstanding programmer. One person contributing 10% of the code for an OS is quite a feat, and for that he deserves a little respect. I give him a little respect, and then happily ignore most of his rantings.
And, fyi, I did use GeOS, and still have a machine running CP/M(both of which are still being produced, btw, oddly enough).
-lx
I think that some form of moderation is a good thing - and giving users control over it is good as well. However, the system has some kinks in it. I still can't figure out why a 2 line flame I wrote that basically just dissed compaq got a score of 2, and a reasonably well-written several paragraphs explaining why I think WYSIWYG html editors aren't always bad got a score of 0, while people saying simply "wysiwyg sucks! Use a text editor!" got a score of 1.
I'm kind of hoping that things will settle down after a few weeks once the thrill of moderating wears off for the newcomers.
-lx
I think the main difference between IE and NetPositive in BeOS(i don't use kde) is that IE is actually integrated into the system as opposed to just bundled. Anyone can easily remove all of Net+ or I assume, Kommander or whatever the kde browser is called. I have no problem with bundling - in some situations it is appropriate, but I think that IE's is different than what other OSes are doing.
-lx
I definitely agree with most of this - you have a perfectly valid position. I don't honestly think that Unix is ready for most desktops, and I understand that the usefulness of open source is greatly diminished to non-programmers. Again, sorry for the flame...
-lx
You do have a point here. However, one major difference is that a difference in opinion isn't going to result in a division of efforts in a corporation. Atleast not under normal circumstances. There is always ONE person in charge, and a direction will be settled on. While it is true that occasionally this may result in a key individual leaving the firm, it will not result in a division of efforts.
I'm sure some of you will say that this is not true. That with Linux, Linus has the final say. While this may be technically true, there is nothing stopping say Alan Cox leaving the effort and forking the code. I think this would be damaging.
My point, here, is not that one is neccessarily better than the other. But that there are differences. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
I can't understand the point comparing /.ers with Bill Gates.
I think is more relevant to compare two different ways of producing software, from the philosophical point of view. And if you want, also two different Operative Systems.
Don't buy the argument that problems with Microsoft products has to do with Gates personality. In fact, to keep the ball rolling not only Microsoft but all the other wrapped-software companies are building obsolescense ( sp? ) in their products right from the start. Making things right would oblige them to look for new markets all the time. And would be more expensive, of course, for them. Well, probably for customers too, but, where's the point in buying cheap software you don't need?
And if the solution that Open Source Software ( or whatever you wanna name it ) is better, that remains being true ( or not ) even if all their current supporters were immature, selfish, or anything you like.
Furthermore, Open Source Software is bigger than LT, ER or RS. Of course, they made a lot. But they wouldn't have gone anywhere alone.
We're not talking about theory. The code is there for anyone who want to use it. I think our community deserves to be judged for its fruits, not for its words.
Where do these IRC talks take place?
ah well, the silent majority isn't that extreme as discribed in the article at http://www.zdnet.com/talkback/22_33604_139822.html . /. (even as we speak) I also remember John Katz writing a piece about it on /.
I remember when the creator of freshmeat.net was flamed when he changed the layout. He took the site down, due to the personal attack of so called hardcore Linux users. Don't take 'em too seriously.
This issue about 'violent extreme linux users/advocates' has been addressed on
Save your complaints about the security or lack of security for closed systems. Identifying a more insecure system does not address the issue raised here. Pointing out that someone else has an insecure system does not improve yours at all.
The purpose of his essay was to show a security risk in open-source operating systems. This fellow does not say that closed systems are immune to backdoors.
Now for my $0.02 about his essay.
The main problem with his theory is that to change anything (the kernel, the login program, etc.), you have to be root. You can change the code when your a normal user, you can compile the code when your a normal user, you can run the program when your a normal user, but you can't do any damage when your a normal user (like you can't install the modified program).
I'm not a cracker, but I always thought the general cracker mentality was to get in and get out as quickly as easily as possible. Installing a backdoor would be a useless step, seeing as how the cracker would already have root access.
As far as backdoors are concerned, the only problem which I can think of, is your own people. You should be much more worried about a sysadmin on the inside intentionally opening up a backdoor (or just giving out the root password) for friend on the outside. But that's not a problem related to whether your OS is open/closed, its dishonest people operating the machines.
Wow. Following the link, I've never seen someone so blatently ignorant in my life. I know he won't be reading this but this piece of flamebait is WAY too smelly not to say something...
/etc/inetd.conf is for. Compared to back-oriface or any of the seemingly endless java/IE/ActiveX/virii/whatever exploits, this seems a bit easier to do.
.exe and telling me if its infected with a virus.
Assume you wrote an application from scratch. How many ways can I modify your program so that it fails? One way? Two ways? Fifty ways? A million ways? Endless ways.
Yeah. And if I had access to your autoexec.bat I could do the same thing.
You have to do something to minimize the chance of attack. You have to do something to minimize the chance of attack when they have the code you used to build your last version.
Thats what root passwords are for. And thats also what putting a # in front of the in.telnetd line of
Who is the attacker? The guy you hired to build it. The keeper of the code.
Wow. What a pleasant thought. Linus Torvalds is going to h4x0r r0oT.
On Windows, if you don't want a virus, don't run unscanned programs. On opensource, if you don't want to get a backdoor (which are very few and far-between, as far as I've seen), don't run it. This is why I at least lightly glance over stuff as I'm compiling it. That and seeing what possible features I can make use of.
And I'd just as rather the 'keeper of the code' NOT be Microsoft. That way they might do a halfway intelligent job of 'keeping the code', not increasingly breaking it with each new release for the sake of forcing people to upgrade.
One possible solution is to not have the source code available. No source code means that attacks that come from having the source no longer exist.
This sort of development model, in my humble opinion, has more bad sides than good ones. My poor box saw windows for quite a few years, and while I was temporarily involved in coding for a mud, I was amazed by how efficiently and easily new features could be added and old bugs squashed. This is why I originally tried Linux, and this continues to be why I've never looked back.
Besides, if someone DOES manage to sneak a trojan onto a 'trusted site' (which I've heard of happening only once), people tend to notice. Doesn't take very long either. Besides, having the source code means trojans are much easier to see, and people ARE looking. Try busting out a hex editor on an
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
"arrogance?" "some inherent truth..."
/. archives shows that the community of Linux users is devolving.
More than some. A quick look at the
Not that long ago, a new user could expect to find help with a problem, and a welcome to the world of Linux. After all, none of us were born with the ability to compile kernels - we needed a teacher.
That has now changed. A newbie is likely to meet a majority of what I call 'cool doods'. These people are born Linux users. They never ran anything from MS and disdain anyone who did. They use Linux because it makes them badass and cool. You won't see them organizing an installfest -- they have no time for mere mortals looking for a better operating system.
In short, they are insecure nusiances. Unfortunately, in many forums they are the main face of Linux - and it's ugly.
They don't see that they just provide ammo to the forces of FUD. I'm getting Linux accepted where I work, but you can be damn sure I don't direct mangement to look at SlashDot. All their fears that Linux is an unsupported os for 'haxors' would be confirmed in a few pages of comments.
If Linux cannot overcome these isolationist tendencies, then it will never achieve World Domination. We've got to welcome and help new users, not flame them for having the misfortune to discover Linux later than we did.
Write the code. Use the OS. Spread the word.
Luck,
Brian
I agree with the assesment of RMS. He's a very intelligent man, who's done quite a few good things. A lot of what he's done benefits me. But reading his rants always infuriates me. Rarely does he use rationality. He seems to be a wanna be altruist. I'm not sure if that's worse than an altruist, or better...
I personally enjoy the aura of arrogance. When can we get a tux tee-shift with "Arrogant Linux User" written on the back? I prefer it to the alternate "Submissive Microsoft Victim".
Just another Anonymous-Cowardly,Culturally-Elite, A.U.L.
AC
And just what happened with X11R6.4? Did it make all the copies of X11R6.3 magically disappear? Making proprietary changes to freely available source code doesn't destroy the free version any more than the development of a commercial BSD based operating system based on BSD licensed code destroyed the freeware/open source projects like FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD.
Well sure, a common perception may be that Linux users are arrogant; part of the 'mines better than yours' or more appropriately part of the change in mindset for TYPICAL computer users.
If someone has scorn for a computer system you are happy with, what is your reaction? Sure, we all could play nice and live and let live - but if you aggrevate others, they sometimes form perls of wisdom and catch a clue.
"Bob, you should try Linux" doesn't grab interest as much as "Bob, WinNT is crap in comparision to running that DNS on Linux - Linux wins handsdown." Arrogance? Perhaps.
As for RMS, I've never personally met him - but he does have the admirable quality of standing for something consistantly. And if anyone wants to be noticed they have to be perceived as unaccepted. He spreads the gospel of open source free software louder than ANYONE else. Peace and prosperity to him.
The meek shall inherit the earth - in the mean time the bold will make a pretty good living.
This is a problem that will probably occur repeatadly. I think two of the biggest factors contributing to open source software is ideology and need. This ideology can easily lead to arrogance, simply because of the strengh of these views that usually develops. This arrogance, however, is dangerous in a community that is depended on other as the linux community is. Face it, most linux user are dependent in a small way on most other linux users to develop new code, work out bugs....and stuff like that. It is what make the community neat, no one use is an island unto him or her self (horrible quote, but appropiate). When I picked up my first linux distro at the local software store, I was virtually attacked my helpful geeks. Many other nameless ones helped me learn how to actually use the darn thing. Like any community, new blood must keep coming in to keep things mixing, to add new ideas, new perspectives. The traditionally helpfull, open nature of the linux community is the strongest enabler to this process, and arrogance is a flaw that will turn off many. Pride in ones achievments, ideology and whatnot is one thing...but elavating that to the point where you position yourself above other is completely contrary to the whole point, and it will be a huge flaw if not controled. I think most people on /. and elseware are generally sane, respectfull and open, with just a few bad, loud, seeds making alot of noise. But we all need to make an effort to keep that openness available to all, else the entire point of the software is lost. As yet another horrible cliche, I leave you with a thought "open source, closed minds"....dont work does it. Everyone needs to chill just a bit. Dont abandon you guns; defend your views, just do it politiely, calmly and with at least polite respect for other, even inane, opinions. Elsewise we are just a huge, geeky mob.
B
Was anyone actually at the Gnome launch who can confirm what happened.
I personally think that it probably be called GNU Linux.......gnu components make up a huge part of the OS, which goes beyond just the kernal. I don't actually call it that though, as the linux name is what has developed, and it is hard to change once in place....also GNU Linux sounds funny. Put RMS's and GNU's massive contributions should be acknowledged in some way.
There are always zealots in any forum that deals with a radical sociological change and the 'free' software/open source/linux community is just such a forum.t ml
It's something to beware of how ever (as indicated by the subject...) personal prejudice run both ways the talkback article the post refers to has a reply which might put that in perspective:
http://www.zdnet.com/talkback/22_33604_139914.h
Ta!
Well, well, well; three holes in the ground...
"Try removing all of your GNU tools. _NOTHING_ will work anymore. "
IMHO, this is precisely the phenom that RMS is talking about.
We've got a pet conspiracty theory around the office that the newfound support by IBM, Compaq and SGI for Linux is simply because it will allow them to better compete on the IA64 platform.
The reasoning goes is that what makes all of these company different is their hardware and their toolsets. Kernel development is a huge cost center for these "support/hardware" firms. Toolsets are cheap by comparison...
*Zip* - drop the GNU toolset, replace it with the DEC toolset and package it with a Linux kernel - instant DEC/Linux (or SGI/Linux, IBM/Linux, MS/Linux). Names aside, they will all work with very little GPL...
So why not GNU/Linux?
"Although we may build the technology that we define as tools, we must be vigilant that those tools do not define us."
One of the things that I always appreciated about the 'hacker' community, was that you simply couldn't establish yourself in it without the respect of your peers. The general perception that there was a desire for knowledge and a desire to share knowledge, along with a certain lack of respect for those who did not have that ideology, made for a place where one was judged by ones contributions and not by ones status.
The development of Linux and the free software movement has always seemed to me to be a culmination on the kind of G-File hacker/phreaker of the 80's, with the benefit of resources that allowed an international and inexpensive media upon which to frame our world-view. The end result has brought a commercially sound status to what was never truly a business concept. Political skill was NEVER a benefit in this case. You can be an asshole but if you are right, someone is going to know. If no one knows you are right, well you tried.
Now alot of people are "NAMES" which is often a dangerous position. I remember associating with NAME hackers and knowing that for some of them, the NAME was all they had. This is true in ANY community, where past achievement is rewarded. The person who founded X or created X or did X is remembered with respect no matter WHAT they contribute recently.
Not so with Hackers. Respect for knowledge and skill is always there, and we worship some of the same idols, but to sustain a name in a world in which anyone can take your intellectual contribution, and modify it and make it theirs, requires a certain sense of promotion either by ones own effort, or by others.
The fact is that when I choose a product, I rarely base my opinion on that product on the specific person who invented it or the person who made it. We rely on umbrella organizations, corporations, research institutes, to give a mark of quality.
In the case of the Slashdot world, the people arguing over such things as the merits of different licenses to some extent are a rarefied breed. The majority of linux users don't care about the legal ramifications of using software because they would have taken it whether the license permitted it or not. By showing source code, it is all over. The license be damned. The fact that the corporate world needs those licenses to contribute to the movement, and the fact that the corporate world is BUYING the concept that those licenses have some value and that equivalent licenses (Apples) with certain restrictions, will be honestly followed, is a bunch of SHIT. Once I have your source code, you have to prove I have it. The hacker outside of the US doesn't have any obligations. The only thing that prevents abuse is HONOR, and that is a case in which any LEGAL effort is immediately suspect.
Control of information is not truly possible. Just as Microsofts patent on use of XOR to allow proper rendering of an onscreen pointer is absurd, so is the licenses. Those who create this show of legalese with terms like free or open as the adjective are marketing. The news sees the marketeers, they see the hype, then they realize that those 'hyping' are not really altruistic, despite the common sense that says that NO ONE who fights for abstracts is truly altruic, then they are offended by arrogance, aggressiveness, a sense of cockiness, that was part of our community when the term hacker wasn't even used in movies, let alone in boardrooms...
Every piece of software I design I provide legal protection for MY right to reuse code I developped. I attempt to avoid stealing other peoples code, but I often learn techniques of coding by looking at source code. In the end, I protect myself.
That is the goal of most of the public voices, as far as the press is concerned. Most of us are just taking advantage of every resource we have, and our interest in being a public face on a community so self-interested is not there. We are too busy...
We contribute to the movement because when we find a solution to a problem, we contact others and let them have our fix. When we take someone elses work and make it prettier, we thank the person who gave us that original work by returning the effort. But it is all self-interest. We are all arrogant thieves, stealing from each other, and happily calling it freedom and openness. If the walls came down, we would grab all the free software before it stopped being free and would hide it and share it more carefully, but we wouldn't lose a step. We would simply develop technical methods of protecting ourselves where legal methods failed...
A bizarre little rant cause I think it is time to stop patting ourselves on the back. I have been programming for 20 years and I want to remind folks that Apple ][+ came with a reference manual with the entirity of the intellectual property of Apples chip design, rom design, and listings for their OS, and basic. Open source isn't new. I used to type in programs from magazines. We aren't special. We are lucky to have seen in 30 years a transformation of computers into community builders, from corporate slaves.
Lucky... Not better or special...
Any sense of arrogance was there from the begining. It isn't new, and it isn't controllable.
I think he can ask people to call it whatever he wants. Most ./ers try to force the distinction between hacker and cracker. Why not Linux and GNU/Linux?
I agree - call it whatever you want. But I think RMS has every right to ASK people to call it GNU/Linux.
The thing that gets me is that he claims that this attack is only possible on open source operating systems!
I quote:
. . . "And, install the new build." . . . That is the tricky part.
This is not possible for a user (not root) to do. If an administrator (root) want's to do something like this, (s)he can do it, open source or not.
Am I missing something here?
WilyHacker
Caffeine underflow (brain dumped)
...is that the whole GNU project is, for all intents and purposes, his life's work. And he had most of the pieces, except for the one critical piece he needed. And then Linus comes along and wrecks the whole thing by supplying the missing piece.
"Wreck" might be too strong a word. Linus made the whole thing work, but in doing so wrecked RMS's plans for a complete FSF OS. Releasing the kernel under the GPL made things worse, in a sense: Had it been released under some other sort of license, there might be more of an excuse to reject it in favor of a GPL kernel, like Hurd. But since it was GPL, it made Hurd mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant. (Linus gives some pretty good arguments in his "Open Sources" chapter about why a microkernel-based system is likely to be inferior.)
RMS has a bit of a dilemma: The Linux kernel fufills the goal GNU, to create a free UNIX clone. But few people (Linus in particular) want to call it GNU/Linux. That seems unlikely to change, but RMS just won't let it go. I don't know if it's ego or just a desire to promote free software for it's own sake.
RMS does deserve respect for his and the FSF's accomplishments, and should continue to extole the virtues of free(d) software. But "GNU/Linux" is really a dead issue, and pursuing it is not going to be a productive use of time. Debian is GNU/Linux, and if that's what they want to call it, fine. I don't use Debian myself, though I respect what they do, but Linux is Linux, and that's not going to change.
On arrogance: Of course we're arrogant. And deservedly so. It's not our fault if people don't realize that yet. They'll learn eventually.
When the going gets tough
and the stomach acids flow
The cold wind of conformity
is nipping at your nose
When some trendy new atrocity
has brought you to your knees
Come with us, we'll sail the
Seas of Cheese... -- Primus
-- Blame any errors on your own stupidity. All wrongs reserved.
I don't think the issue is whether or not they have the right to call a particular Linux GNU/Linux. But, Linux is (and remains) the trademark for a POSIX-compliant kernel developed by one Linus Torvalds et. al., and until The_Man (tm) says otherwise, Linux will remain Linux in my opinion. If Stallman and company want to build their own Linux distribution, fine. They encouraged SPI to call Debian "Debian GNU/Linux", and if that is the Linux they so bless, so be it.
But, to insist that Linux as a whole be perpetually known as "GNU/Linux" is an insult to Linus Torvalds. He managed to do something in a matter of months that FSF has yet to do: and that is produce a functional operating system using their own tools, and they've been working on it since 1991.
It's a strange thing. Stallman/FSF releases all this fine code under a progressive license. Now they want to change the terms of the license, and insist that we now refer to our operating system as GNU/Linux. Sorry guys, it dosen't work that way. Nowhere in the copy of the GNU GPL does it state that I necessarily have to insert the word "GNU" in any program or trademark I create in conjunction with the licensing requirements. In many ways, this runs contrary to how many people view the GPL.
Let FSF put the countless hours of development into producing a real operating system that the Linux community has done. A compiler and tools are great: but they are no good without the operating system to run them on. Where's HURD? Huh guys? *shrug* Nine years later, and all we have to show for HURD is about where Linux was when Linus posted the first announcements regarding Linux to Usenet ("...Remember when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?...")
Mr. Stallman, welcome to the future you helped create. Thousands of programmers and hobbyists writing millions of lines of code, around an operating system that got it's start from a few of your tools and a desire to make things better than they were before. Linux is so much more than the GNU toolkit ever was. Granted, Linux may not have been much without your toolkit. However, it's so much more than that now, and to insist FSF/GNU get equal credit is unfair to the thousands of others who embraced the free software ideal that Linux was created with and gave you a platform to speak in the first place.
I just did a quick inventory of my Linux workstation, and an rpm -qa|sort|less revealed that around 15% of the packages installed on my system are of FSF origin. Surely originating 15% of the code does not give RMS the right to rename a project that's not even his! GNU/Linux indeed. RMS has HURD. Let him have his GNU/HURD. Without the work done by Linus, Alan Cox, David Miller, and scores of others, Stallman would have only ever been known (thus far) as the guy who heads up that project to write some free third party Unix utilities, and a compiler. Conversely so, Linus, et al, benefited greatly from Stallman's efforts. Does this mean that the Linux developers and distribution creators have any obligation to RMS to rename their materials/software/whatever? Nope. Take for example, WindowMaker, a window manager for the X Window System. WindowMaker is distributed under the GPL. Do we see RMS attempting to force the maintainers of that project to rename it to GNUWindowMaker, or somesuch? No.
Take for example, Richard's recent rant about why library developers should use the GPL rather than the LGPL. The gist of his argument was that linking against a GPL'd library caused the whole application to become a "derivative work" of the library, thus causing the application to be GPL'd as well. Rather, the LGPL, permits linking without necessarily GPL'ing the resulting program.
I'm very pro-Open Source, but RMS is hurting the cause by constantly acting out, causing the media to portray him as the "angry lone nut".
Would we be better off without RMS? Probably not. Could we do without RMS behaving like the "angry lone nut"? Yep.
The unsig!
FSF is NOT the originator of the GNU/Linux project!
Well, that's not entirely correct. They're the ones who came up with the NAME "GNU/Linux".
Linus Torvalds came up with Linux, with the help of a team of hackers who like the kernel. Period.
He found some free tools from FSF that could be made to run under the Linux kernel. Seeing as they were free for the taking and using, he did so.
Now the FSF crowd has seen that by letting people do whatever they wanted with their code, they lose control of their code, and it can get assimilated into bigger projects. Tough. That's what freedom's all about.
That's not to say the FSF didn't do a kickass job. They did, but the reasons they're complaining - wanting recognition for their work, etc. etc., are the very reasons why software companies choose to control their code, so that they have the ability to say "You can use it, IF..."
It's Freedom, Baby, Yeah!
You're right, FSF intended GNU to be a free Unix equivalent.
Unfortunately, FSF failed. GNU, the operating system, never came to be. Sad, but true, and the sooner FSF realizes it, the happier they'll be.
Now if Linus had said, "HEY, let me donate this to the FSF GNU project", that would be one thing. Then FSF would have a case that the "package" is GNU/Linux. Actually, they would have a case for saying that the package is "GNU"(period).
But that's not what Linus did.
Now, if FSF wants to release their own distribution, they can call it GNU/Linux if they want to. Heck they can call it "Rabid Penguins Eat Wild GNUs/Linux". In fact, they can take the Red Hat Linux distribution, change the name and rerelease it if they so desire.
Just as there is no logical reason to require Linux distributions to call themselves "GNU/Linux", there is nothing to stop FSF from taking an existing RH distribution, renaming it to their liking, and releasing it through their own channels. FSF could simply say "Hey, we like this Linux kernel!" and incorporate it into the GNU project, the same way the Linux developers took the tools FSF was developing for GNU and said "Hey, we like these unix-like tools!" and incorporated them into the Linux OS.
FREEDOM is what it is all about, as Stallman would say. There's no reason why the FREE software carries with it the burden of naming conventions. If the Linux community is forced to call itself the GNU/Linux community because it uses the GNU tools, then the tools weren't free in the first place.
Great to hear that FSF actually has Hurd "ready to go" as it were.
Doesn't mean that Linux has to give them space in their name.
This is my reply to Lewis's post on security issues.
r -software-engineering/OpenSource.html) you talk about the security risk on open source operating systems of someone changing the OS source code and then compiling a new kernel to give them as much access as they want.
Lewis A. Mettler,
You have once again gained quiet a bit of notoriety on Slashdot. And while the charge that Slashdotters are arrogant, might be true for many, I wish to take you to task for your original post on Open Source and security issues.
In your document (http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/le/lewismettle
However you gloss over a few issues and I will explain how they are BIG details you leave unmentioned.
1) You fail to mention that on these systems you must already have root ("top dog") access to the machine to edit the source code in the default installation configuration. And if you already have root access, there is not much need for you to recompile the kernel to do pretty much anything you want to do. I feel that this already gives Unix (or Unix like) operating systems more security than most PC operating system environments where there is very little any user sitting at the machine can't do.
Now I ask myself is there a way around this issue? Why yes you could build your own kernel on floppy disk (or burn it on a CD) and reboot the machine if you have physical access to it. Then you could effectively install your kernel on the machine. However this is not really any different from reboot the machine and reinstalling ANY operation system. Allow me to repeat a story told to me a few years ago by a friend of mine.
He was at a company party with a friend. During the middle of the party they went into their manager's office with an old MS-DOS floppy disk. They inserted the disk into their manager's PC and rebooted it. It booted off the floppy and into MS-DOS which most computer literate people know has no concept of security. They walked back out of the office with a spreadsheet containing the salaries for their division. What division might that have been, you may ask? My friend worked in the computer system security audit division of one of the US's largest Banks!!
Does having a proprietary closed source operating system give people a false sense of security? Based on the above story I would say that yes it does, even among those that should be very paranoid about security.
2) You fail to mention or perhaps are unaware of the fact that the security issue you describe has been taken very seriously. And that almost 10 years ago solutions to it for large networks of computers in a corporate setting or even worse, a university setting. Now you may say hold on a University is academia, that not the real world. But let me tell you when it comes to computer security academia is worse than the real world. Because in the university setting the administrators can be absolutely sure that some of the students will be VERY creative about trying to break into the computing systems.
Starting probably 10 or more years ago, CMU and MIT were looking into very much the same security issues you raise. Namely how to set up a large functioning network of computers when you can not trust the authenticity of the user or the OS running on machines on the network. The result of that research is AFS and Kerberos.
It has been more than 6 years since I have paid much attention to such security issues, but you and your readers could learn quiet a bit spending an afternoon surfing on these two topics. And they will allow a company to set up a network of computers with a reasonably high degree of security from the type of attacks you describe.
>I guess a lot of us picked it up in school, but arrogance seems to be part of the UNIX tradition.
Yes it is...I am one who does not think UNIX is all that great, and the minute I say that, 2.34E23 people start flaming me. UNIX has a very steep learning curve, and a lot of us dont have the time to learn it. I'm sure it has it's place just like (cough) NT does, but I personally think that it is not for the desktop......yet.
Dosn't it seem strange that this apple controversy follows strong on the heels of RMS (I think?) saying how we need to keep pushing the OSS thing into the media/suit world? Perhaps the whole apple controversy is just a way to get the OSS issues on the front page so that the newbies will get it pounded into them how critical these things are. Perhaps it was all contrived ahead of time by Eric, RMS and Steve in an effort to create positive press for everyone.
Intentional or not, I think it works!
-=Julian=-
Do me a favor and read a few operating systems books before you reply to a similar article again. Understand what the features of a kernel are and how it differs from the system a user sees. Then you will understand how your post is lacking.
:)
It's ok we were all this way at once.
Happy reading,
Jon
It is important that you understand his nature. It is that of a revolutionary, if you disparage his GNU, you disparage his purpose in life. People often confuse this for egoism but you must realize the sacrifices he has made for his beliefs, these alone demonstrate his dedication to this noble cause.
That is what GNU/Linux is about.
It's not really about what %age of a linux system is GNU. RMS wants people to know that software must be FREE, and to recognise that Linux systems are created only because of people writing Free software.
Well I don't know any of these people personally, and going by my using Emacs out the wazoo and linux out the wazoo I think they both deserve their respect. That being said, everything I've read about how Stallman's and Linus' personalities are, I think Stallman does seem like a pain in the butt, but you gotta love the guy. I think that's a stupid article in the first place. I think with anything you're going to get retards, shit the world's full of them. And if these people are taking their opinions from the slashdot posts then get a clue. I don't post much, not because I'm not a hardcore /.er, but because I've got other shit to do. I am very hardcore on /. I feel funny if I don't check back a couple time a day to see what's going on. Most of the postings by reader are stupid though (this included :-), and they're an oportunity for us to bitch, and nothing more. I also think that all these people downplaying Linux have never taken the time to install it and check it out, or never had much experience with Unix, or never went to college for a CS degree, or whatever, but they don't understand the underlying way Unix and its variants are written, and the planning that went into it. Windows doesn't seem very well thought out, and it has inherent flaws in design. Sure, for example, games may work better if the programmer can write directly to the video hardware, but it's also a zillion times more likely to crash the system, so that's a tradeoff MS shouldn't have made. flaws such as this and poor design are evident also in the way they splinter windows into 98/NT/soon to bee 64-bit since they can't port the 32 bit one...etc etc etc. When most people say windows sucks, linux is great, I think a lot of them don't really have the answer to why, and they should. If that's what was implied by this article then it's right, but I think that there are more people on Linux that do know what the fuck's up and aren't just blowing steam out of their asses...know what I mean Vern?
yeah man, we're a COMMUNITY. we bond together for things we believe in.
and I....Love you man!
Quoting from the "security hole" web page referred to in the talkback article:
>Anyone with access to the source code
>and access to your system can modify
>the OS (anyway they wish) and install
>it notwithstanding the "root" or rules
>that might be applied by your old
>legitimate version.
A fact of life about computer systems is that if someone with malicious intent has physical access to the machine at all when you're not looking, the system is not secure. There are extra precautions, like BIOS passwords, case locks, keyboard locks, measures to prevent access to single-user mode, etc... but you run the risk of being unable to access your own computer system if you forget passwords.
The only advantage that someone with the source code has is this: they can come up with their destructive ideas on their own, instead of getting a pr3-p4ck4g3d pr0gr4m from someone else.
- "Well?" "Deep Subject."
One of the compelling arguments is: because compilers bootstrap, it is possible to put a trojan horse in the binary that never goes away, even if the source is modified. Very interesting stuff.
Please don't blame ZDNet for what was said about Slashdot and Slashdotters. The comments about Slashdot came from one particular reader, who has a chip on his shoulder that is much too large to fit into a type 1 slot. I prefer to judge ZDNet articles on their own merits (or lack thereof) rather than on the Talkback; after all, Free Software advocates are free to post just as much FUD as anyone else.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
As somebody who reads ZDNet Commentaries on a fairly regular basis (whether I agree with them or not) I wouldn't worry too much about what Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. says. I see him as the ZDNet equivalent of the grumpy old men who write daily 10-page letters to the editor of the local newspaper, complaining about Those Darned Kids and describing how Things Were Better In Their Day. He posts long-widned responses to what seems like the vast majority of commentaries on Microsoft and Open Source. I rarely read his comments (or those of Robert "Boycott Crashware" Flash) because he seeems determined to say the same thing over and over again, every time he gets a chance. He seems to be carrying a grudge over a disagreement several months ago about the idea of "security through obscurity," which drew a few flames among the relatively civil debate. The idea of Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. having room to call anyone arrogant is amusing.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Just think of what would happen if you had such an egomaniac in charge of a software company that lived off closed proprietary code. Well, I suppose we don't have to imagine this since we have a shining example in the industry, but I'm not going to mention any names *cough* Microsoft *cough*
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The guy who posted the talkback article
mentioned in the story deserved all the abuse
he got, his opinions where pure FUD. How could
any system (open source or not) be secure without
preventing modification of the system programs
and kernel, open source makes it slightly easier
to produce bogus versions but not much. If my
university let me install my own version of
ntoskrnl.exe where all security functions have
been modified to always return true, they deserve to be hacked
In regards to being politically immature, I think they have a point. As a community we tend to be passionate about our cause, and highly value the truth. To be "politically mature" means to give up these qualities and become bullshit artists. I think I'll take this one as a compliment as well.
---
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both."
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
>When the Linux name is mentioned, a lot can be >assumed about the system, including GNU
:-)
Hmm... a lot can be assumed about the system if you're one of the people who KNOW a fair bit about the system. When I first started using Linux, I had no idea GNU even existed. I figured that the same entity created all the stuff I was using. I imagine the same would hold with people in the computer world who don't know much about Linux; they might not have any idea where GNU comes into play.
Some people have mentioned that it is silly saying GNU/Linux whenever it's mentioned. It's just Richard's way of going about things. From my experience with him, he's proved to be socially immature. The tactfulness may not be there. It's hard living in a social world.
M.
From what I see, Richard is asking for credit for the tremendous amount of work that many developers have put into the GNU project, often with little or no reward. All they ask for is recognition! Is this so hard to give?
/.'ers are arrogant, isn't that just the case of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, often those reviewers aren't worth a grain of salt.
:-)
Richard's job is writing GNU code, with proceeds from talking. He gave a presentation on the GNU project a short while at my school (University of Waterloo) and he did come across as a very driven man. Driven by GNU? Driven by his ideals? Driven by his war against proprietary software? Driven insane? I'll not make that judgement. But I respect his views.
Personally, I view the name "Linux" as a short form for GNU/Linux. It means GNU software running under a Linux kernel. The name "Linux" is also easy to throw around verbally. Short and quick.
As to the opinion that many people in the {Linux,FSF,etc} community,
I wouldn't say arrogant. I'd say looking for recognition. After all, who would want to get recognition for writing that Windows crap?
M.
There's a saying that someone who knows the best is usually the worst at teaching it. Why? Because they forget what it was like to learn it. To them it's second nature. What sounds like an obvious or stupid question to them is something new or profound to someone just starting out.
Yes there's arrogant, malicious posters on /., however I don't believe any more so than any other area that has a dedicated following (in regards to vocal antagonists). It may seem like a lot, but the Internet is where the majority of us are most comfortable (it's where we work, learn and play) so it's going to be where we're most vocal. Therefore it would seem there are more flaming displays by the Linux/OSS movement. I believe it's all relative. Hey, we're not taking out doctors at *cough* abortionist *cough* clinics with high-powered rifles.
There are a lot of irrelevant (flames, ramblings, off-topic) posts to /., so yes Newbies are probably turned away from this site believing that that's what /. is trying to foster (you guys aren't however, it just comes with the territory).
As for Lewis A. Mettler, I've read his piece on ZDNN and agree somewhat, but, after reading his prose off his site I can see why he got broiled. If I understand his point (I just skimmed through a bit of it), he's saying that if you *rebuild* the source code (the system) then you can do whatever you want including granting yourself SU status. Well hell yeah.
By rebuilding the OS you need su rights or you format the machine and reinstall (rebuild) it. Yes, you can. I can format a drive w/NT and give myself any privs I want. And if it's about su status, there are other issues instead of rebuilding here. There's a major flaw in his argument, and one he doesn't address: a system's security is only as good as the administrator who runs it.You can take any software, OS or otherwise, magnify a weakness of it and create any hypothetical reason you want to point out that it's a Bad Thing. And you're probably right, but only in that particular scenario (however implausable it may or may not be). But to take that conclusion, shoot up to 25,000 feet and make a broad generalization of the OS as a whole, based on that conclusion, is poor deduction.
His article is also populated by a lot of questions and assumes little knowledge on the end user of what Linux, source code and su status is. That, my friend, just won't fly with this crowd. It's going to come off as demeaning to /. readers. You need to know your audience, and he apparently didn't do his homework.
I read his stuff, and he really does appear to be clueless.
I sent him a message without really reading in depth what he was trying to say, to correct some of the horrible assumptions in his article (at his website, you can find it through the links).
However, when I read his article in more detail I realized that its probably futile to try to educate this man. He just doesn't have a firm understanding of system security.
Essentially, he says that opensource has security flaws because even though you can alter closed source binaries, its HARDER than open source.
Wow. Lets throw open source out the window, because it makes it easier to be malicious if you already have root access. Why does he think this is news?
Blah
A couple of things I forgot to mention in my original rant:
1. I am not a programmer, so having the source code does absolutely nothing for me. While I took programming courses in college, and I can hold my own READING code, I probably couldn't even write a "Hello World" in any language except BASIC anymore. (At one point, I could code in BASIC, Pascal, and FORTRAN. I've been meaning to learn C for awhile, but I'm too lazy) So if I download a piece of Linux software, and it doesn't compile on the first try, I give up on it. I don't know enough to dig through and find the error. And if I get more errors than on an equivalent Windows program, I'm not going to use it.
2. I do actually use Linux. I'm not just a Linux-bashing Microsoftie. My main computer may run Win98, but I have 2 other computers that both run Linux. An old 486, and a Mac Powerbook running MkLinux. I think it's great, but not for my main computer.
3. I hate Microsoft, the company. Unfortunately, the software I like to run is Windows software. As crappy as it is, MS Office runs lightning fast on my computer, and I like enough of the little features that I can't turn back now. After years of using all different programs, I hate Word Perfect. And KOffice isn't quite ready for prime-time yet, but it is getting there. Maybe after another year of development I'll start using KOffice and Linux as my main software, but not yet.
Basically, complain all you want, but for non-programmers, any *nix isn't quite ready for the desktop. Yes, if you write code for a living, it makes perfect sense, but for Joe User (me) being able to open the computer for the first time, hit the power button, and be ready to go is good. Your average user should never have to go through any manual process to recompile the kernel. It's been awhile since I've downloaded any recent Linux apps, so there may be ultra-user friendly configuration stuff out there, but from what I've seen, it's still too dificult for me to use to make my main computer run any *nix.
Again, just my 50 yen. (or is that .01 Euros?)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I, for one, use Windows 98 at home, and Windows 95 at work. At work I have no choice, but at home, I use W98 because for my uses it has what I want. It is, in my opinion, stable enough for non-critical work; it runs more software than Linux, most of which is of better quality, strictly because it has commercial support. I do graphics editing, and I feel that Gimp is just as good as Photoshop, but there isn't a single good Illustrator clone for Linux, so I use Windows.
And, with all the furvor over how integrated IE is in Win98, why is everyone complaining? I like having it integrated. I like the address bar next to my Start button, I like having the same look and feel for web browsing as I do for looking at local files, as I do for ftp sites, etc... Heck, even though it's obscenely huge, I even like the integration Office 2000 adds!
But, what do I get for this opinion? I get flamed and ignored! Yes, I think the spirit behind Linux and other Open Source products is great, but up to now, for my uses, there just isn't the software I need.
Yes, Linux has it's place, and for now, that is in the server room. Until there is a window manager that has the refinement of Windows/Macintosh/Be/OS2, and powerful, easy to use software that is more than just a web server, I will continue using non-Open Source software.
If Open Source boosters can claim to be so freedom oriented, why do you go to the opposite extreme of Bill Gates and feel that everyone should boycott Microsoft products (which happen to be perfectly good products for use on the desktop) just because they don't meet your standards?
</rant>
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The Linux movement isn't just about Linux. It's not just about open sources and free software. It's a major change in the way information is perceived, in a social and political (as well as technical, of course) sense.
Technology changes fast. But social issues take decades to change, and political movements can take hundreds of years. We can't seriously expect human culture to keep up with technology... but people like RMS can help speed things up, and make change less painful.
Information wants to be free! (but is the world ready to let go?)
Richard's and the FSF's contributions are worth acknowledging... but not in every breath I take.
Richard has a history of his own flavor of politically correct speech. See Confusing Words which You Might Want to Avoid ("because they imply an opinion that we hope you may not entirely agree with"): "Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as 'sharing information with your neighbor'" when discussing "piracy". After all, you wouldn't want to "imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them," would you? (*sigh*)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
He is an irritating git, but ts_eliot's summary is a nice FUD-buster. One thing that is difficult, though, is getting yer average user to think seriously about security w/out scaring the pants off them (whatever the OS)...
Isn't Linux just the kernel ? Doesn't an actual Linux box contain a lot of other programs. How many of these were created by Linus ? and how many were created by GNU ? Who is continually trying to write new software to address shortcomings in GNU/Linux ?
RMS may have an abrasive approach, but one fact is quite undeniable GNU can survive without Linux.
I fail to see the big deal with given GNU their due, plus it makes defining programs much easier - no more the kernel or the operating system crap
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
When a group inspires its members to attain a high sense of ownership in any sphere of activity, there is a risk of becoming arrogant, or of appearing to be arrogant.
But then, those who criticize and report on topics in which they do not themselves create often suffer from a more dangerous arrogance: that of being superior to others without yet having to prove their own skills in comparable fashion.
It is healthy to look at ourselves and recognize that we do become arrogant. It is not healthy to let the ravings of a few detached dilettantes convince us that our own views are somehow invalidated by our pride, or even our arrogance. Being arrogant is not evidence of being wrong.
--- Bill
...and then there is the risk of forgetting the slash when you want to end the italics....
sorry, all
--- Bill
It's a little hard not to be. People who are able to use linux or other unix systems can't help but hold themselves in higher esteem than the average Win98 user. We've learned a lot more, we can do a lot more, in theory. People who can code in something other than Visual Basic can consider that an achievement. It's a marketable skill, and not the simplest thing in the world to learn. Many of us put a lot of effort into figuring things out for ourselves.
When you've achieved something for yourself, it's almost a reflex to take a dim view of anyone who spends your time asking you things which you considered to be blindingly obvious. You'll find the same thing in almost any reasonably skilled field. Garage mechanics can be pretty arrogant too, in their own way.
The problem is that others see the situation differently. I don't want to call it GNU/Linux, it doesn't sound right. If the BSD/Linux people make an impact then I'll start calling it GNU/Linux, or something, to differentiate. As of now there is no reason to. Keeping the Kernel separate from other stuff is the main reason Linus has been able to keep control of it. I don't call my win98 partition Litestep/Windows, but I mention LS if anyone asks what shell I use; I don't call my system GNU/Linux, but I mention BASH when someone asks what shell I use.
The vast majority of people who write software to address shortcomings in Linux are not members of the FSF.
When the Linux name is mentioned, alot can be assumed about the system, including GNU. The same is not true when mentioning GNU. Just about every OS in existence can and commonly does use GNU utils.
Yeah, I read the post, and the response from Mr. Mettler. I even read his web site. We'll see if ZDNN posts my response, in which I completely debunked him, and in two paragraphs, no less! Sumary:
To make your own security holes, you need physical access (which is root access), or the ability to recompile the kernel (which is root access). So, if you've got root access, you can get root access!
I know this is vastly oversimplified, but it's essentially true.
Regardless of what you think, people will call it what they want. That is the nature of language. Stallman was (apparently) trying to control people, which is rude at best.
/g'nu/ or /nu/? And /lin-uks/ or /lIn-uks/?
And do you call it
I think RMS's and GNU's contributions are well-known in the hacker community. If Mr. Stallman were as easy-going as Mr. Torvalds, people would readily acknowledge him. Most people respond well to facts. But saying "You MUST acknowledge me! You MUST use my words!" encourages people to marginalize you. Mr. Stallman's own actions will cause the world at large to ignore his contributions.
The GPL places NO limitations on further distribution. Nothing in there says I can't distribute the code without crediting the author. In fact, if there were credits, I could change them all to my name and redistribute the software.
However, while the GPL would let me get away with it (and rightly so - free is free; there are no partial freedoms), the hacker community wouldn't. Anyone who became aware of my actions would shun me. I would gain no recognition from them - and who else cares about what was in the source code?
Does everyone realize that this very discussion proves that OSS works? Do you think for a second that any place full of suits would be able to carry on about this? Wow, people holding thier social mores and ideas up to a mirror, and asking if they like what they see - no matter whom they are. Cool. A pat on the back all around ;-|.
Disscussing one's arrogance tends to soften it a little. Saying "I'm good at what I do" is somewhat arrogant, but if you've got the experience and accomplishments to back it up, people don't mind. Saying "I'm BETTER at what I do" tends to alienate people.
As far as RMS is concerned, he does seem to be immature politically - he should drop the GNU/Linux crusade, especially around corporate types (like reporters whose job it is to sel papers/magazines/web site hits etc.) who can readily ( and perhaps willingly) take him out of context. If he, actually any one who's extoling the virtues of OSS, is going into a pit of vipers, he'd better have some fangs too.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
The article makes it sound like RMS was yelling "CALL IT GNU/LINUX OR DIE!" at anyone who called it Linux. I'm pretty sure he wan't that impolite, though I've never met him in person.
;-)
Anyway, GNU/Linux is technically correct, if only for the reason that a large group of us could take the code for the FreeBSD utils that aren't already GNU utils, do a TON of porting work, and have your very own BSD/Linux system, thanks to the freeness ofthe BSD license. At present, EVERY part of the basic Linux system is a GNU project, so GNU/Linux and Linux may as well be the same. I think RMS just wants credit where credit is due. Too bad it makes the name of the operating system harder to say
Besides, his response to the APSL shows he CAN be rational.
I would have to agree that Slashdot users can be arrogant (even though the article doesn't even mention Slashdot!). Too many times have I seen someone saying something pro-Microsoft, followed by a gazillion Linux fanatics saying that there's no way in hell that what that person said is true, because Micro$loth sucks and the almighty Free Software rulez!
Need I remind you that Slashdot is "News for Nerds", not "The Pro-Linux Anti-Micros~1 Capital of the World!"
BTW, I have no favorite OS anymore. Windows sucks because it crashes way too often and takes too much HD space. (GNU/)Linux sucks because only one company has freely (as in beer) available 3-D video drivers for it. The BSDs suck because that company doesn't make drivers for them. Solaris sucks because it's slow plus has the problems of (GNU/)Linux*10 and Windows combined, at least on my x86 machine. Other "research" OSes don't compile, so they suck. MacOS sucks because you can't get real deep into the hardware and a "bus error" resets the machine automatically (is this still true?) I wish we still had the diversity in computers we had in the eighties... thanks to Microsoft, any computer store need only have one computer on display because they all work the same. There is no consumer choice anymore.
OK, sorry, that was off topic, but I needed to get that out.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
And if you have the Linux kernel siting on a disk by itself -- what then? You have a box that spits out a few messages about what hardware is on the system and then just sits there, executing the idle process. Not much more useful than the GNU utilities by themselves.
To have a fully functional interactive system you need the kernel, plus some type of command interpreter, plus some commands to run. GNU software currently provides the latter two. You could also write your own or steal some from BSD, and there's no guarantee that the systems would be compatible at all. In fact, you don't _have_ to follow any UNIX format at all! Once the program being called init starts, anything can happen.
In fact, Solaris^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSunOS has 3 versions of certain tools! There is Sun's own version, an X/Open compliant version, and optionally a BSD compatible version, all of which act differently (grep takes totally different parameters depending on which you use!) The ones you use by default depends on whether
Also, by your logic, Mac OS X server should be called Mach because it uses the Mach kernel.
So I maintain that GNU/Linux is the `technically' correct term for the full system. However, there is no other alternative that also uses the Linux kernel, so the two are de facto equivalent.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Without an OS, GNU's software is useless. It doesn't matter if GNU is responsible for all of the utilities that are used under Linux, the fact is that without a core OS, all those GNU utilities can do is look pretty on their install medium. There's no system without the core.
Richard Stallman is wrong to refer to a Linux system as GNU/Linux. By his reasoning, my system at home would be a GNU/Linux/Netscape/Adobe/etc., or a MSWindows98/QualcommEudora/CompuServeIM/etc. system. I'm not going to repeat that every time I refer to the OS I run. I'm going to refer to the systems I run by the core OS. That would be Linux for my Linux partition, and Win98 for my Windows 98 parition. To refer to it Stallman-style, I'd need a binder to keep track of all the software I use - on each partition.
If you have a MS-DOS box and rip out all of the MS utilities and replace them with GNU utilities, do you have a GNU/DOS system? I think not. If you take out all of BSD's utilities and compile GNU equivalents, do you have a GNU/BSD system? No.
As Stallman points out at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
"By the early 90s we had put together the whole system aside from the kernel (and we were also working on a kernel, the GNU Hurd, which runs on top of Mach). Developing this kernel has been a lot harder than we expected, and we are still working on finishing it. "
As I said before, without a core OS, a kernel, you don't have a system. And from what is stated above, no matter what the weight by code, the kernel is apparently the hardest part of any system to complete and/or maintain.
I appreciate the work that the GNU project does. I don't appreciate being TOLD to refer to my system as a GNU system because I use their software in conjunction with Linux.
-- Perry Ketter, a.k.a. IceStorm
By reputation, it seems that RMS (and maybe much of the FSF) is as far removed from the capitalist, corporate world as you can get. On the other hand, the way RMS/FSF have been treated with the advent of the Linux kernel is pretty typical of how corporate drones (like me) get treated all the time.
I remember 1990 very well, hearing about how FSF had access to Mach, and this was going to give rise to the GNU Hurd. I was so excited! The potential features that were being discussed, combined with the PC hardware that was cheap even then... I didn't expect anything right away, but...
Weeks became months, months became one year, two years, year after year... I think I remember something about it being "released" sometime back, but to this day, I don't know one single person running GNU/Hurd, almost ten years later.
Now, suppose the Hurd project had been run in a corporate setting. You're damned right they'd get dinged for slipping like that! Are there good technical arguments behind their decisions? I'm sure there are. Are the FSF folks good coders? Hell yes! So has their treatment been entirely fair? Probably not; I'd say they deserve more recognition than they get. But they do have my respect, and the respect of a large chunk of the more technical among us.
However, why is RMS clamoring about how unfair it is for Linus to get all this attention, and forcing (as much as it's possible to force someone) to say GNU/Linux instead of just Linux? These things really do get annoying. People sometimes behave this way in the corporate world, too. It's annoying in both places.
This, of course, is what's driving things like the 100% FSF-free Linux system. I'm not "mad enough at RMS and company" to participate in it, but I do see where they're coming from.
Do things like "100% FSF-free Linux" happen in the corporate world? Probably, in the form of political battles between big VPs who don't get along.
I appreciate the work that the GNU project does. I don't appreciate being TOLD to refer to my system as a GNU system because I use their software in conjunction with Linux.
Yes. This is what really annoys me about the whole thing.
And I'm sure someone will say "without a C compiler there'd be no kernel", and this is true. But what about C? I don't hear Dennis Ritchie whining about how he gets no respect. He does get respect, but so does RMS. And I haven't heard Dennis insisting that we call it C/GNU/Linux (thank heaven).
Come on, RMS! We like you, but quit your whining.
And if you have the Linux kernel siting on a disk by itself -- what then? You have a box that spits out a few messages about what hardware is on the system and then just sits there, executing the idle process. Not much more useful than the GNU utilities by themselves.
So what? Without semiconductors, you can't have much of anything either. Should semiconductors be included in the GNU/Linux name, too? I don't think so, and I don't think you do, either.
I personally give a lot of credit to the GNU tools, and I'll bet that most other people do too. The problem is that this whole "I'm gonna hold my breath until you call it GNU/Linux" thing comes off as so much whining. People call it "Linux" -- get over it.
And I don't understand your third to the last paragraph (about Solaris being called BSD/XOpen/Sun/SysVR4 would be absurd), where you seem to be arguing against yourself.
The point is that people already refer to a system with a Linux kernel as just "Linux". Insisting on a different name is just whining at this point; if Hurd hadn't been so delayed, RMS and company might have had more control over what we call things. But Hurd slipped, Linux happened, and life goes on.
So all this "GNU/Linux" is "technically correct" is hogwash. A name is just a name. And this way of thinking is what's fueling the whole 100%-GNU-free Linux system. At first I thought it was a mildly amusing waste of resources, but now I'm starting to side with the daemon penguin people.
I've heard that Apple was upset when people started pronouncing SCSI as "scuzzy". Boo hoo. No person I knew ever used the term in a pejorative way, so Apple was just whining about nothing.
on Mr.Mettler. A huge threat(search for Author: lmettler@lamlaw.com, subject: Mettler and Open Source Security ), were REALLY (imho) competent people from comp.security.unix try to explain to him why they think he is wrong (watch out esp. for a kind of dialog between bruce barnett and him, this threat is long). He really doesn't get it. He would be able to get a stone mad at him.
I prefer Windows when I am:
However, I do much of my work for my online college credits in X, and my papers in X/WordPerfect, which (unlike any rumored Office port would be) is completely file-compatible with the other versions.
I sit back, not expecting any flames. Almost everyone here knows this: Use the right tool for the right job.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
the tone of the comments about "arrogant" sound as if that is a Bad Thing.
i have always relished the company of the arrogant. unless of course, they didn't have the genius to back it up. what i *like* is being around folks Smarter Than Me, and those folks generally have good reason to be arrogant. my first Masters was in Math and mathematicians are a naturally arrogant bunch.
conversely, i've been in the presence of bankers. and that combination of arrogance and STUPIDITY does make for comic relief in small doses. i make a practise of staying out of debt simply to keep my exposure to stupidity+arrogance to a minimum.
the reason people complain about integrating ie 4 is because it's a hog. windows 98 would be faster and more stable (well, as fast and as stable as windoze gets...) if it didn't have that piece tacked to it. why do they do it? well, one reason is to stifle any competition in the marketplace (it's amazing how in this day and age this monopoly has lasted so long...bill gates is no different from the robber barons from the turn of the century). why do they keep producing bloatware? cause it sells. it sells more computers. got to keep the masses buying a new computer every year and a half so they pay their microsoft tax.
you know what i like about linux? when it comes down to it, it's just a kernel. most things that i don't want, i can do away with. you can still have a perfectly useable system on an old 486. you're not stuck upgrading every two years. that is the beauty of linux. anything that doesn't allow me to remove pieces i don't use blows. claming it's part of the os is even worse. screw microsloth! that's my opinion. does that make me arrogant? hell no. i have only have to have what i use. i can throw out the rest. hell yeah! live free or die.
joe
--
"Anyone who thinks we overstepped the playground perimeter of lyrical decency (or that the public has any right to demand "social responsiblity" out of a goddamed punk band) is a pure natural dolt, and should step forward and put his tongue up my ass. -- steve albini
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Warning: This is probably going to be a bit long-winded. This is because I have a number of related things that I want to say, and they are all sort-of jumbled up. So.
.sig file and how to set the Reply-To adress. I read it, and turned to my mother, who couldn't for the life of her understand what she had done to provoke this guy's ire. She was wondering why he was being so condescending and, yes, arrogant.
:-)
:-)
Yes. Hackers are arrogant.
Why? They just are. It's the so-called Nature of the Beast. Asking whether or not a hacker is arrogant is akin to asking whether or not a fish can swim.
And the arrogant hacker, as with the swimming fish, has been brought about by necessity.
There are two main contributions to this arrogance. The first is the much-vaunted "gift culture" that is so predominant. In the absence of "real" money, reputation counts as currency. How many times reading a day's worth of Slashdot, do you come across the phrase "show me the code!"? This phrase is somewhat of a double entendre (excuse me for iterating through obvious concepts; I'm just trying to be thorough). The first meaning refers, obviously, to the notion of code/source being open to the community. The second, and more relevant meaning is that a person's reputation is built almost entirely on what they have done. This point is important; I will return to it later.
If a person has not written code, they have zero reputation. For this reason are people such as Linus, Alan Cox, RMS and so on so highly respected. They have contributed a lot of very useful code to the community. For the same reason are people such as ESR, Tim O'Reilly and so on -- people who have coded, but are known more for other things -- somewhat less respected. Are they respected? Yes, but less so, especially in the Linux/Slashdot/Open Source community.
This reputation is treated as currency; if there is no respect for your code, you are no-one. Alternatively, if your code is respected, people listen to you and will do things for you.
I have been derided on Slashdot for the fact that I am a "VB Code Monkey." This is not considered coding. I have no problem with that; agree with it for the most part.
Now, this contributes to arrogance. When you have coded something, you are respected (and rightly so) for it. You become arrogant. This is RMS to a tee.
I mentioned two contributions. The other is the constant tug-of-war that the hacker must play with their code. Hackers tend to be introverted -- we spend most of our time playing with code. Code that can become annoyingly frustrating at times, yet code which is our bread-and-butter, our oxygen even.
Always forefront in the hacker's mind is the realization that if their code doesn't work, there is one thing at fault: the person who wrote it. That's the great thing about computers -- if your program ain't working, you got no-one to blame but yourself. But it's this same relationship between the hacker and their code that brings out the dominant traits of the hacker. How many times have you stared at a piece of code that would not work and wished that you could rip it off the screen and give it a good smack?
Ok, I'm being a bit melodramatic -- or am I? Perhaps not in such a corporeal manner, but there have been many times when I have wanted to force the program to to what I wanted, not what I said. When I have sat, cursing, at the code. When I have all but ripped the monitor from my desk and heaved it out the window.
And yes, I am displaying arrogance toward my program.
And before you deride me for being silly and childish, actually think about the relation between you and your code. You are constantly forcing the code to your will. You are constantly making it do what you want it to. And is this not arrogance?
If not, I don't know what is.
Because the hacker is always in a dominant position over his/her code, that tends to translate to their dealings with other people. Because they have a similar relationship with other hackers (who are the people they tend to deal with), where one person always has a bigger reputation than the other, based on the code they have written, this permits them to display arrogance towards the other. Thus the behaviour pattern is further entrenched.
Ok. As I said, I'm being pedantic, and probably have said nothing that isn't common knowledge. Hackers are arrogant. Out of necessity. And it's a good thing. If we weren't, we would be far less efficient at what we did. Namely, write good code.
Unfortunately, the combination of this arrogance with the fact that non-coders are not afforded respect means that few "outsiders" are allowed entry into the ranks. Oh, sure, they are allowed to come in, but they are quickly turned off and leave.
This I'm not so sure is a good thing.
My mother uses computers; she is a chemistry college teacher, and certainly intelligent in her own right. However, she is by no means a hacker. She sent an email recently to a colleague, which got misdirected to the sysadmin at that college. Because she is not a "hacker," or even an "uberuser," she didn't know about the Reply-To line, or using a signature. So she just included within the text of the eMail where the person could reply to.
The sysadmin replied, informing my mother that the eMail was mis-addressed. When I next spoke to her, she showed me his (the sysadmin's) eMail, and I read it. He had also pointed out that it wasn't necessary to include the return address in the eMail text, and included instructions on how to set up a
Stunned, I re-read the email. There was no condescension, anger or arrogance that I could see. It was just a letter, rather polite, I thought, explaining to her how to set up her preferences and stuff. Until I looked at it through her eyes -- those of a non power-user, who has no interest in computers beyond them being a tool to write her exams in Word, make her marking tables in Excel and send off email to her colleagues in Pine. All of a sudden, this email was written by some holier-than-thou guy who was demanding that she make a whole bunch of changes to some obscure file because he didn't want to see a return address embedded in the text, where he wasn't expecting it.
Now I re-iterate that I found it to be completely innocuous. It was not until I looked at it as someone who made minimal usage of computers that I saw this.
And I realized that this attitude was very pervasive in the hacker community. I wouldn't normally give it a second thought. Hell, I wouldn't even notice it for the most part. Because, as I showed above, it is not only natural, but necessary. It is a fact of life. The nature of the beast.
Imagine now that you are a regular user... a luser. Perhaps a reporter covering a Linux Expo event. Maybe even a chemistry teacher. Someone who uses computers minimally. Someone who definitely does not code. Someone who doesn't necessarily even want to know more about computers, because it is not relevant to you. Someone deserving the contempt of any hacker. Someone who... whoops! I think we see the problem.
Now we are at a dilemma. The hacker needs to be arrogant. But at the same time, the hacker's arrogance turns off other people. How do we solve this problem?
Before I continue, I recognize that there are many people who do not necessarily consider this a problem to be solved. That is your prerogative.
I argue, however, that it is. The reason why is the old world-domination thing. We can't get more users if we keep scaring them off. We can't have world domination if we don't get any new users. And I believe that world domination is necessary. At least a little bit. Does Linux need to be a Microsoft-killer? No. But it must reach "critical mass". I'll explain that in a second. I think that we are almost there. But not quite. We are approaching it, though, and it is a heady time. Linux are getting "official" recognition from Oracle, IBM, Dell, Corel, you name it. Linux is maturing. But it's also a dangerous time. If we turn people off now, we may not get this chance again. I remember OS/2 being in the same position about 5 years ago. I was strongly involved in the OS/2 community at that time. And one of the common complaints was that people involved with TeamOS/2 were needlessly arrogant toward outsiders. Exactly the same complaint as is being levelled at the Open Source community today. OS/2 almost reached critical mass, but blew it. I think Linux has a good chance, and don't want to see the same thing happen.
And I define critical mass is that point where it is self-supporting. Yes, the fact that Linux is open source is a tremendous advantage over OS/2, and all the proprietary OS'es that have either succeeded or failed up until now. But don't fool yourself into thinking that it is self-supporting. All the open source in the world won't build drivers for closed hardware interfaces. All the open source in the world won't build support for new types of hardware. Once the user base reaches a certain size, that in itself will be enough incentive for companies to either write drivers, or release the specs. That's the critical mass.
But it's not quite there yet.
It needs just a little bit of a push... if we don't stop that push before it even starts.
So what do we do? We are arrogant, because it's needed for what we do. We do what the "standard" software companies do. We get a spokesperson. Or spokespeople. It would be a bit hard to swallow, I'll wager, because such a person would not be a hacker. Such a person would not write code. Such a person would never truly "understand." Such a person would be very similar to Jon Katz, and we know what controversy he creates around here.
But he is precisely the sort of person we need. Someone who can talk to "the public" in terms that they can understand. Someone who doesn't talk code. Someone who doesn't necessarily get it all right, because there are a lot of people out there who simply don't care.
Your average user has absolutely no use for detailed knowledge of programming, or even computers in general, any more than a hacker has use for detailed knowledge of open-heart surgery. It just isn't applicable. But yet we will jump to condemn these people for not wanting to learn. Well, surprise! Some people don't want to. Does this make us better than them? Perhaps. But it's probably not a good idea to let on. Unfortunately, the hacker's natural arrogance tends to reveal these true feelings. We don't have to hide our feelings from the computer, therefore we aren't used to hiding them from people.
Which is why a hacker should not be representing hackers to the "rest of the world". Unfortunately, RMS is a hacker. He insists that other people follow his instructions, just as he insists that the computer follow his code. And he is possibly one of the worst representatives we could have.
A plea, then, for sane representation
Or someone who can talk to the non-hackers in a way that won't threaten them. Yup, he (or she) will get a few things wrong. Sure, he won't totally understand. And he/she may even say a few things that a hacker would consider utterly moronic.
But better that than appealing to the hacker, and driving everyone else away.
-----
Well. I applaud you for getting this far, because I know my style can be rather pedantic. I also haven't been able to say quite what I wanted to say, but I think it's close enough. You're going to have to do a bit of interpretation there on some of the points I've made. Basically, if what I said sounded really strange, or a bit loony, it probably came out wrong
Anyway, I'm just trying to give people something to think about.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
If anything, it should be considered a shallow learning curve -- for a given time period (delta- x ), the gain in proficiency will be minimal (a small delta- y ). Represented thusly (note: you may have to widen your browser to see the whole graph properly):
In reality, however, even this is somewhat misrepresentative. That's not the way people tend to learn any given product.
A "real-world" learning curve would actually have two focii, splitting the curve into 3 sections:
To wit:
Obviously, in this latter case, it is of little relevance to say whether or not the curve is "steep" unless you also mention what part of the curve you are referring to.
It is not alway correct to apply a generalization (the curve for such-and-such a product is steeper/shallower) to the curve as a whole. In the case of Linux vs Windows '9[58], for example, I belive that the initial part is much, much, much shallower (ie: harder to learn) for Linux, whereas once you get far enough along the curve, the second part becomes steeper (ie: easier to learn). Also, any comparaison is totally non-applicable to the third part, which is rather short and comes early in the case of Windows, but is much longer and comes much later for Linux.
Just my $0.02 worth (or by this point $2.00...?)
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
AFAIK, the only things that couldn't be easily done away with are the compilers. I've already written a proof-of-concept mini-libc (which has unfortunately disappeared over the course of time). Be it known, too, that the BSDs have perfectly reasonable libcs, rivalling even the vaunted *wretch* GNU libc.
;)
If there was a different source of compilers that were at least reasonable, I'd use them to port the OpenBSD userland over to Linsux. That'd yank RMS' chain.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
You can safely ignore him.
He passes the crackpot test:
;-) himself has discussed inserting self replicating exploits in COMPILERS.
1) He claims expert knowledge in something he has only passing experience in.
2) He covers ground others have already discussed at length. FYI experts this time: no less than Ritchie (or maybe it was Kernighan - I can't find the url now
3) He does not respond to criticism directly (i.e. point by point), only regurgitates what he has said before over and over again.
AND! MOST IMPORTANTLY (this is always a dead givaway)
4) He uses a full name, followed by a silly status designator to show he is an expert and/or really smart.
In any case, am I being arrogant if I tell you his concerns securing open source pale in comparison to the damage one can do with a closed, trojan binary?
Trust me, we've been THROUGH this damn discussion before, ad nauseum.
First off, I did not label him a-priori. As many others have already said, he has popped up before.
Yes, slashdotters are prone to flameage. When a flamee says things that cause flames, sometimes they are undeserved. Sometimes, however, they are not. In this particular case, many of the original flames were totally uncalled for, but only because the flamee wasn't particularly clueful. This doesn't mean that his points had any validity. Lets be perfectly clear on this point. They didn't make sense then, and they don't now. In any event, allow me to move on.
Obviously, many people use their full names. Many people use potpourri and have squeegees in their showers and happen to like quiche. Single bits of circumstantial evidence mean nothing. But, when put all together, many things are painfully obvious, and circumstantial evidence can provide the nail in the coffin.
Say somebody drones on and on and on about a subject, and when at first glance the material looks ok, but on closer inspection, almost anybody reading it will call bullshit on it. Many times the author, in order to appear as though he knows what he's talking about, will put stuff like PhD, and Esq, etc. etc. behind his name, just to show his blathering is coming from an educated person.
Crackpots in particular do this a lot. And I don't mean just online either. If any of you have ever written a paper to any scientific rag, you know that inevitably you get a ton of crap from crackpots, most of which appear to have enough PhDs and Esqs et all to form their own MENSA. But when you read their papers, you quickly realize that despite their apparent PhD in physics, TIME DOES NOT HAVE INERTIA.
My rambling is done. I shall make up a few degrees to lend my posting some credence. If you flame me, remember, I didn't deserve it because you are all arrogant.
Sir Nyet J.Q. Smith III Esq. DDS. PhD. MD.
The advantage of Open Source Software is:
If there is a security hole and it's so important to you then you can check the source, your compiler and the operating system. Because you have the source code for these components you are therefore able to verify the existance of any backdoor, security hole and so on.
Conversely, the disadvantage of closed development projects is:
Only those who have access to the source have the remotest chance of discovering (and creating) the backdoors, security holes etc without first needing the experience of running and cracking the system. In a closed development project this group of people would normally be the developers involved in the project - and we all know how, sometimes it's very easy to not be able to see the wood for the trees.
Headstrong/Immature etc...
Say what you want for yourselves - I cannot speak for anyone else - but I haven't been called immature. I am headstrong: I do have a firm belief - I am not fanatical about it, however.
To make the generalisation such as "The Linux Community" is becoming more and more dangerous by the day. You are no longer addressesing a small group of loud "spotty students" (forgive me - if you happen to be a spotty student), but you are addressing a corporate market consisting of IT managers, System Integrators, Internet Service Providers, Regular Home users with Intermediate experience of computers and, of course, "the spotty students" who actually started the whole movement in the first place.
I object to being pigeon-holed into somebodies stereotype simply because I am an advocate of open-source, use Linux and regularly read and sometimes post on Slashdot.
This was a great reply - well done.
You, however, used the word "hacked" where in actual fact I think the context deserved "cracked".
If we really want to re-educate the common world on the differences between "hacking" and "cracking" we have to lead by example.
Otherwise, a great reply.
Attacks on the "political maturity" of the participants in these debates are a nauseating type of intellectual censorship. It reminds me of Lenin's comments on the "infantilism" of those that disagreed with him. Any opinion piece of this sort that ignores why Stallman insists on the name (in order to highlight the "Free" contribution of the GNU project in contrast to the "Open" contributions) and argues instead about the personal qualities of those involved is attempting to sidestep the main issues and turn it into a WWF version of debate. Boo!!! he's bad and immature!
is to be sophmoric about someones concerns and questions. To label them a crackpot a-priori without trying to help them.
/dev/null.
/.ers arrogant? Some are. Are the prone to flamage? Put another way, why is Rob implementing 400 moderators? Yes, there is an unfortunate propensity to go thermonuclear. Can this be helped? I hope so, otherwise a big chunk of potential users are going to be alienated by those who aren't able to figure out that flames burn the image of Linux as much as they do the person they are aimed at.
Patience is the best way to win people over. If you cannot be patient, disengage and shoot your flamage out to
There is nothing wrong with using one's full name, and aside from that if he happened to be proud of the fact that he busted his butt for years after college in order to add a few letters, then the least that should be done is to accord the fellow some respect. Some of us have worked very hard for those few extra letters and we have every right to be proud of them.
He may have made factual errors and drawn incorrect conclusions (I even sent off a nice letter explaining what they were). That is no reason whatsoever to go off the deep end.
The funny thing is that this message is a reply to a message posted by "nyet" which read exactly the way this lawyer fellow complains he got treated here. This is sad folks.
Are
Joe
I read throough many of the posts here and I agree with the general consenus that this guy doesn't seem to have it all together. But like it or not, he makes some valid points about the maturity and mentality of some of the people in the Linux/Open Source movement. Arrogance is only a symptom of a greater danger lurking under the surface.
Linux and the Open Source were started and improved on by some good people, spurned on by idealism to create a technically superior, legally "free" software movement (RMS, Linus etc). As it became more popular, it began attracting some who seemed to NEED to belong to some kind of movement. Linux and Open Source became more than an OS or a way to write software, for these people it became a way of life, a way justify their existance and exert their personality in a world where they may have otherwise been marginalised.
Suddenly Linux is a fervor, almost to religious proportions. They feel powerful because they know something or can do something most other people can't. Instead of getting some gratification in helping others to learn, they use their knowledge to belittle these people, calling them "clueless" or "idiots" or any other of the names we've all seen on SlashDot do describe users, particularly Windows users (and programmers I might add). I suppose this makes them feel superior and somehow better people than these users because they are 'in the know' with the sacred Linux...and if you happen to disagree, or be foolish enough type an opinion other than what is accepted by these self-proclaimed "hackers", look out! The flames fly! Your intelligence is questioned, your "real" motives scrutinized in twisted, strange, paranoid ways ("Your a Microsoft Lackey! You must work for RedHat! Is it strange that ZDNet would print this today.. Your nothing but a suit!!").
And of course lets not leave out the Great Satan, Uncle Bill and Microsoft. Everything is an MS plot, MS and Bill are the cause of all things wrong with the software industry, they are the focus of evil in the corporate world. Part of the existance of the community is in response to MS'(and others, I might add) business practices and monoplistic policies. These Linux zealots, however, take this to extremes, painting anything assciated with MS or the way they do business with the same brush of evil. They close their minds to the possiblity that SOME MS products and Windows programs in general may actually be good quality software. Some of it is even GPLed (not by MS of course, but there are GPL windows programs out there). By the same extension anything that is Linux/GNU/GPLed is good, whether its actually a quality or useful program or not. Very closed minded.
Suddenly, the vast majority of people in the community, who only want the technical challenge and satisfaction of creating a viable alternative OS and way of creating software, are drowned out by the belowing of the zealots. They wave the 'Little Red Book' of Linux and sing the 'Horst Wessel Song' of Open Source, a be damned to anyone who doesn't agree or gets in their way.
I don't mean to sound preachy, but I'm genuinely worried. Linux and Open Source should become a strong viable alternative to Windows (or any other OS/Licence scheme) on both servers and the desktop. If that's what we want, scaring off users AND programmers (through contempt intimidation and arrogance) who could contribute to the technical growth of the community, is not the way to do it.
The bigger danger is that all of us are starting to act like the Zealots...I admit (as some of you who have read some of my posts will agreee) to doing some of the same nasty things I'm talking about. We all have done it every now and again. It's getting hard to figure out who ISN'T a zealot here.
Yes, we should have a completely free exchange of ideas but lets not forget about having an open mind about opinions. Debate the facts not defame the poster.
Remember, Linux is just an OS (and not the only OS).
Open Source is just a way of creating and licencing software (but not the only way).
Listen to what people are saying and debate those facts, not who is doing the saying.
Just because your a flake doesn't nescesarily mean what your saying is wrong.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
slander suit?
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
On the bright side, he no longer has as much grounds for complaining that Slashdot has ignored him. Next time anyone encounters his arguments, we can say, "yes, I read about it on slashdot, looked it up, it was nonsense." And for maximum effect, we can even say why it's nonsense. Won't help him any, but it'll at least make him look like the whiner he is to anyone else who's reading.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I think that the whole name issue has become a rather moot point. I also beleive that RMS is not exactly lost in mind about it. Whether or not there is a shift in the name as the majority of us call it, he's already driven the point home and is probably most obviously aware of just how much attention the whole issue has brought to light. He's already won his "Holy War" if you want to call it that.
Even if you choose to only call the OS 'Linux', and were not aware of GNU's contribution (I personally can't see one not being so), chances are pretty fair that you do now.
Anyone outside of the community will most likely know now as well. Or at least know of it's existence. Thus with any luck, those might be fortunate enough to actually grasp what GNU and or FSF actually stands for. We all already know that GNU does not stand for RMS. =)
Whether Richard Stallman is a raving egotistical madman or is someone of great endurance and virtue remains upon which side of the fence the judge has spent the majority of their life.
Not that I matter, but my view on it seems to lend itself quite easily to the idea that what RMS is trying to "pull off", is something more along the lines of educating the uneducated.
Unfortunately it seems that at least 'some' the vocal parts of our community that _are_ "educated" are taking his 'preachings' as something that is directed at them. In a way it is becuase of word of mouth. But as a whole, I'm pretty sure that the established community already knows the virtues of free software. With people flocking to Linux, open source et al, I would think it would be in our best interest for people to actually get in and 'drive' rather than just kick the tires.
It's not like we're being told how to tie our shoes all over again. Or how we prefer to tie them. The main point is that we know and can.
The whole name issue is also a matter of your own view as to what an OS actually is. Is it a kernel or is it what sits on top? I say it's both. But I remind you all that if I take away my interface to the OS, ie. my monitor for one example, the OS still exists, but my ability to use it has been lost/diminished. Obviously an interface to the OS is extremely important. But not so important that I cannot say that it is a variable part of my computer system. Surely I can replace my NEC monitor and use a compatable Acer instead. Maybe the picture quality is reduced by such a switch, but no less usable.
In abstraction, I view the kernel in the same fashion. Without it, there is no 'speak' to the hardware. You all already know this. I would also hardly call NT, Linux if somehow you replaced the NT kernel with the Linux kernel. It wouldn't even be a Unix or Unixish system even still. You would have to add what's 'on top' along side of the rest of NT to do it. Even then, NT is still not Unixish. The other half would be. IE. Interix as an example, is pretty much a Unixish system yet runs on top of the NT kernel along side the whole NT system. Interix is not NT, yet uses the NT kernel. It is also being reviewed as yet another possible Unix in it's own rite. (Yikes. Unix running on an NT kernel which runs on top of a microkernel. It's been around for a while. Anyone use it? Just curious)
The Kernel is an interface to the hardware. It's a very important piece to the OS as a whole. We all know that already. We also should know that if we ever chose to replace the kernel (heaven forbid) the UI and command line will probably look and feel just the way you are used to it looking and feeling. This is a rather simplistic argument but it can be understood. Of course you would feel uncomfortable about calling it Linux, but really now, if system performance were somewhat on par with the norm, would you be able to tell the difference? I mean aside from coding for it. =)
Maybe this is the issue here. I don't code. I'm limited to scripting languages. Perhaps since the community is largely coding based or even brought up from a coding base, the term Linux would be more fitting. As that is probably what is important to the programmers. At least someone who codes would be more intimate with the kernel than say someone like myself.
The chicken or the egg? I admire what RMS has accomplished and as well as what he is currently trying to do regarding this particular issue. But I don't see a compromise short of calling the OS something completely different. And I can't see that happening either. So for me as well as many others regardless of thier reasons, Linux on it's own will have to suffice.
If one MUST conform to any particular name, then I say don't bite the hand that feeds you. I still admire RMS and what it is that he preaches as I've come to know many of you do as well, but I'd say that the rest of the tribe that have done thier part have fed me the most. Regardless of the portions served by any one entity in itself. I'm not one for popular opinion or following the masses. But this time I see it fairly reasonable to do so.
Calling Linux, GNU/Linux would most definitely help the free software movement. But would it also hurt it it were not called GNU/Linux?
I'm not entirely sure. But I don't think that it would.
The community itself does a pretty darn good job of advocating free software and the likes on it's own it seems. Flames and all. =)
- Jase
It's called Linux. He gets his credit for each product in the distro that has "GNU" in it. It's unfair label all the parts of "Linux" as GNU as several major components are not GNU.
The term "Linux" is overloaded. It means both the system and the kernel. If there were a different name say "Wizbang", would RMS insist that it be GNU/Wizbang?
matt
when I first went to install Linux on a second computer, it dawned on me... I don't have to enter a unique CD code to make it work
I was already pretty philosophically jazzed about using linux when I finally got around to installing it - I wouldn't have been nearly as excited about unix, and even if I had the cash may not have bothered. But here was something that had been created in the spirit of the scientific process, and was being distributed with that same openness. After the grudgingly given permission to use an OS we aren't allowed to even think about, it was a grand liberation.
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
Go read it now if you never have. <Pournelle>Recommended</Pournelle>.
Don't bother. His arguments were well-refuted in *several* InfoWorld forums several months back. His primary argument was that, if you run a business, you can't trust anyone who works for you, not even the person who has root on your system, and so if they have the source to the OS, they can rip you off. And he completely ignored the counter-arguments that the same can be done with less work on closed-source systems. Rather than addressing the multitude of rational counter-arguments, he simply re-asserted his argument (only grudgingly and in bits and pieces revealing the complete argument) over and over and over and over.... And of course, as people got fed up with his methods, he began to get seriously flamed. So he seized upon the flames as justification that open-source advocates didn't care about security and ignored the objections and has moved on to ZDNet, where I suppose he thinks that his Esq. will be taken more seriously.
Any article where, RMS, Opensource, Linux, BSD, Linus or any of the other visionaries receive negative comments, any article where GNOME or KDE is reviewed (either favorably or unfavorably), any article about QT or GTK+ (especially if they mention looks or licenses) any articles about MS's practices, any article about religion, any article about politics or politicians and what they've invented, and any article about censorship (especially if a politician, political group, or religious group is implicated by the article or the commentors)
It's just tempting to be able to reply to articles like this and I know I've got nothing remotely productive to say.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
Okay, as far as I can tell, this guy posted some theories about security loopholes peculiar to opensource systems. He was flamed, and was put off by, in his eyes, the arrogance and short-sightedness of free software advocates. In his opinion, his security ideas were not given fair examination.
So I read his article. I found the prose a little clumsy, but as best I can tell his argument is as follows:
1) Having the source code allows you to alter software in very subtle ways, and recompile it
2) Installing this new software could be so subtle as to remain undetected by any administrators
At least I think that's his argument. My challenges to this theory would be: How is J. Random User able to reinstall altered software? Why would open source code pose such a security loophole, since machine code (being a programming language) can be reprogrammed by savvy coders just as easily (or easier!) than source code could?
If the author is reading this, I would recommend him to www.counterpane.com to Bruce Schneier's writings. Schneier, as far as I know, does not give a rat's ass about RMS's vision of a world free of proprietary software. But Schneier is fanatical about security systems and cryptographic protocols undergoing peer review, and the need to avoid "security by obscurity." Machine code can be reprogrammed. Machine code is a programming language. Just because code isn't easy to change doesn't mean it *can't* be changed.
I may well have misunderstood his arguments; if so, I apologize. It sounded like this dude is unused to getting flamed. (Who doesn't get mad at being flamed?) But that shit happens all the time in a public forum, and it happens to absolutely everyone who posts.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Being a part of the Linux movement is kind of like belonging to a club. Each member has his own ideas who should be accepted into it. There is A LOT of arrogance associated with it, just like any fraternity or sorority. I was like that when I started using Linux (a LONG time ago). However, I feel that I grew out of the arrogance stage. Now, when people ask for help, I am happy to help. The more helpful people are to the newbies, the happier the newbies will be with Linux. If people are happy with it, they are a hell of a lot more apt to show it off to others, creating a snowball effect. That LAME guy has a point, but its nothing to worry about. Its the frustrations of somebody who hasn't had somebody show him the intricacies of the club yet (and from the tone of his post, never will).
-- toolie
He insists on people calling it GNU Linux? Please. This seems like a ludicrous action, I don't think Gates would even do that. I'm going to call it Linux whether anyone likes it or not.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis.
Well, I don't agree with Stalin's political agenda, but you do have to respect the man for sticking to his guns and principals...
..hmm... Well, I don't agree with Mao's political... hmm..
Nope RMS is way off his rocker most of the time trying to imply there is a moral dimension in software licensing, reguardless of how feverently he belives it.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I didn't equate RMS and anyone, I was merely pointing out to the previous poster that just becuase someone has a strongly held belief it does not make that belief any more or less valid for anyone else.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Well too bad Richard.
If Chippindale built a table we all liked to do our work on should we be required to also recognize the suppliers of the tools used to build the table?
The Stanley-DeWalt/Chippindale table perhaps?
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Now, before everyone turns on the flamethrowers, let's think about the matter-is this true?
I think the fact that flamethrowers are so regularly involved is enough to prove that it's true.
The arguments about RMS are completely true - to me, it seems as if the sprit behind the GPL is one of not arguing over names, but instead allowing code to be shared freely for the benefit of users, regardless of its creator. Not including GNU in the name of an OS that is about 18% (according to a recent calculation) FSF software, when the license under which the software was released doesn't required that it be named that and in fact seems to encourage naming it whatever you want to, is certainly not "like, extreme".
As to the Talkback article, I do agree that the poster seems to be living on another planet. In his article on his website (which I only skimmed through, couldn't make myself read the whole thing, but I think I got the gist) he says that the danger of an open source system is that someone could introduce some malicious code into the software. Huh? This, obviously, makes no sense, particularly as it certainly isn't restricted to open-source: infect COMMAND.COM with a virus. That open source allows people to find security holes by examining code is certainly true, but also fairly obvious, and proven wrong by years of experience with Apache and Linux, which have had virtually no major security bugs when compared with NT/IIS. Not acknowledging this argument, and insulting the proponent of it, isn't arrogance but rather justified condescension towards the crackpot who brought it up.
[Relating to the embedded article on open source security]
Open source gives you the ability to improve security by inspecting the code. It does not make anything inherently more secure, other than people tend to find things in source which would only be discovered by black box testing without source, and with many eyes all bugs are shallow.
If someone modifies your kernel source, and you use that source without detecting this then you have no better security than a closed system bought with your eyes shut.
Long ago there was a theoretical example of a "virus" (for want of a better term) which inhabited a C compiler, and hooked its code into any new builds of the C compiler, and was effectively invisible (the virus source was basically pasted into the files during the compile process). [I would love it if someone could give me the ref to this - I heard about it in my University course back in 84)]
Similarly a hacked kernel could probably have hooks in it to infect future kernel builds. Open source or not this is close to undetectable....
So basically although open source makes things more open, your security still depends on trusting (or verifying) the source (code or originator) of all your system components - other than standard practices for operating in a reasonably hostile environment.
Arrogance? It's definitely out there (Here? I don't feel that I know Linux well enough to count myself as part of it yet.) Not a majority, but rude and smart-ass postings tend to make more of an impression than others. Combine that with the learning curve to understand a new OS, and a lot of people get turned off.
If you want Linux (or GNU/Linux, though I'm not going to go around saying it; takes too long!) to catch on beyond the techno-savvy set, be more understanding of the capabilities of the teeming masses. You shouldn't have to be a Comp Sci graduate to use a PC.
Of course, there are a number of Slashdotters or open-source zealots or whatever flavour of strongly opinionated people out there, and unfortunately it is their opinions which get the most coverage in the popular press. This undoubtedly has helped keep the "Linux is for students and crackpots" mentality around longer than it deserves.
Perhaps the Linux/free software community needs a few more level-headed and persuasive people who go out looking for FUD and rationally breaking down the walls, rather than flaming against an immovable marketing machine.
--
Twoflower
What is the point of _branding_ things GNU and branding things "open source" anyways... The suit world is taking the OpenSource license in heart just like the "OPEN" movement of the past -- Its a great catch-word to get people's attention. To tell you the truth, im stick of GNU C+ and GNU license files and such and so forth -- Its becoming the same brand-loyalty bull as MS-DOS and MICROSOFT windows and MICROSOFT office and on and on ... GNU has become the brand name that is self-defeating in itself. karges@videotron.ca
--- ask me about nihilism, I will have nothing to tell you.
To equate RMS with Stalin or Mao is silly and illogical. To say he is "off his rocker" is insulting. At worst, RMS is an eccentric genius. At best, he is absolutely right. I tend to think he is both (for the most part). What we think of as a "Linux system" would not exist without GNU. It is perfectly appropriate for RMS to seek simple recognition for all the excellent work he and the rest of the GNU programmers have contributed, just as it is appropriate for Linus to receive the well-deserved recognition he gets.
RMS is a towering figure in the computing world, and you should have more respect for him and his accomplishments.
Sorry, Rombuu, I didn't mean to single you out, even if I did reference your post. My comments were really meant for a wider audience. I'm just troubled by the sometimes vicious comments I see aimed at some of the giants in our field, particularly RMS. And what makes pot-shots at RMS particularly egregious is the fact that RMS has done SO MUCH for the free software community.
:-)
Anyway, we all just need to relax a little
This person has misunderstood the intention of the GPL. No-one is compelled to release software under the GPL. If they use it, they are making a conscious decision that their work will be covered by the provisions of the GPL - namely, that it must always be freely available and may never become part of a larger project that is not wholly freely available.
If an author released some code and said that anyone could do what they wished with his/her work, noone would complain. Authors releasing under the GPL are merely exercising their right to decide what happens to their work.
if RMS is politically immature we need more politically immature people on this planet.
-
sig sig sputnik
People like this can cause a FUD snowball picking up people who know even less than he does, unfortunately.
The fault behind his premis is that no where does he acknowledge that in order to install your altered version of the OS, you need to be root. Or bypass the BIOS security and boot from an alternative device.
If a would-be hacker can establish super-user access to install his/her modified kernel, a serious security flaw is present. One that IS best correct in an open-source model. Such flaws will always exist, but sure as hell shouldn't be trivial.
If said hacker could bypass BIOS security, that is a non-OS issue, completely unrelated to open or closed source models. If you want to take this into consideration, any "hacker" could easily bypass the currently installed OS and install their own, be it NT, Linux, or MS-DOS 2.11.
There's no doubt that there's a lot of arrogance on the internet... especially in a place when freedom of expression is encouraged. However, I find it amusing that someone would choose to bash to arrogance and close mindedness of an entire group, and then turn around and stick an "esquire" on the end of their name.
And I thought that one of the points of the GPL was to ensure that the original developer of software would get recognition. Isn't it a trade off of monetary gain for recognition?
And by-the-way, doesn't any company that enforces trademarks or copyrights demand recognition for product names or work performed? Who does NOT request recognition for work that they have performed? (Unless that work was illegal or immoral...)
Recognition is all that the developer gets (in most cases) from the greater Linux community for writing a GPL'd piece of software. While it is not generally the main incentive, it's still there.
What is the argument here? Demanding money AND recognition for software is more mature than demanding recognition? I don't think so. By what standard of maturity is this to be gauged by?
I don't agree with Stallman's statement that Linux should be called GNU/Linux (although I do so from time to time). I think that is taking things a bit too far. However, so is building a distribution that is 100% GNU free (in fact, I think that the latter is a sillier suggestion).
Anyway, I think that the two extremes of demanding recognition above what other people have contributed (calls for GNU/Linux) and calling the practice of requesting recognition for a job well done (what this article does) are equally wrong.
Perhaps I can suggest two things which would make people happier: 1) Give recognition to people's hard work where it is due, and 2) Don't demand proportionally greater amounts of recognition than other people who have contributed to the greater effort.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Dammit, we aren't arrogant. We're way too cool too be arrogant!!!!
-ôô
>Am I missing something here?
No, you're not missing anything. L.A.M.E. has been parading this silly thesis wherever he can for ages now. Each time it gets shot down he moves on to somewhere else and spouts the same nonsense. Basically, L.A.M.E. is a classic net.kook and your analysis is right on the mark.
Personaly I have been thinking of moving some of my GPL software projects in under the GNU label then they have matured a bit. I think GNU is good and its good to have a organization that can stand up and defend and protect us.
- nr
If we're talking about Time as the y-axis and Proficiency as the x-axis then, if you take the long view, isn't the learning curve of Unixen actually less steep than the learning curve of GUI intensive operating systems like MS Windows? The reason being that, although it takes longer to gain proficiency with a Unix-type OS, you usually end up much more proficient than you do with some GUI system. In other words, the learning curve for Unixen is steeper in the beginning, but it crosses over with the learning curve for the GUI at about the point where GUI proficiency comes almost to a halt.
On the other hand, if Proficiency is the Y-axis and Time is the X-axis... Well, anyway, "steep learning curve" is a nice metaphor, but what does it actually mean?
Exactly what was the point of flaming him? He had an excellent post and you didn't bother reading it twice maybe?
Do you think he cares about what you think about integration?
Oh, and I like this..."but running around defending it when you have little knowledge of computers in a forum primarily devoted to open-source software is going to do no good whatsoever."
Slashdot is not "a forum primarily devoted to open-source software". It is a forum primarily devoted to discussions. So, why don't you quit being a lamer and take his post for what it was.
There is a reason he got a Score of 2 and you did not.
~Steve
--
"<r-xr-xr-x> Just try to edit me" -- www.ircnews.com
Hey -- Shouldn't you refer to it as GNU/Hurd? ;-)
RMS is a great programmer but he does not speak for me. I choose to use Linux because it was the best solution for my problem. It is sad in a way RMS has so much to be proud of, GCC, Gnome, Gnuemacs, and on and on. But to insist that Linux be called GNU-Linux is just wrong. Even though there may not have been a Linux without GCC does that mean that if I choose to compile a program that I write with GCC I should call it GNU whatever? Dosen't BSD use a log of GNU tools? so should we call FreeBSD GNU-FreeBSD? FSF is a great force in the free software movment, and I want to thank RMS for all that he has done. I also want to tell him that his statments have the potental to do great harm. Linux is Great, FSF is Great.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Politically immature, not immature in any other way, which is probably true. This has no bearing on his vision, integrity or ability. The author was simply stating that RMS ingeniously helped create something great that was intended to have no "master", yet he adamantly enforces something as miniscule as the correct variation of its name.
I for one will call it linux. GNU Linux is silly and when you say it, its like, "Hey I didn't even know there was an old linux".
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
I drew roughly the same conculsions after reading about this "security" issue with Open Source. I actually read the article twice to try to find the deeper meaning that I _had_ to have missed. Never found anything else though. Hmm, I just can't see this as a security problem inheirent to open source, but to source code in general. Ah well. The fact that there seems to be a certain condecending tone to the article does lower my opinion of the rest of what Mr. Mettler had to say.
I would say that there is definitely some truth to the accusations. However, there are a LOT of posters on slashdot. If you just go by the ones that make the most noise or post the best flamebait, you're bound to get a bad impression. I think we're a lot more of a diverse community than that. Shoot, some
--
--
Jason Eric Pierce
Let's be honest here. The most that RMS should demand (and make it part of his GPL) is having Linux called _Linux with GNU tools_ because that's what it is - nothing less and nothing more.
Seeing everybody show up on windows refund day with their tux dolls was a big disappointment also. What do you think people are going to think??? I feel that the banner "Microsoft welcomes the Linux community" should have been set on fire, at the very least.
There is no great fame in being a geek, unless you MAKE LOTS OF MONEY. Many of you would say "well, look at Linus, he's famous." Maybe to you, but go over to the average joe and ask him who Linus is and he will not know. Ask him who Bill G is or Steve Jobs and he will know. Otherwise your a nameless drone in front of the CRT that the world thinks that you are busy trying to crack into somebody's system to bring it down. Get over it.
Are you going to make lots of money and become famous by making free software??? If you think so, then you are arrogant, and should cut off your ponytail. That's a start at improving the image of the free software community.
Where I come from guys who wear ponytails are still called _hippies_ and are considered morally degenarate and are not to be trusted. That's not my opinion, that's just the way it is. Not taking the culture which may use the software you make into account is arrogant.
second, RMS only supplied 10 percent of the code behind linux. The other 90 percent was contributed by hundreds of other people. Also, nowhere in the GPL do I see a legal requirement that people use the letters "GNU" in the name of the programs the write. If RMS is going to toss his tapioca over this he should change the GPL to make it so. Then nobody would use GNU tools because the price would be too steep.
third, 99.9999999999% of the general population is not going to give a rat's ass as to who or what what tools were used in making the programs they used. They want programs that are affordable and reliable, period. They know Bill G. and Jobs not for their code, but because they made lots of money. Forcing "GNU" on them to claim fame is arrogant.
fourth, I saw the pictures posted of windows refund day. If they were serious about getting a refund, they should have forced the issue. Lots of people milling about with penguin dolls and penguin tshrits. Real cute. The penguin is a funny cartoon, like linux and the kids who play with it. In other words, linux is for kids, silly rabbit. Gates has picked up on this and says (and I quote) "linux is for hobbyists and students".
The end result is that linux is tossed on the fad discard pile with OS/2, CP/M, and GEOS, the latter two came about when you were still sucking your mother's nipple. If you are older than that, then you are arrogant _and_ immature. That's what this thread is about, arrogance and immaturity.
So, yea, that's what the hell my reply is about. Glad I had the opportunity to clarify.
> any "hacker" could easily bypass the
> currently-installed OS and install their
> own, be it NT, Linux, or MS-DOS 2.11.
This is true. However, he correctly assumes that it would be more difficult to install a hacked Windows NT similar enough to go unnoticed.
The open source model makes it reasonable that a normal user on a system could nab the current kernel source from /usr/src/linux/, add their malicious code, compile it at home, and then sneak back in to the console at night, boot off a rescue disk, and install their custom kernel without ever needing root access. This is of course just as possible with NT but more difficult.
So installing a custom kernel is not restricted to open-source systems, it would seem to be a bit easier. Of course, all modifications to open-source systems are easier; that's why we like them!
The moral of the story: boot SCSI-C-A; set a BIOS password, and keep those server closets locked. Oh, and use an open-source OS - teacher says. :)
Graham "Teach" Mitchell, computer science teacher, Leander HS
I have to admit, when I first started reading about RMS, I thought he was sort of a left-wing flake. BUT... On further reflection, I see how a passionate attitude such as his is a crucial ingredient to making something like GNU work.
At the same time, the way he has implemented the GPL is largely derived from practical considerations (at least that's how he describes it on fsf.org). No intellectually honest libertarian can find any fault with that document, or with the time and effort that he has devoted to the cause. In fact, much of the beauty of the GPL is that it relies on intellectual property rights to be enforceable.
He's really a living contradiction, and perhaps that's why I admire the guy so much. His leftish message rings true with a lot of people, it recognizes the inherently stressful relationship between a proprietary software publisher and their customers. But his solution for the perceived problem avoids the simplistic leftish approach of "pass a law to make it better."
The fact is, GNU needed somebody passionate and idealogical to get off the ground, and RMS filled that role perfectly. And to a certain extent, I feel for him, now that Linus is the new poster boy, the guy everybody (including me) would love to share a beer with. Linux without GNU would be fairly irrelevant, but RMS's eccenticities have pushed him and his GNU colleagues to the background, and, let's face it folks, that's gotta hurt. Shoot, fifteen years of creating software and giving it away, and this is the thanks he gets?
And you know, I'm as much a born-again capitalist as anybody, but I have to say, when I first went to install Linux on a second computer, it dawned on me... I don't have to enter a unique CD code to make it work, I don't have to buy a second license, I don't have to register in order to read the Knowledge Base, I don't have to accept a hundred license agreements everytime I update something. After years of reflexively worrying about that stuff, it's a *very* liberating feeling. I don't begrudge MS and such for doing things that way, but when it's not there, you suddenly realize just how nice it is not to have to deal with it. It has nothing to do with "freedom" in the way the word is used in the Constitution, but it *is* about freedom in a sense that the average person can relate to.
I think a lot of people would agree that it really should be GNU/Linux, but even those people agree that GNU/Linux is too much to say.
That is the true freedom of free software. It can be called anything anybody wants to call it, as long as the source code is there.
Even stuff like Solaris runs better with GNU tools.. remember: "Got a broken *NIX tool, fix it by replacing it with a GNU version."
In fact, the only piece of GNU software which I don't like is Emacs (sorry, just prefer VI). The great thing about GNU is that anyone can use it for anything as long as they don't try to call it, or derivatives of it, their own. They can however call it anything else they want, even "Linux".
With all the merits RMS has, forcing anyone to call Linux "GNU Linux" or otherwise ignoring this person is simply
1) impolite
2) childish and
3) counter-productive for the OSS community.
If I'd be treated this way by him I'd simply walk away. I can expect a certain measure of respect from anyone I'm talking to. Maybe more communicative people should do the public relations for OSS projects!
You know, I seem to remember reading this guys article (linked from here, of course) about the dangers inherent in the OSS model... if I remember right, it was basically someone putting a back door in some open source software. (I didn't bother to re-read it because the guy's whiny tone put me off) If he can't handle a few flames than he's too sensitive or something, this is an open forum, flames happen ;-P As I remember, the premise of his argument was laughable anyways and showed a complete lack of understanding in the OSS development process.
- Dave
But we *are* a bunch of zealots. We're actively fighting for a cause which is almost religious to us, and in some cases (like RMS), IS religious, if taken to the far extreme. Personally, I don't like m$. I like Linux. I think Linux will eventually take over as the no. 1 OS. I want this to happen. But who gives a rats arse what we call it, so long as it works great, and we can hack it to shreds?
I disagree with a lot of RMS' philosophies. I think that companies should be able to sell the stuff they produce, software or not. If they don't want to open the source, then fine. Let them. It won't make any difference to me, because I know that an OSS alternative will be forthcoming, if not already out.
RMS is a kook in my opinion. A necessary one, but a kook none the less. Is he arrogant? yes. Do I think he goes overboard? Yes. Would I have it any other way? No. Someone has to fight for the extreme to make the moderate be the moderate.
I want a refund for being forced to call it GNU/Linux when all I wanted was Linux.
If you're going to pick on RMS's morality or lack of it, stick to what he talks about...
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
I hope RMS won't kill me for citing him :)
I guess this proves that GNU was an operating system project. Unfortunately, the GNU kernel (named HURD) never got finished. That's the reason why GNU currently only is known as the "support software" for Linux. While the thruth is, as RMS says, that Linux just replaces the missing kernel in the GNU operating system.
The naming is equivalent to what would happen if I wrote a new libpng, and then linked it with GIMP and called the complete thing "MacroPaint".
-segfault
Somehow I don't think RMS cares what the press likes. He may make himself unpopular, but a lot of people will know a lot more about FSF/GNU.
-segfault
I don't think fame is the reason Richard Stallman keeps telling people to call Linux GNU/Linux.
First of all, the FSF is the initiator of the GNU/Linux project, so they have the right to name it whatever they want.
Secondary, I think the reason for repeating the GNU/Linux phrase is that RMS don't want the GNU project to drown in the current Open Source Hype Wave. GNU is near equivalent with the FSF, the political organization. It is the political message, not the GNU software, which is FSFs and RMSs preferred product. The GNU project was, AFAIK, not only an Operating System project, but also the horse in front of the FSF wagon.
Now, the Open Source people are disconnecting the wagon, and keeps selling the Open Source idea. The GNU/Linux phrase is RMSs way of connecting the wagon to the horse.
Personally, I don't understand the Open Source people. They are selling Open Source big, but it doesn't look to me like they care about product quality, Right Ideas[tm], political messages or anything. So why do they sell Open Source? Do they just want to be part of something big? The "Hey, ma, I'm in the history books" attitude?
I think that might be the case. If you ask a standard Linux luser what kind of application to write, one that makes you work more effective and helps software evolution, or one who will kill all resistance and double the number of Linux users, he would go for the latter.
I like Richard Stallmans attitude; "It's better to go in the right direction than to go somewhere fast".
-segfault
Why should we get more people to use Linux? And are the reasons important enough that we should lie to people and pretend they're not clueless?
I think linux has enough users for a while. Currently Linux has a lot of potential for incompability. Take a look at GGI and stuff. Does that compile on FreeBSD, Solaris, Irix?
Compability and following standards is a far more important issue than open source. We must not sacrify the first one for the second.
-segfault
I definitely agree.
Far too many times, I see unmoderated boards turn into a chaotic mess of flames, personal insults and overly blatant digression of topics (i.e. advertising smack in the middle of discussion of hardware specs).
When I look for message boards, I always check for moderation because I just don't have the time to rummage through the junk myself. I've even stopped looking at some newsgroups because they were just too unbearable and time consuming to read.
Congrats at good moderation. I think it's beginning to work because some of these messages are really informative and thought-provoking.
-Kat-
I agree and I'd add my $.02
I freely admit I was not one of the born *nix user and at the beginning had no clue to what I was doing. When the first OS you ever touched was a GUI-point and click stuff (a mac in my case), the concept of running anything with simple text as the console can be pretty bad. Yeah you had your piles and piles of documentation, but it's not the same as the graphical wizard walking through everything.
I had vaguely heard that *nix users were:
1) proud of their OS and normally chalk full of information
2) enthusiastic about sharing the OS
which I completely agree.
But the unmentioned aspect was how tightly knit the community was and how many a times, too impatient to often guide new users to the right stpes. Often times, my questions (though naive they were) were rejected and scoffed at. And at the end, all I could do was sit in my room, bitterly stay up very late and read *a lot* of documentation and experimenting before I grasped anything. In the end, I have to say, it really was *my* time and effort that led me to learn this OS.
In a sense, I can understand where the arrogance of many linux people come from. A lot them had to take time and learn the stuff before they could even use it properly. Simply stated, they sort of "passed" the diligence test and this is like a little reward. Now I rarely use Windows except on very rare occasions. But my expectations of getting help from elsewhere very much diminished though now I get better answers from other simply because now I already know how to run it.
But thinking back to all the late nite hours, agonizing over why the console was printing these gibberish, only to find out later that it was an easy problem to fix for an experienced user, I do feel sympathy for new users and as often as I can, I try to help out as much as I can. Maybe that is the other aspect the community can work on, having a little sympathy. The community can be as arrogant as they want because everyone's worked hard to achieve what we have so far, but linux is getting pretty mainstreamed now and less closed off, which means there will be a lot more new users and the overt arrogance and condescensance may give the wrong impression of people about linux, that it's just a closed off territory for ultra-techies and if you aren't born with it, tough.
It's out of the question that linux will ever become as user-friendly as windows in the near future (seriously, linux as having wizards and point-and click between "custom" and "normal", I cannot imagine) so the community needs to be more accepting and less hostile.
Just sharing my pennies.
-Kat-
Arrogance runs hand in hand with power. I think that is a natural/cultural law. Anyway....anyone know where I can find an UNBIASED comparison of WinX/Linux. Y'know, one that admits Linux has faults and Windows (dare I say it) has merits.
+&x
I'm no one in particular, just another Linux user. I take offense to RMS's insistence that it be called GNU Linux. I don't think this has to do with whether he's asking fair credit for his team or not, but rather the way he handled it.
How rude, to stop to correct someone in the middle of a Q&A session in front of everyone to make them call it GNU Linux.
You know what my first thought was? How much GNU could be taken out, and make a make a tiny Linux setup.
RMS sounds like he's daring the Linux crowd to hack the GNU code out. Certainly that's not what he wants...
I think the fact that Free Software isues are debated openly makes disagreements SEEM larger.
Has anyone ever worked for a software company where there weren't serious disagreements over direction, features, etc.? Of course not. Can you imagine if members of the press where privy to every meeting in some of these companies? There would be non-stop articles like, "Serious battle at Abobe over licensing", "Microsoft divided over corporate direction".
The Free Software Community does not have one official designated spokesman to give reporters nice quotes that say everyone agrees and is happy. Instead, our discussions are open in forums such as slashdot. Any reporter (especially ones with FUD in mind) can grab an uninformed flame and quote it.
It's important for the public to understand that free software means input from EVERYONE. Of course there will be disagreements. That's a strength, not a weakness.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
RMS' efforts to enforce what he deems the proper name for Linux remind me of France's efforts to enforce "proper French." Both will ultimately fail.
Language is fluid. It can be described, but it can't be prescribed. At some point, a word or phrase meets critical mass in a culture and it becomes the accepted term for some symbol/meaning/thing.
The word "Linux" is an example. A lot of people know that Linux is really a collection of software written by a large number of people, not just Linus. I'm sure that there are people who think Linus wrote the whole enchilada, or burrito, whatever your tastes may be. "Linux" is the accepted term, and it has a lot of inertia. Maybe if RMS had intervened back in the earlier days when there was only 100 users, he may have prevailed and we would be saying "GNU/Linux". But apparently the thought didn't cross his mind then or he didn't care enough, or maybe even then the term "Linux" already had too much momentum.
I think RMS should give up on his linguistic crusade here and concentrate on more important issues, like contributing to the ever-increasing dialogue between the "suits" and the rest of us in his decidedly unique way. Instead he wastes his time on a trivial issue of language, and we all suffer from the effects (it makes for great anti-open source propaganda).
-steve
Set a bios password, and someone will just use one of the many known BIOS backdoor passwords...
RMS is hardly an egomaniac. He wants his ideas to get recognition, not himself.
Well, you can compile and run a fake login program, and hope to trick some people into giving you their passwords.
This is actually one advantage (eeeagh) of NT over linux. Of course, since on NT, logging in as any user gives you the ability to get Administrator access, it doesn't really matter...
It's not about credit, not about numbers of lines of code, or percent of tools or their usefulness, not even about RMS's personality. It's about freedom. Linus doesn't think freedom is important - like ESR, he thinks practical gains are more important. Thus, we have a lot of linux users who aren't even exposed to the *idea* of freedom. RMS wants the GNU name attached so that someone will ask "what's that GNU thing?" and can be told about freedom, and if they don't care for freedom, at least they'll be often reminded of the ideas of freedom which created their OS, if not their kernel (*).
(*) Many kernel developers, like Alan Cox, have a much more RMS-like idea about the purpose of free software.
RMS never intended to create a completely FSF OS. His life work is the creation of GNU, a free OS. XFree86, various BSD utilities, and more are fine to be part of GNU, as they are free. He only needed a kernel, and Linux fits the job of being a kernel for his OS. His objection to calling it 'Linux' isn't a matter of getting recognition or ego - it's because so many people, Linus included, don't talk about the value of freedom. GNU is about freedom. Many Linux users don't realize GNU is, and to remind people that they are using an OS, most of which is based on reaching freedom, he suggests calling it GNU/Linux.
Sure, the name isn't quite as catchy, and I think it's silly for him to be pedantic about people calling it GNU/Linux every time they speak to him, but there does need to be some way to educate the users.
Perhaps you don't care about freedom? Well at least let other people know that it exists. I think there must be a better way to do it than requiring people to call it GNU/Linux, but until I can think of a better idea, I won't complain about RMS.
GNU is the operating system; Hurd and Linux are kernels. And if you think a kernel by itself is an OS, show me how you get it to boot with just itself.
RMS wanted people to develop Hurd instead of Linux because originally Linus said that he was only interested in getting Linux to do a very small number of tasks on a 386, and RMS wanted to do more than that, so he looked elsewhere. He picks and chooses pieces to complete his OS. So he decided to start Hurd, which is significantly behind Linux in development, but is still progressing.
No, replacing some utilities in AIX or Solaris doesn't make mean you should call it GNU, because it isn't. GNU's Not Unix, and Solaris and AIX and BSD are definitely unix. Linux is not unix as well, so it fits in perfectly.
You say 'to philosophies, to licenses, to libraries' Yes, there are two philosophies, RMS's and ESR's, RMS's being that freedom is good, ESR's being that working together is good for capitalism. Two licenses? I assume you mean GPL and BSD, both of which are free. Two libraries? Hardly. libc is a derivative of glibc1, and glibc2 is a better, updated version.
RMS has done more harm than good? Um, I don't think so. Do you think linux would exist *at all* if it weren't for RMS? People do what the people around them are doing, and if we didn't have RMS continuing his crusade, everyone would be writing proprietary software. Linus says that his best decision was to go with the GPL for Linux, which he did *soley* because GCC was GPLed. Guess who wrote GCC? Guess who wrote the GPL?
Trying to control OSS? I presume you mean Micros~1's initialism, 'Open Source Software.' Hardly. He's merely a voice. A voice people listen to.
Withdrawl of glibc-2.1 was done for legal issues, not because some people say gcc sucks. In case you hadn't heard, glibc-2.1 requires egcs.
RMS an obstacle? He certainly wants to be an obstacle to proprietary software.
Mr. Metzler's debate tactics of simply repeating the same argument reminds me of a lawyer friend of mine. He also would just keep repeating the same argument and then unilaterally declare victory because he avoided ceding any of my points. I called him on his stupid tactic and he said "Well, it works, doesn't it?" No, it's just annoying and boring.
Lewis Mettler is incensed in his ZDnet talkback article that the security flaw he "brought up" isn't raising SlashDot headlines around the planet. The very foundations of OpenSource aren't sinking in FUD. It comes as quite a shock to him that "almost all Linux supporters just resort to personal insults rather than address the issue."
So, why is this? Lewis's original article does raise some good points, but not new ones by any standards [1]. And his dismissal of the relevance of the problem of trust to closed-source (binary) programs is ill-founded given the ease with which an experienced person can hack binaries. Or, for that matter, replace a closed-source binary with a newly compiled open-source one.
But by far the worst problem Lewis is having with his argument is his failure to realise he is stating the obvious. Or at the very least the well known. No one with computer security knowledge can be bothered arguing, so all he's hearing from are the me-toos and ACs.
Lewis, you'll raise headlines and win the attention of serious UNIX administrators when you tell us something we don't know. And hey, you've finally got your airtime on SlashDot anyway.
[1] See "Reflections on Trusting Trust", by Ken Thompson.
Communications of the ACM, Volume 27, Number 8, August 1984.
Online at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/
[2] ObPersonalAbuse: bgcolor="#99FF99" really sucks.
This is the same Lewis Mettler who terrorized the MSNBC Tech BBS for 4 months before he was banned. He seemed to have this idea that IE was worth 70% of the price of Windows 98, so he should be able to buy Win98 for $30. Not only that, but as he'd bought it at full price, Microsoft should give all their users a $140 refund.
I mean, WTF?!?!?!?!?!??!
You can read more wonderful Mettler-isms at http://www.lamlaw.com
he still reckons he's being censored by the MSNBC tech admins. Which isn't true - he's just being prevented from engaging in his wonderful "cut & paste" style of debating.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I tend to agree that arrogance is one of the primary hold ups in the Linux/Unix communities. When a new user comes to the community and asks a simple question, the get flamed and are told to rtfm!
We often forget that when someone is new that they often do not know the sources of where to get the information or they are so overwhelmed that they are just looking for guidance.
If the information is so common, would it not be easier to answer the question and the give a gentle (Information like this is easily located in the manual available at http://www.whatever.com).
However, I think that the Linux/Unix communities are starting to get better. A good rule of thumb is if you are trying to win a user base it is prudent to keep the flameflower off.
-Derek
Or at least it did a decade-and-a-half ago, when I was working in the UK and had an account with National Westminster Bank. They appended Esq to my name on all the mail they sent me (and me just a humble chemical engineer).
Jeff
Small differences will be magnified into great divides in any movement where people feel as strongly as they do about OSS (cf. Christianity, Islam, the U.S. civil rights movement, Bolshevism). And because the whole movement is important enough to proselytize, the individual branches are perceived as important enough to proselytize.
I think that RMS feels that the name Linux, in and of itself, does not shout OSS loudly enough, and there are many who side with him either out of the same belief or out of respect for what he's done. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the current visibility of OSS among the general population would never have been achieved without the advent of the Linux kernel, some of whom think that RMS is just tooting his own horn. Because this difference has to do with the growth of OSS as a whole, it's taken pretty seriously.
I think that this is an issue that people just have to agree to differ on, even though that's difficult, just because they do take it so seriously. Everyone's heard the gloom-and-doomers/FUDers who say that Linux will be torn apart by the different distributions, and we all get worked up about that. This is the same sort of thing -- let's not give them any more ammunition.
Jeff
Hmmm, the FSF is certainly the initiator of the GNU project, but I'm not sure how you get that they initiated Linux. If Linus doesn't decide to play around with kernel development, we're still waiting for an OSS operating system.
Why are Open Source people selling Open Source big? Because they think that it works. If it works, who needs the political messages?
I think that you're making the incorrect assumption that OSS could not survive without the FSF. That may have been true once, but RMS's little child is big enough to stand alone now.
Jeff
Umm, actually, Modesty is a virtue for those who have something to be modest about. Think about it for a bit.
Actually, certain types of forums, social or cultural movements, attract zealots like honey attracts flies. Part of the saving grace of Linux is that somebody with Linus' modesty and respect for others is at the center of it.
Personally I use a wide mix of operating systems and computing equipment. My most productive programming is in Assembly language on embedded Micros generally with less than 1K of read-write memory (32 bytes in some cases). I prize interoperability, and Linux dwells at the center where it comes to interoperability. It can be used as the "hub" for wildly divergent equipment.
There have been times when I have become somewhat of a zealot in public, but it's not something I look back on with any pride.
Everytime I setup a new Solaris box I install most of the GNU software. Does this mean I have to call it GNU/Solaris?
Be real. It has it's problems, but most of the time, it runs ok. Sure it locks up. You have to reboot a lot, but I spend most of may work-day in Windows (not that I have a choice as a software developer). And it's easy for the non-computer literate to get around in.
The biggest problem I have with Windows, is that every year or so, I end up wiping it out and starting over. I've only been using Linux for about 18 months, but it certainly seems like you have more control over the OS. But then, I come from a DOS background, not a UNIX background. In DOS, we had quite a bit of control, too.
I play with Linux, and I use The Gimp, but I still do most of my work in Windows. Maybe some day, I'll make the big switch.
Of course that implies I have freedom. I don't. I write software, and I can't write a GPL application or even help on the development of one.
Why?
Well short answer: the GPL is an absorbing badly written license
longer answer: I can use all Open Source libraries except GPL ones together is a open true freedom environment. I have the freedom to use the libraries to get the job done. In a GPL application I can only use GPL libraries. Under clause 2 of the GPLv2. ANY, and I mean ANY thing that gets distribution with the GPL'd code (which means part of the same executable binary MUST be covered under the GPL. Item two of the GPL may supposed to say it applies to source code, but it doesn't. So every GPL application out there that links with glibc is violating license terms.
I have been in recent discussions with both ESR and RMS on this subject. RMS has gotten back to me yet with my assertion that the GPL violates point 9 of the OSD due to this fact.
Which pardon me for sounding upset at this, but I am. I like the idea of open source code. One of my mainstays is windows development. and not having code available to fix trivial one-liners in the OS frustrates me. But finding these types of things in the GPL that make it so my hands are tied as a programmer frustrates me even more. I think a lot of people out there think the GPL is a code thing, but haven't actually gone through the process of looking at the thing and seeing the evil that it is.
People seem amazed that there are so many licenses coming out. Well I know why. It isn't becuase companies are greedy (well some are), any IP lawyer who looks at the GPL gets scared to death. Basically any code that comes near the GPL has to become GPL itself. That may be a good thing for RMS who wants all code to be GPL, but it isn't practicle in todays world.
I am actually making my own library license.
Why? I want two things from a library:
1) changes to the library itself I want open and available
2) I want programmers to be able to use it freely (and I'm talking real freedom here, not "gnu freedom")
for 1) GPL/LGP/artisitc/etc do wonders
for 2) GPL no go, and LGPL won't fly either as it's C++ temwplate code so we go past the 10 line limit on functions... oops.
enough rant... time to go back to working on a truely freedom paced software project
That is fine. I just wish people were up front about it. Also GPL programs should then be fixed to not use any non GPL'd code. I can't think of a single GPL'd program on my machine that wouldn't violate this. They alll link in glibc which is LGPL'd not GPL'd.
Bottom line: What I am saying is no library is GPL compatible. If there is way to make a license GPL compatible, where is that specified in the GPL???
Actually I understand the GPL quite well. More than a lot of folks. I have poured over the license heavily looking at exactly what it allows and doesn't allow. My concern is that I truely beleive most people who release things under the GPL don't fully understand the restrictions they are locking their code into.
The problem I have is mentioned in the my reply to my reply above. My gripe really doesn't come with the GPL at an application level. It has to do with the library level. You can't use any non GPL libraries in a GPL application (if anyone can point out how I'm wrong I would love to hear it).
Most people don't seem to be able to grasp the difference. I think most of my annoyance is that the FSF tries to take the high ground touting freedom. (eh, who doesn't like freedom). The problem is the GPL doesn't protect freedom at all. at least not the freedom of a programmer.
Case in point:
Say I release something under the GPL. I later get patches that I merge in. Then on down the road I want to use a artistic or Berkeley library from the code. I can't. If I hadn't gotten patches I could re-release it under a more free license that allows me to use open source libraries. But since other's work are now a part of it, I would have to get their permission to interact with open source projects.
Although I did not read the article referenced, I do have a few things to say about the supposed arrogance of the linux community.
I have heard many people that the linux community is closed to outsiders. I spent a fair amount of time on irc in #gimp or #e whilst trying to figure out CVS and the hows and whys behind getting CVS code to compile (and work). Having little knowledge of C, it sometimes was duanting, but I always found help. I also saw many people looking for help and not getting it. Instead, they often got a response that, taken out of context, might seem quite arrogant. I have no special standing in the linux community, nor have I made any real contributions, besides helping new users along where I could. So why did I get helped where others got snubbed? The answer, of course, is in the phrasing of the question. If someone comes in and spams a whole channel with rude, persistant demands for assistance, they are not likely to get anywhere. On the other hand, a polite manner, a willingness to read documentation, and a sense of humour, in my experience, are almost always met in kind. I work in the technical support industry, and this is true across the board: rude, arrogant people get treated rudely and arrogantly. On the other hand if it seems that someone is trying to be a part of the solution, I'm more than happy to give them a nudge in the right direction.
The linux community has something to be proud of, and that pride, looked upon by someone who doesn't know how special linux and the community is might misconstrue that pride as arrogance. Part of that pride comes from the gradual mastery of what can sometimes be a quite unruly beast. Those who want a quick-fix solution every time the click on something and what they were expecting doesn't happen isn't going to get too much respect from a community that takes pride in finding solutions and learning for the future.
Many people have fallen into the mindset that if something doesn't work you immediately call someone and ream them out. This mentality doesn't fit too well into the GNU style (obviously) and this sort of approach will be immediately classed by those used to fixing their own problems as arrogant and not worthy of time. Who wants to put up with the abuse, especially if they are not getting paid?
Well, I suppose I've made the same point in a few different ways by now. Having said all that, I should point out that I have come across a few people that truly deserve to be called arrogant, immature, and closed-minded. Judging the linux community by these people is a bit like judging a style of music by one band. In anything there are always some gems, some coal, and everything else in between. We are all responsible for how we look to "the outside", and as such, we as a community should take care; I'm sure that we'd rather be looked upon as a gem than a lump of coal.
---
Not even Debian? :-)
(FWIW, I tend to refer to Debian either as Debian, or Debian GNU/Linux...)
No. Everytime I refer to that sucky piece of crap from Redmond, I don't have to call it Microsoft Windows 98. I call it windows. I don't have to call my mother by her full name either. I call her mom. I call my dishwasher a dishwasher, not Maytag Dishwasher model XEr74. Do you see my point here?
This is getting to be like the situation with hyphenated Americans, for crying out loud. No! He's not an Italian, or an American, he's an Italian-American! If you call him an American you are dishonoring his heritage and the contribution Italy made to his genetic makeup!
The fact that RMS thinks I need to call it GNU/Linux to pay homage to GNU and the FSF, that's just ridiculous. I have a great amount of respect for the GNU project. It's done more for computing than Microsoft ever has or will do. But I'm not going to call Linux GNU/Linux. First of all it's a mouthfull. Second of all, it sounds like a disease. Thirdly, there's no reason for me to do this. This is the computer equivalent of political correctness.
Every second he devotes to this little diatribe is a second he could be using to do something more worthwile. Even if he succeeded in getting people to start calling it GNU/Linux, what would be the point? It wouldn't accomplish anything.
This is all a huge waste of time.
Charles Babcock's article seems to miss something that is rather obvious: free software, especially for RMS, is about more than just marketing. Babcock expected the free software crowd to act like a corporation would if there was disagreement among its members: hide it, cover it up, don't talk about it, leave to behind-the-scenes power struggle.
... the technical merits stand up on their own for anyone with a computer.
RMS is emphasizing the goals of the free software "movement"
Before criticizing what he saw the first time he was in a room full of free software programmers and advocates, Babcock should understand that free software is not just about toppling Microsoft and making us all a quick buck for the next 5 years. It is about changing -- or revolutionizing -- the process by which software, and ultimately anything, gets done.
Modesty is a virtue for those who don't have others. Personally I'm one arrogant bastard but I think a lot of us are entitled to that, given that we actually have basis for being like that, unlike a lot of dudes who criticize us and label us as zealots.
Couldn't have said it better.