Well, if you wanted to get the internet pissed at you, IE was a good start. ISS picked up the administrators, and your laughable attempts at security made us all livid. This is just the last straw with many of us.
Let's recap, you take a public, standard security protocol (one I'm fond of no less) and make your own modifications to it. I'm not sure what on earth made you feel you had the authority to do that, considering that your Benny Hill-like attempts at security are already well documented. Any sysadmin that trusts MS modifications to an already proven technology needs to consider another line of work.
Unless you just got into computer, you know that Microsoft's only motivation in this was to attempt to lock out other competing clients (I understand this isn't your first attempt at this trick, is it?), not to innovate. By the way, thank you for completly removing any meaning from that word. I know few people in the computer industry that can say "innovate" and keep a straight face thanks to you.
Back to the current problem. You publish your undesired changes to this protocol in such a way that you think users would have to agree to a restrictive license to read it. This way you can destroy anyone who creates a solution compatible to yours, claiming they violated the agreement.
Now (and here is the REALLY funny part), you place this 'restricted' information in a well documented, standard file format (zipped.EXE) that can be opened with any number of free unzip programs. If this doesn't frighten anyone away from your 'security' solutions, I don't know what will. This is the perfect example of how much people should trust you, if you can't even protect your own data.
So the cat is out of the bag. Once again the collective intelligence of the internet is miles above you, and you are once again being laughed at for having no concept of security and losing a trade secret to boot. I can understand perfectly why litigation is your only option in this case, it's the only skill you company has left. The only "innovation" is coming from your lawyers these days.
However, this is where you lose. There is nothing wrong with posting a perfectly legal, common, and (in the case of binaries on a windows machine), desirable method of opening a file. I'm sure the poster who posted the contents of the file opened it using winzip, completly unaware that there even was some kind of agreement. He probably just wanted to avoid executing a binary from a untrustworthy company (go ahead, try proving me wrong). Therefore, YOU HAVE NO CASE. No agreement was broken, none of this DMCA crap applies.
The bottom line here is, your own legendary incompetance is to blame here. Attempting to attack a small news site is only fanning the flames that are burning your company to the ground.
Slashdot crew, you have my complete support in this one. No NOT give up, make a stand against this monopolistic disgrace for a company.
Finkployd
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet The Internet: Designed for UNIX
Revealing proprietary, trade secrets on a public web site? Let's face it, this is MS, there is no way this is a security hole, they are too "innovative" for that kind of sloppy work to get through. This must be a special "enhancement" they made to the way javascript works, and as such, is covered under the DMCA.
Bruce, I usually respect what you say, but not in this case. What happend to the concept of "fair use"? I never signed any agreement, there is no "bargin" for me to welsh on. They freely put out this content via HTTP to the world, how I view it is my business.
The same can be said about javascript popup ads, does that mean people using LYNX (who do not see these ads) are cheating sites that use them? Perhaps it's time to stamp out this so called browser, seeing as it's only use must be to avoid seeing popup ads (Applying the type of reasoning the MPAA is famous for)
If companies have the right to smack us with ads everytime we turn around (TV, movies, TV movies, telemarketers, spam, cell phone spam, eggs, sausage, and spam, javascript banner ads, billboards, etc) then we should have the right to attempt to avoid these ads if we want to. Fair is fair.
What I'm saying is that stocks always seem to get way over inflated right after an IPO, then come back down. I don't think anyone expected LNUX to stay at $300 very long.
Well, from what little I know about stock, that kind of graph is pretty typical. VA has the world record IPO (if I remember right) so, yeah, it went really high, but like all IPO's I've seen, it dropped down to a more 'sane' number and has been slowly rising since.
Besides, anyone who buys stock at that high point right after an IPO needs too seriously reconsider their investment plans:)
The whole concept of open source is radical (in today's world).
If getting linux (and open source as a concept) into the mainstream means ignoring our ideals and forgetting how we got here, then it IS NOT worth it.
The way to 'go mainstream' is to beat the proprietary software using OUR rules, by producing better programs. This is already happening and soon the software industry will not be able to ignore it. Then we will have won on our own terms, using our own tools.
Besides, how do ou propose to 'get rid' of someone who is responsible for most of the code in any given linux distro?
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.
This is straight out of the EULA, which really makes one wonder considering that they have tarballs and src.rpm versions of this driver.
So, either they are giving away the source code and some knee-jerk lawer put this clause in with no understanding of what it meant or...
They are providing a closed source driver and don't understand what is to be expected in a src.rpm file.
Either way, you have to wonder, although I suspect (given their history) that the latter case is correct. Anybody who has been able to download from their slashdotted site please enlighten us as to what they are giving us.
That's true about the Columbine killers, but the fact that they were origionaly painted as 'geeks' caused a national 'scare' or sorts and led to the presecution of profiling of anyone who matched the defination of 'geek'
So even though Harris and Klebold were not in that group you speak of, that group has taken a lot of abuse because of the precieved connection.
Before you attempt to lecture to me take a look at your first post and see who sounds more mature. You don't start with much credibility when you title you message "Attention dipshit..."
The whole basis of this huge thread is that I decided to believe Perens right off the bat, while you wanted for him to post evidence (which he actually didn't and even if he did it still could have been made up since neither of us have greped the file ourselves).
Perhaps we could have come to this understanding earlier had you have not started out like some vulgur young kid who thinks he knows everything.
Well, Bruce posted how he got the evidance, course even if he posts the greped file in question and shows you the copyright string, are you going to believe him? You made up your mind from the beginning that there is no evidence, while I made up my mind that I belive the people claiming there is evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but either way, this has lost it's "trade secret" status. It's still copyrighted of course, but not a trade secret.
Finkployd
Oops, supposed to be IIS, not ISS. IIS is Microsoft's half assed attempt at a web server.
Finkployd
Well, if you wanted to get the internet pissed at you, IE was a good start. ISS picked up the administrators, and your laughable attempts at security made us all livid. This is just the last straw with many of us.
.EXE) that can be opened with any number of free unzip programs. If this doesn't frighten anyone away from your 'security' solutions, I don't know what will. This is the perfect example of how much people should trust you, if you can't even protect your own data.
Let's recap, you take a public, standard security protocol (one I'm fond of no less) and make your own modifications to it. I'm not sure what on earth made you feel you had the authority to do that, considering that your Benny Hill-like attempts at security are already well documented. Any sysadmin that trusts MS modifications to an already proven technology needs to consider another line of work.
Unless you just got into computer, you know that Microsoft's only motivation in this was to attempt to lock out other competing clients (I understand this isn't your first attempt at this trick, is it?), not to innovate. By the way, thank you for completly removing any meaning from that word. I know few people in the computer industry that can say "innovate" and keep a straight face thanks to you.
Back to the current problem. You publish your undesired changes to this protocol in such a way that you think users would have to agree to a restrictive license to read it. This way you can destroy anyone who creates a solution compatible to yours, claiming they violated the agreement.
Now (and here is the REALLY funny part), you place this 'restricted' information in a well documented, standard file format (zipped
So the cat is out of the bag. Once again the collective intelligence of the internet is miles above you, and you are once again being laughed at for having no concept of security and losing a trade secret to boot. I can understand perfectly why litigation is your only option in this case, it's the only skill you company has left. The only "innovation" is coming from your lawyers these days.
However, this is where you lose. There is nothing wrong with posting a perfectly legal, common, and (in the case of binaries on a windows machine), desirable method of opening a file. I'm sure the poster who posted the contents of the file opened it using winzip, completly unaware that there even was some kind of agreement. He probably just wanted to avoid executing a binary from a untrustworthy company (go ahead, try proving me wrong). Therefore, YOU HAVE NO CASE. No agreement was broken, none of this DMCA crap applies.
The bottom line here is, your own legendary incompetance is to blame here. Attempting to attack a small news site is only fanning the flames that are burning your company to the ground.
Slashdot crew, you have my complete support in this one. No NOT give up, make a stand against this monopolistic disgrace for a company.
Finkployd
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet
The Internet: Designed for UNIX
Revealing proprietary, trade secrets on a public web site? Let's face it, this is MS, there is no way this is a security hole, they are too "innovative" for that kind of sloppy work to get through. This must be a special "enhancement" they made to the way javascript works, and as such, is covered under the DMCA.
:)
I'll be it's another letter for you guys
Finkployd
Holy speed batman! This is how slashdot always came up in my dreams, so fast I haven't even realeased the enter key and it's up :)
And stop looking at me funny, you dream about web surfing too.....don't you?
Finkployd
Bruce, I usually respect what you say, but not in this case. What happend to the concept of "fair use"? I never signed any agreement, there is no "bargin" for me to welsh on. They freely put out this content via HTTP to the world, how I view it is my business.
The same can be said about javascript popup ads, does that mean people using LYNX (who do not see these ads) are cheating sites that use them? Perhaps it's time to stamp out this so called browser, seeing as it's only use must be to avoid seeing popup ads (Applying the type of reasoning the MPAA is famous for)
If companies have the right to smack us with ads everytime we turn around (TV, movies, TV movies, telemarketers, spam, cell phone spam, eggs, sausage, and spam, javascript banner ads, billboards, etc) then we should have the right to attempt to avoid these ads if we want to. Fair is fair.
Finkployd
That's true, but #1 is still a pretty good defense. As long as Microsoft lookOut isn't ported to linux, we should be ok. :)
Finkployd
What I'm saying is that stocks always seem to get way over inflated right after an IPO, then come back down. I don't think anyone expected LNUX to stay at $300 very long.
Finkployd
There are a few problems with this:
1 Find me a Linux mail client that automatically executed bash scripts when a letter is opened.
2 The worst that said script could do is delete files in the users directory (you aren't logged in as root are you?)
3. Given #2, how would it spread, it cannot modify system files (like sendmail), so the person would have to intentionally send the message.
So go ahead and write this virus, try to spread it. I bet it goes nowhere.
Finkployd
Well, from what little I know about stock, that kind of graph is pretty typical. VA has the world record IPO (if I remember right) so, yeah, it went really high, but like all IPO's I've seen, it dropped down to a more 'sane' number and has been slowly rising since.
:)
Besides, anyone who buys stock at that high point right after an IPO needs too seriously reconsider their investment plans
Finkployd
VA is currently at $60, that doesn't seem too bad. (I could be wrong, I'm not well versed in Wall Street)
Finkployd
Get rid of the radicals? Did you just get here?!
The whole concept of open source is radical (in today's world).
If getting linux (and open source as a concept) into the mainstream means ignoring our ideals and forgetting how we got here, then it IS NOT worth it.
The way to 'go mainstream' is to beat the proprietary software using OUR rules, by producing better programs. This is already happening and soon the software industry will not be able to ignore it. Then we will have won on our own terms, using our own tools.
Besides, how do ou propose to 'get rid' of someone who is responsible for most of the code in any given linux distro?
Finkployd
Finkployd
Hey, at least in the 'burg we ain't throwin no bottles at no coach's heads.
Unlike them jag-offs in Philly...
:)
Finkployd
So we don't care about *BSD anymore?
finkployd
Would a sane sysadmin let any luser get the root passwords to his systems? Now would you let any of those lusers carry a gun?
If you find out that I have the root password for your system, you can change that situation.
I have a handgun, good luck changing that.
Finkployd
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.
This is straight out of the EULA, which really makes one wonder considering that they have tarballs and src.rpm versions of this driver.
So, either they are giving away the source code and some knee-jerk lawer put this clause in with no understanding of what it meant or...
They are providing a closed source driver and don't understand what is to be expected in a src.rpm file.
Either way, you have to wonder, although I suspect (given their history) that the latter case is correct. Anybody who has been able to download from their slashdotted site please enlighten us as to what they are giving us.
Finkployd
I don't think it's the smart people they are targeting.
:)
Finkployd
Use it to arm geeks in public schools so they stand a fighting chance :)
I'm only mostly joking
Finkployd
That's true about the Columbine killers, but the fact that they were origionaly painted as 'geeks' caused a national 'scare' or sorts and led to the presecution of profiling of anyone who matched the defination of 'geek'
So even though Harris and Klebold were not in that group you speak of, that group has taken a lot of abuse because of the precieved connection.
Finkployd
Blow me
Before you attempt to lecture to me take a look at your first post and see who sounds more mature. You don't start with much credibility when you title you message "Attention dipshit..."
The whole basis of this huge thread is that I decided to believe Perens right off the bat, while you wanted for him to post evidence (which he actually didn't and even if he did it still could have been made up since neither of us have greped the file ourselves).
Perhaps we could have come to this understanding earlier had you have not started out like some vulgur young kid who thinks he knows everything.
Finkployd
Sorry, that last line should have been in italics also, you made both statements in your forst post.
I never made up my mind from the start.
What selective memory you have
There not one single shred of evidence that the code in question is GPL code.
They have not committed any violations.
Finkployd
Hmm I asked you to point out where there was a question, and you seemed to (dare I say it) avoid doing that? Interesting
.o file, with my name in it.
But you are right, there was a question in the next post, I believe it went a little like this:
How do you know there is a violation?
I didn't answer this question? Try looking at the next post.
My asnwer was to cut the part of Bruce's story that explained how he found the violation.
Bruce also answered like this:
My copyright string is in the
Finkployd
Well, Bruce posted how he got the evidance, course even if he posts the greped file in question and shows you the copyright string, are you going to believe him? You made up your mind from the beginning that there is no evidence, while I made up my mind that I belive the people claiming there is evidence.
Finkployd