But my point here isn't to attack OSS, if that's what you are thinking, just to point out that this warm, fuzzy feeling that many people get from the openess is a false sense of security. They think because the code is open, and able to be checked, it means that there's nothing bad in there. Well, that's probably true, but only in the same way it's probably true that if you buy retail software it's also free of malware. Neither is a gaurentee of anything, and since 99.999% (or more) of people aren't actually using the openness to do their own audit, it's a false sense of security.
I didn't read the parent so I don't know just how
much faith it put into OSS as opposed to CSS, but
I think your argument goes too far in the other
direction.
Neither OSS nor CSS can guarantee the abscence of
malware, but to suggest that, if you do not do
your own audits, that OSS and CSS are excactly
equivalent in terms of malware risk is absurd.
Even if 99.999% of users are not auditing, as
long as some users are auditing then OSS will be
safer than CSS since auditing OSS is easier
than auditing CSS and removing OSS malware
is easier than removing CSS malware.
The difference may be small, but it is there.
And I suspect it is not nearly so small as you
suggest.
Malware authors have a large incentive to use
CSS to make their software harder to detect and
remove and to protect their work from
competitors.
So you are certainly right that OSS is no
guarantee of safety, but definitely wrong
that, without personal audits, it makes no
difference at all.
This seems like a very cool encryption scheme. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that an efficient factorization algorithm will eventually be found (it may not exist), as the article assumes. Furthermore, not all encryption schemes are based on prime factorization.
It doesn't matter if the phone call is overheard, since Bob only reveals the positions of the photons he received, not their values. As the article explains, it is likely that Alice has misread some of the photons.
Actually, I think I contradicted myself once. What I meant to say was that you have criticized his writing in general terms with the sole exception of your accusations of lying. Furthermore, those accusations are without proof and, thus, offensive and libelous.
I do not consider it a contradiction to appreciate writing that is not perfect. Perfection is unattainable.
And again with the insults! Don't your opinions stand on their own? Why the need to fling bile on those with whom you disagree?
Katz's recent post defending Anonymous Cowards did not suggest that he is opposed to criticism -- quite the contrary. He defended the right of ACs and others to criticize himself and anyone else.
Are you suggesting the act might be difficult, or even non-trivial?
No, I am suggesting that you do it. So far, you have only criticized his writing in general terms without specific examples. I am aware of the spelling and grammatical errors, but I can expect that in first-draft material. And I certainly don't mind first draft material -- this is an interactive website, not a journal.
Your only specific points accuse Katz of outright lying. First, you imply he lied in his claim that he has received large amounts of positive email. I have no way of knowing whether this is true and neither do you. But I think the onus is upon you to prove the lie and you have not done so. You are merely committing libel.
As far as the dog goes, having owned several dogs myself, I certainly can believe that story.
Finally, your insults continue:
"Fluffy noodlings"? "halfbred community college fry-tosser"? and on and on
Come on, just making your insults more grammatically sophisticated doesn't make your arguments any better.
Katz's writing certainly does have a different voice than you might hear from, say, RMS. I enjoy reading many different perspectives and I think Katz's is a valuable addition to/.
If you disagree, why don't you submit an article to/. where you make your arguments? If you do, I would suggest you leave out your long-winded insults and just stick to the facts.
Could you explain, then, the result of the /. poll where a significant majority of the respondents voted that he should be a part of/.?
That doesn't sound like the 'net self-defense' mechanism working in the way you describe.
What it does sound like is a small group of incredibly immature posters masquerading as a/. majority, or, even worse, a majority of the free software movement.
If the net wants clarity and competence, as you say, why are so many flames poorly written and filled with foul language and personal attacks? What is clear and competent about base insults and name-calling?
I, for one, haven't found Katz's writing to be incomprehensible -- quite the contrary. I find his writing to be quite legible and certainly more enjoyable than most of the posts to/.
Could you explain, with a logical argument that leaves out your stream of perjoratives and swear words, what is "clearly false and manipulative" about Katz's writing?
You accuse Katz of electing himself our 'leader', if that term can even be applied to a group like the/. readership. But you then proceed to talk about what the 'net wants', as if you had been elected to make that determination! You have no more authority to determine what the 'net wants' than Katz does.
Would you agree that one of the principles of the net community is that 'the best code wins'? In other words, it's what you do that counts, not how famous you are.
If so, you should review your post with much chagrin. You advance no arguments, only opinions, foul language, and insults.
I didn't propose censoring katz, I proposed that his using slashdot for self-promotion was inappropriate.
Exactly. And I argued that the reasons you gave were not valid. I think my arguments still stand.
You propose that Katz's book should be released as 'open source'. Not even RMS agrees with you on this one -- read the chapter that RMS wrote in 'Open Sources' that was linked from/. recently. RMS argues that *technical material* should be open sourced, but material which describes the author's "actions or views" need not be. In that same article, RMS relates how he charged $150 (!!!) for a copy of Emacs on tape.
I believe Rob & Co. have additional costs than just an isp. Food and shelter come to mind. But perhaps Katz is an android and has no use for such luxuries.
Many 'non-technical' articles are posted to/., unless you count Star Wars previews and dancing hamsters to be technical content, so your first point is irrelevant.
You second point, that the article was flamed publicly, is misleading. Flamers are self-selected and thus do not necessarily represent a majority of/. readers. Unless you can show that a majority of/. readers did not want the article then your second point is irrelevant.
Even if you could show it, so what? Censorship by the masses is still censorship. If the majority of people in the United States voted to exclude all religious works other than the Bible, would that make it ok?
Your third point, that Katz received some financial rewards for posting his review is certainly true, so what? I direct your gaze to the top of the page where there is a little box, whose content changes regularly. Do you know why that is there? It's not because the owners of Slashdot like advertising products for free.
Many people in the free software movement derive some sort of financial reward from it. Do you think Linus got his job at Transmeta because they liked his cool name? RMS has consistently put forth the idea that you can and *should* make money in the free software movement. Why shouldn't Katz make money from his profession?
I don't understand a lot of the negative comments on this page. I've been using E for several months now and it's extremely stable, and very functional.
I also run gnome, so I turn off all the buttons in E (ctrl-alt-B) and have a very clean screen.
Furthermore, compiling E and gnome from cvs is a breeze if you just follow the instructions on the gnome web page.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither OSS nor CSS can guarantee the abscence of malware, but to suggest that, if you do not do your own audits, that OSS and CSS are excactly equivalent in terms of malware risk is absurd.
Even if 99.999% of users are not auditing, as long as some users are auditing then OSS will be safer than CSS since auditing OSS is easier than auditing CSS and removing OSS malware is easier than removing CSS malware.
The difference may be small, but it is there. And I suspect it is not nearly so small as you suggest. Malware authors have a large incentive to use CSS to make their software harder to detect and remove and to protect their work from competitors.
So you are certainly right that OSS is no guarantee of safety, but definitely wrong that, without personal audits, it makes no difference at all.
What part of the article did you disagree with?
The quotes you are responding to are from the
/. intro, not the article itself.
The main point of the article was that you
shouldn't sign contracts that will lock you
into soon-to-be obsolete technology. What's
to disagree with?
I would imagine that not having a state-of-the-art
card-key/camera system probably isn't that big a
deal, so it is less of an issue.
Huh, I guess you *can* pay people ...
to write this stuff
... at least if they're as talented
as Garry Trudeau.
This seems like a very cool encryption scheme. However, it is not a foregone conclusion that an efficient factorization algorithm will eventually be found (it may not exist), as the article assumes. Furthermore, not all encryption schemes are based on prime factorization.
It doesn't matter if the phone call is overheard, since Bob only reveals the positions of the photons he received, not their values. As the article explains, it is likely that Alice has misread some of the photons.
This is great news. My pet monkey has
been getting on in years and is no
longer the chess partner he used to be.
I knew there was something snobby about those Mexican school children...
Who knew?
Personally, I'm going to wait for the
snake elbows before I start upgrading
to body v1.1.
Actually, I think I contradicted myself
once. What I meant to say was that you
have criticized his writing in general
terms with the sole exception of your accusations
of lying. Furthermore, those accusations are
without proof and, thus, offensive and libelous.
I do not consider it a contradiction to
appreciate writing that is not perfect.
Perfection is unattainable.
And again with the insults! Don't your opinions
stand on their own? Why the need to fling bile on
those with whom you disagree?
Katz's recent post defending Anonymous
Cowards did not suggest that he is
opposed to criticism -- quite the contrary.
He defended the right of ACs and others
to criticize himself and anyone else.
Dave
Are you suggesting the act might be difficult,
or even non-trivial?
No, I am suggesting that you do it.
So far, you have only criticized his
writing in general terms without specific
examples. I am aware of the spelling and
grammatical errors, but I can expect that
in first-draft material. And I certainly
don't mind first draft material -- this
is an interactive website, not a journal.
Your only specific points accuse Katz of
outright lying. First, you imply he lied
in his claim that he has received large amounts
of positive email. I have no way of knowing
whether this is true and neither do you.
But I think the onus is upon you to prove
the lie and you have not done so. You are
merely committing libel.
As far as the dog goes, having owned several
dogs myself, I certainly can believe that story.
Finally, your insults continue:
"Fluffy noodlings"?
"halfbred community college fry-tosser"?
and on and on
Come on, just making your insults more
grammatically sophisticated doesn't make your arguments any better.
Katz's writing certainly does have a different
voice than you might hear from, say, RMS. I
enjoy reading many different perspectives and
I think Katz's is a valuable addition to
If you disagree, why don't you submit an article
to
I would suggest you leave out your long-winded insults and just stick to the facts.
Dave
Could you explain, then, the result of the /.?
/. majority, or, even worse, a majority of
/.
/. readership. But you then proceed to talk
/. poll where a significant majority of
the respondents voted that he should be
a part of
That doesn't sound like the 'net self-defense'
mechanism working in the way you describe.
What it does sound like is a small group of
incredibly immature posters masquerading as
a
the free software movement.
If the net wants clarity and competence, as
you say, why are so many flames poorly written
and filled with foul language and personal
attacks? What is clear and competent about
base insults and name-calling?
I, for one, haven't found Katz's writing to
be incomprehensible -- quite the contrary.
I find his writing to be quite legible and
certainly more enjoyable than most of the
posts to
Could you explain, with a logical argument
that leaves out your stream of perjoratives
and swear words, what is "clearly false and
manipulative" about Katz's writing?
You accuse Katz of electing himself our 'leader',
if that term can even be applied to a group like
the
about what the 'net wants', as if you had been
elected to make that determination! You have no
more authority to determine what the 'net wants'
than Katz does.
Would you agree that one of the principles of
the net community is that 'the best code wins'?
In other words, it's what you do that counts,
not how famous you are.
If so, you should review your post with much
chagrin. You advance no arguments, only opinions, foul language, and insults.
At the bottom of RMS's article, it says:
"Copyright(C) 1998 Richard Stallman"
Even if RMS did release it into PD, he
still made the point that he was not
morally obliged to, in constrast to
documentation for free software.
I didn't propose censoring katz, I proposed that his using slashdot for self-promotion was inappropriate.
Exactly. And I argued that the reasons you gave
were not valid. I think my arguments still stand.
You propose that Katz's book should be released
as 'open source'. Not even RMS agrees with you
on this one -- read the chapter that RMS wrote
in 'Open Sources' that was linked from
recently. RMS argues that *technical material*
should be open sourced, but material which
describes the author's "actions or views"
need not be. In that same article, RMS relates
how he charged $150 (!!!) for a copy of Emacs
on tape.
I believe Rob & Co. have additional costs
than just an isp. Food and shelter come to
mind. But perhaps Katz is an android and
has no use for such luxuries.
Many 'non-technical' articles are posted to /.,
/. readers. Unless you can show that a majority /. readers did not want the article then your
unless you count Star Wars previews and dancing
hamsters to be technical content, so your first
point is irrelevant.
You second point, that the article was flamed
publicly, is misleading. Flamers are self-selected
and thus do not necessarily represent a majority
of
of
second point is irrelevant.
Even if you could show it, so what? Censorship
by the masses is still censorship. If the majority
of people in the United States voted to exclude
all religious works other than the Bible, would
that make it ok?
Your third point, that Katz received some
financial rewards for posting his review
is certainly true, so what? I direct your
gaze to the top of the page where there
is a little box, whose content changes
regularly. Do you know why that is there?
It's not because the owners of Slashdot
like advertising products for free.
Many people in the free software movement
derive some sort of financial reward from
it. Do you think Linus got his job at
Transmeta because they liked his cool name?
RMS has consistently put forth the idea
that you can and *should* make money in
the free software movement. Why shouldn't
Katz make money from his profession?
I find your 'open letter' shallow and naive.
No he doesn't, don't be absurd. He can choose to do so, but he's certainly not obligated to. Offensive is a subjective term.
By definition, /. must experience /. effect every day. So, I'd :)
the
say it's been holding up pretty
well so far, modulo database quirks
Right. I'm sure you would have done it
if only Linus hadn't started first.
He should also give credit to:
Thompson
Shockley et al (the transistor)
Turing
Einstein
Babbage
Babbage's Mother
etc. etc.
Everything we do is building on the
work of others. It goes without saying.
Letting your jealousy get the best of you?
ass
And yet they're still here, sans concessions. Hmmm... something must be wrong with your logic.
I don't understand a lot of the negative
comments on this page. I've been using E
for several months now and it's extremely
stable, and very functional.
I also run gnome, so I turn off all the
buttons in E (ctrl-alt-B) and have a very
clean screen.
Furthermore, compiling E and gnome from
cvs is a breeze if you just follow the
instructions on the gnome web page.