The criminal responsibility lies solely with the person who created and released the virus. Virus take advantage of bad security, but they aren't created by bad security.
If Linux is identified with "virus writers" in the public's eye, then that perception will trap Linux in its own little geek ghetto. Try selling a CEO on Linux if he or she has only heard about it as the OS that virus writers use.
Viruses don't appear spontaneously. They are spread, not created, by bad security. Someone has to write them and release them That's where to aim your wrath. Otherwise, you're blaming a shooting victim for not wearing a protective vest.
All the BBC commentary (it isn't a news report) did was to make the rather obvious connection between a DoS attack on SCO and the more rabid zealots in the Linux community. This possibility occurred to everyone about 5 minutes after the story broke. Certainly, threats to DoS SCO are not uncommon here on/.
Association of Linux and viruses in the public eye will spell its end.
Ummmm...today's Mac bears no similarity to the original 9-inch box. It's been pronounced dead by pundits who think success is measured by knocking off Microsoft, not by turning a profit.
Since the Soviet Union was the enemy, and responsible for most of the world's ills in the second half of the 20th Century, I have no problems with something that might have destroyed a piece of their infrastructure.
>> From what we know of the Soviet penetration of the CIA and FBI it is clear that it was nowhere nearly large enough. If you are correct and there was a massive network of Western moles...
You're building a strawman. I said nothing about "Soviet penetration" of U.S. intelligence. nothing about the actual extent of U.S. penetration of Soviet society, and certainly nothing at all about a "massive network of Western moles".
Good point. Members of the intelligence community take an oath to never (as in, never) divulge classified information. Maybe Safire's old buddy told him something that's been declassified. Otherwise, he was risking a jail term. Something to think about when we read this kind of stuff in the press.
>> Finally, the CIA would have no way of knowing that their goosed up control system would not have found its way into a nuclear plant.
You would need to know the extent and nature of the CIA's penetration of Soviet institutions before you can make such a claim. One reasonable scenario is that relatively few chips were passed to an individual who was able to ensure they were used only in pipeline construction. Or, given the failings of Soviet nuclear plant construction techniques, they might not have worried about it one way or another. A reactor explosion could be plausibly blamed on faulty construction.
If memory serves, I've driven 8 out of the 10. Driven, not owned. (I do admit to owning a Pinto a and an early-'80s Accord long time ago...)
Once had friends who traded a BMW 2002 in for a Pacer. (Yes!). All that glass on top made you feel like you were driving around in an overheated bubble. Their dog liked to chew on the armrests.
Another friend bought a relative of the Fiat Strada, a Fiat 128. Green with a cardboard interior. The gearshift lever came off in her hand one day on the interstate. Later, it caught fire.
No. The GPL does not require products using that license to be provided at no cost. It requires the source code to be available, and Xandros has made all of its GPL'd code available, gratis, although the GPL does not require that.
From the GPL FAQ:
"The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software.
and:
" You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.:
>> You claim that currency detection algorithms embedded in Photoshop will prevent counterfeiters from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Your claim is predicated on the assumption that counterfeiters are incapable of downloading The GIMP.
I did not say that. I said the algorithms are intended to prevent the use of that software in the execution of a crime, i.e., copying of U.S. currency. You are setting up a lie in order to play at attacking me. In my eyes, your assertion about Gimp is ample reason to include the detection algorithm in that program.
The Copyright Act defines fair use, not the Counterfeit Act.
I don't accept your arguments because you provide no proof of you assertions. Where are your numbers?
As I've said, I don't care if a few Photoshop users get annoyed by this. If the technical means exist to alter software, or any other device, to prevent its use in a crime, I see no reason not to do that.
If it is illegal to do X, any person doing X has committed a crime, regardless of intent. Save the intent argument for the trial.
The conditions under which currency can be legally reproduced are spelled out in the U.S. Code.
Your conclusion that " Automatically preventing anyone from working with such images based on the assumption that they're all criminals..." is bogus. The intent is to prevent the execution of a criminal act, by anyone. You seem to be arguing that such technology is only appropriate if, as if by magic, it could sense the intent of the user. That's nonsense. (However, simple logic will tell you that if copying something is a crime, then anyone who does that is a criminal.)
Counterfeiting using digital tools has risen sharply in recent years. If a few PhotoShop users want to get on their moral high-horse about it, that's OK with me if it keeps people from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Not offending some graphic artists versus preventing counterfeiting is an easy call.
Not sure about lineage of the installer. KDE's Control Center has been tweaked to handle the configuration errands. Like every other Linux, the GUI tools simply write out text to the usual files. As of yet, I haven't had a need to go chase them down.
You are incorrect. Xandros is not "mostly proprietary". Why do people keep trotting out this candrd? Do you really think Xandros wrote several hundred proprietary apps that just happen to look and behave as their open source equivalents?
Xandros is comprised of Debian's Sarge release. The only Xandros code I see is the tweaked KDE code (patches supplied to KDE), their installer and their file manager. A long way from being "mostly proprietary.
People who are prospective Xandros buyers could care less about "Using and learning a Free distro and then passing that knowledge along to the world.." Why would they want to take their time and money to study how to do something if they can buy Xandros and have it done for them? Do you really think people want to read a book about shell scripting, and chase down info about about networking and drivers before they can use their printer?
As for me, I'll use the best software, open source or proprietary. I've used all the major free distros, and several not-so-major. I've paid my dues running servers and tweaking code. I still like Xandros better.
>>"What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?"
That's the kind of bratty hyperbole I'd expect to hear from ill-educated 13-year olds. If a device is constructed to attempt to prevent a crime, no one is treating anyone as a "criminal". (Or did you plan on making copies of your dollars?)
Are you offended when you're neighbor locks his doors? Are you offended when your neighbor activates his car alarm? Are you offended that currency is deliberately construcuted to thwart counterfeiting? Are you offended when your favorite retailer's computer checks to make sure the credit card you're trying to use isn't stolen?
Why would you be offended about a piece of hardware that's wired to keep people from committing a crime?
As for the incentive to make these things, perhaps
It's Debian's Sarge release with a couple non-GPL'd goodies in the mix. Xandros meets licensing requirements by making source available on an FTP server.
If you select software based on ideology, you may be put off by the bits of proprietary code. I'm not. More to the point, the market for this product won't care and, in fact, have probably never heard of the GPL.
I've been using Xandros Desltop 2.0 for a few weeks, coming to it after several years with a number of other distributions.
It is, indeed, a slick piece of work. Installed as advertised. Detected and offered the correct drivers for all of my periperals, including my printer. Saved me the trouble of chasing down and installing some Mozilla plugins. Crossover works as advertised. The tweaks to KDE are well done and present a professional image.
The standard install does not deposit the usual retinue of servers and development tools on your drive (most are available on the 2nd CD or via download). That makes sense for the market Xandros is targetting. (Makes sense for me, too. On my home desktop box, I don't need 'em.)
If Xandros targeted the geek market, included the usual geek software, rewrote their manual, and changed their advertising to downplay the Windows thing, this distribution would be seen by geeks as the best desktop Linux released to date. Most geeks won't look at it that way, but they'll be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The criminal responsibility lies solely with the person who created and released the virus. Virus take advantage of bad security, but they aren't created by bad security.
If Linux is identified with "virus writers" in the public's eye, then that perception will trap Linux in its own little geek ghetto. Try selling a CEO on Linux if he or she has only heard about it as the OS that virus writers use.
>>
/.
If you don't want viruses to spread, don't...
Viruses don't appear spontaneously. They are spread, not created, by bad security. Someone has to write them and release them That's where to aim your wrath. Otherwise, you're blaming a shooting victim for not wearing a protective vest.
All the BBC commentary (it isn't a news report) did was to make the rather obvious connection between a DoS attack on SCO and the more rabid zealots in the Linux community. This possibility occurred to everyone about 5 minutes after the story broke. Certainly, threats to DoS SCO are not uncommon here on
Association of Linux and viruses in the public eye will spell its end.
Ummmm...today's Mac bears no similarity to the original 9-inch box. It's been pronounced dead by pundits who think success is measured by knocking off Microsoft, not by turning a profit.
...it actually points out why these "old-fashioned" technologies continue to be popular. You wouldn't know that from the /. intro.
Since the Soviet Union was the enemy, and responsible for most of the world's ills in the second half of the 20th Century, I have no problems with something that might have destroyed a piece of their infrastructure.
>> From what we know of the Soviet penetration of the CIA and FBI it is clear that it was nowhere nearly large enough. If you are correct and there was a massive network of Western moles...
You're building a strawman. I said nothing about "Soviet penetration" of U.S. intelligence. nothing about the actual extent of U.S. penetration of Soviet society, and certainly nothing at all about a "massive network of Western moles".
Good point. Members of the intelligence community take an oath to never (as in, never) divulge classified information. Maybe Safire's old buddy told him something that's been declassified. Otherwise, he was risking a jail term. Something to think about when we read this kind of stuff in the press.
>> Finally, the CIA would have no way of knowing that their goosed up control system would not have found its way into a nuclear plant.
You would need to know the extent and nature of the CIA's penetration of Soviet institutions before you can make such a claim. One reasonable scenario is that relatively few chips were passed to an individual who was able to ensure they were used only in pipeline construction. Or, given the failings of Soviet nuclear plant construction techniques, they might not have worried about it one way or another. A reactor explosion could be plausibly blamed on faulty construction.
If memory serves, I've driven 8 out of the 10. Driven, not owned. (I do admit to owning a Pinto a and an early-'80s Accord long time ago...)
Once had friends who traded a BMW 2002 in for a Pacer. (Yes!). All that glass on top made you feel like you were driving around in an overheated bubble. Their dog liked to chew on the armrests.
Another friend bought a relative of the Fiat Strada, a Fiat 128. Green with a cardboard interior. The gearshift lever came off in her hand one day on the interstate. Later, it caught fire.
So...put a doctor in the crew.
...to have an engineer on scene to fix it.
Robots are great until they break.
No. The GPL does not require products using that license to be provided at no cost. It requires the source code to be available, and Xandros has made all of its GPL'd code available, gratis, although the GPL does not require that.
From the GPL FAQ:
"The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software.
and:
" You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.:
No.
There is no reason to prove something is infallible before using it to prevent crime. Locks can be picked, but we still use them.
>> You claim that currency detection algorithms embedded in Photoshop will prevent counterfeiters from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Your claim is predicated on the assumption that counterfeiters are incapable of downloading The GIMP.
I did not say that. I said the algorithms are intended to prevent the use of that software in the execution of a crime, i.e., copying of U.S. currency. You are setting up a lie in order to play at attacking me. In my eyes, your assertion about Gimp is ample reason to include the detection algorithm in that program.
The Copyright Act defines fair use, not the Counterfeit Act.
I don't accept your arguments because you provide no proof of you assertions. Where are your numbers?
As I've said, I don't care if a few Photoshop users get annoyed by this. If the technical means exist to alter software, or any other device, to prevent its use in a crime, I see no reason not to do that.
If it is illegal to do X, any person doing X has committed a crime, regardless of intent. Save the intent argument for the trial.
The conditions under which currency can be legally reproduced are spelled out in the U.S. Code.
Your conclusion that " Automatically preventing anyone from working with such images based on the assumption that they're all criminals..." is bogus. The intent is to prevent the execution of a criminal act, by anyone. You seem to be arguing that such technology is only appropriate if, as if by magic, it could sense the intent of the user. That's nonsense. (However, simple logic will tell you that if copying something is a crime, then anyone who does that is a criminal.)
Counterfeiting using digital tools has risen sharply in recent years. If a few PhotoShop users want to get on their moral high-horse about it, that's OK with me if it keeps people from cranking out counterfeit dollars. Not offending some graphic artists versus preventing counterfeiting is an easy call.
Not sure about lineage of the installer. KDE's Control Center has been tweaked to handle the configuration errands. Like every other Linux, the GUI tools simply write out text to the usual files. As of yet, I haven't had a need to go chase them down.
>>
Big companies use a free Linux to sell services (Red Hat, IBM) and hardware (IBM, HP...) and yes, software (Oracle..)
Right. What's your point?
>> These distros will be most useful if they are picked up by IBM etc. to re-do several thousand desktops at a company or city or whatever.
Of course. That's exactly the kind of market they're targetting. If they were after the consumer market, they'd buy shelf space at Walmart.
You are incorrect. Xandros is not "mostly proprietary". Why do people keep trotting out this candrd? Do you really think Xandros wrote several hundred proprietary apps that just happen to look and behave as their open source equivalents?
.." Why would they want to take their time and money to study how to do something if they can buy Xandros and have it done for them? Do you really think people want to read a book about shell scripting, and chase down info about about networking and drivers before they can use their printer?
Xandros is comprised of Debian's Sarge release. The only Xandros code I see is the tweaked KDE code (patches supplied to KDE), their installer and their file manager. A long way from being "mostly proprietary.
People who are prospective Xandros buyers could care less about "Using and learning a Free distro and then passing that knowledge along to the world
As for me, I'll use the best software, open source or proprietary. I've used all the major free distros, and several not-so-major. I've paid my dues running servers and tweaking code. I still like Xandros better.
>>"What incentive do printer manufacturers have to treat their customers like criminals?"
That's the kind of bratty hyperbole I'd expect to hear from ill-educated 13-year olds. If a device is constructed to attempt to prevent a crime, no one is treating anyone as a "criminal". (Or did you plan on making copies of your dollars?)
Are you offended when you're neighbor locks his doors? Are you offended when your neighbor activates his car alarm? Are you offended that currency is deliberately construcuted to thwart counterfeiting? Are you offended when your favorite retailer's computer checks to make sure the credit card you're trying to use isn't stolen?
Why would you be offended about a piece of hardware that's wired to keep people from committing a crime?
As for the incentive to make these things, perhaps
It's Debian's Sarge release with a couple non-GPL'd goodies in the mix. Xandros meets licensing requirements by making source available on an FTP server.
If you select software based on ideology, you may be put off by the bits of proprietary code. I'm not. More to the point, the market for this product won't care and, in fact, have probably never heard of the GPL.
If you're too cheap to buy something, then no business will consider you as a potential customer.
Folks like you simply justify people's belief that Linux is about not paying for software, one way (open source) or another (piracy).
I've been using Xandros Desltop 2.0 for a few weeks, coming to it after several years with a number of other distributions.
It is, indeed, a slick piece of work. Installed as advertised. Detected and offered the correct drivers for all of my periperals, including my printer. Saved me the trouble of chasing down and installing some Mozilla plugins. Crossover works as advertised. The tweaks to KDE are well done and present a professional image.
The standard install does not deposit the usual retinue of servers and development tools on your drive (most are available on the 2nd CD or via download). That makes sense for the market Xandros is targetting. (Makes sense for me, too. On my home desktop box, I don't need 'em.)
If Xandros targeted the geek market, included the usual geek software, rewrote their manual, and changed their advertising to downplay the Windows thing, this distribution would be seen by geeks as the best desktop Linux released to date. Most geeks won't look at it that way, but they'll be wrong.
A debatable notion. If it had come to pass, then the war would have been against Stalin.
If they won't buy the extra paper, send it out as email, or provide online access to the database.
God knows, everyone else probably can access this info, why not the kid's parents?