Citation needed. Despite all of the doomsday predictions, this has not been happening. Sales in 2010 rose over 2009 - not as much as they expected, but it was still an increase, not a decrease.
I do blame the Fed for loaning it to them practically free though. I am "rationally fine" financially as you put it, where's my couple trillion interest free loan from the Fed? I could make a killing too!
Our system is not laissez faire. The government is intervening - that is the whole problem. Free Market Capitalism is a good thing, but we haven't have that for a VERY long time due to government intervention - usually for the benefit of the rich and the detriment of everyone else.
Citation needed. Not that I think you are making it up, its just that I've seen a lot of figures floating around and would love to see a reliable source.
Ya perhaps our experiences are just different. Most devs I work with will call IT only for things like domain user rights/password issues, or network file restores and the like. If we hose our dev systems beyond our own ability to fix it, it is generally understood that IT won't be able to fix it either - we just do our own wipe and reload (we'll have to call you to rejoin the domain).
But consider that one of the reasons you might think devs generate more calls is because we generate more *complex* calls. Give us the rights to do it ourselves and we don't call you for the little stuff. If you don't we'll be calling you on an hourly basis to install this, uninstall that, configure etc etc simply because its part of our job to do these things on a constant basis - either because we need more tools than the average user, we need to research a new 3rd party library, or we are doing it for testing purposes.
Also, take away my rights to do something on my own machine and I'll just spin up a vbox to do it. It'll take longer, but I will get around those restrictions if it takes me all day.
That said, yes, there are reasons why FOSS is generally more secure. One of them is the expectation of errors being revealed. We all want to avoid embarrassment. Closed source software doesn't usually need to worry about that.
I'd have to say its more along the lines of:
a) They are more likely to be revealed (because anyone can see the code)
and
b) They are more likely to be fixed (because anyone can work on the code)
I'm a software developer and I can tell you that the average dev knows a lot more than the average support tech re: how to make a stable system.
Now, *knowing* how to make a stable system, and actually *having* a stable dev system are two different things. A large part of my job is research into actually *making* things unstable and figuring out recovery strategies. Any kind of restrictions on what I can or cannot do to configure my system hinder productivity, not help it. Thankfully my company has very few restrictions besides proxy access.
No no and no. Open source is not by definition vulnerable. Also, if you bother to read the title, let alone RTFA, you'd notice it is the handset manufacturer that is making the security blunders. The reference implementation (the open source stuff) "had relatively minor security issues".
Open source, assuming you have enough (competent) people working on it, is MORE secure than closed source.
In short, it appears you have some rather backwards pre-conceived notions about open source, and apparently you also have a reading comprehension problem.
See Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Another favor to IBM? Time for you yankees to get corporations out of your congress. Good thing I live in Canada!
Personally I'm pretty libertarian, and I would not say "regulate" I would rather see criminal or civil charges for any pollution or externality. We shouldn't have to have laws specifying every action without being able to bring people to justice when they shit on someone else's lawn (pollution). Surprisingly, the separation of trash does *not* need to be legislated in the same way criminal and civil laws are - it is a policy/practice of the waste collection department of the municipality - if you don't want to separate, they don't serve you.
So... your argument is "we've been doing it the other way for long why stop now?". Yaaaa that doesn't fly. If you don't want to play by the rules, arrange your own garbage pickup. Or bury it in your own damn backyard.
It's not even that its a "responsibility toward the social compact". The fact of the matter is - ITS YOUR GARBAGE. If you don't want to play by the rules the rest of us make, you can go have your own little party and bury it in your own damn backyard instead, we sure as hell don't want it.
You've framed the question wrong. How about this one: "Should the rest of us be mandated to take your garbage if you don't sort it properly?" That is your X, therefore by your own logic, the answer is No. You don't want to sort your garbage? Then you figure out what to do with it, it isn't going in the public landfill.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry sir, we'll get off your lawn.
Or it can legally and single handedly kill iOS. Just don't buy Apple products, and port your FOSS apps to Android.
Wow you are so dillusional.
PC sales are *declining*
Citation needed. Despite all of the doomsday predictions, this has not been happening. Sales in 2010 rose over 2009 - not as much as they expected, but it was still an increase, not a decrease.
You didn't fix anything. "Corporatism" is "a good thing for a tiny fraction of the population". You seem to be confused.
I do blame the Fed for loaning it to them practically free though. I am "rationally fine" financially as you put it, where's my couple trillion interest free loan from the Fed? I could make a killing too!
Citation please
Our system is not laissez faire. The government is intervening - that is the whole problem. Free Market Capitalism is a good thing, but we haven't have that for a VERY long time due to government intervention - usually for the benefit of the rich and the detriment of everyone else.
Citation needed. Not that I think you are making it up, its just that I've seen a lot of figures floating around and would love to see a reliable source.
Couldn't agree more. Large central government not only tramples all over our rights - it is just asking for corruption by powerful private interests.
Ya perhaps our experiences are just different. Most devs I work with will call IT only for things like domain user rights/password issues, or network file restores and the like. If we hose our dev systems beyond our own ability to fix it, it is generally understood that IT won't be able to fix it either - we just do our own wipe and reload (we'll have to call you to rejoin the domain).
But consider that one of the reasons you might think devs generate more calls is because we generate more *complex* calls. Give us the rights to do it ourselves and we don't call you for the little stuff. If you don't we'll be calling you on an hourly basis to install this, uninstall that, configure etc etc simply because its part of our job to do these things on a constant basis - either because we need more tools than the average user, we need to research a new 3rd party library, or we are doing it for testing purposes.
Also, take away my rights to do something on my own machine and I'll just spin up a vbox to do it. It'll take longer, but I will get around those restrictions if it takes me all day.
That said, yes, there are reasons why FOSS is generally more secure. One of them is the expectation of errors being revealed. We all want to avoid embarrassment. Closed source software doesn't usually need to worry about that.
I'd have to say its more along the lines of:
a) They are more likely to be revealed (because anyone can see the code)
and
b) They are more likely to be fixed (because anyone can work on the code)
To steal from ESR's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", Many Eyeballs Tame Complexity.
I'm a software developer and I can tell you that the average dev knows a lot more than the average support tech re: how to make a stable system.
Now, *knowing* how to make a stable system, and actually *having* a stable dev system are two different things. A large part of my job is research into actually *making* things unstable and figuring out recovery strategies. Any kind of restrictions on what I can or cannot do to configure my system hinder productivity, not help it. Thankfully my company has very few restrictions besides proxy access.
Watching two people...
there's 4 people + you here.
No no and no. Open source is not by definition vulnerable. Also, if you bother to read the title, let alone RTFA, you'd notice it is the handset manufacturer that is making the security blunders. The reference implementation (the open source stuff) "had relatively minor security issues".
Open source, assuming you have enough (competent) people working on it, is MORE secure than closed source.
In short, it appears you have some rather backwards pre-conceived notions about open source, and apparently you also have a reading comprehension problem.
Firefox has become a bloated piece of garbage.
So its like IE you say...
See Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Another favor to IBM? Time for you yankees to get corporations out of your congress. Good thing I live in Canada!
Personally I'm pretty libertarian, and I would not say "regulate" I would rather see criminal or civil charges for any pollution or externality. We shouldn't have to have laws specifying every action without being able to bring people to justice when they shit on someone else's lawn (pollution). Surprisingly, the separation of trash does *not* need to be legislated in the same way criminal and civil laws are - it is a policy/practice of the waste collection department of the municipality - if you don't want to separate, they don't serve you.
So... your argument is "we've been doing it the other way for long why stop now?". Yaaaa that doesn't fly. If you don't want to play by the rules, arrange your own garbage pickup. Or bury it in your own damn backyard.
I lol'd
Great, instead of the pollution sitting on land we put it into the air. Although incinerators are cleaner than coal plants... which isn't saying much.
I would imagine most of these places would have a green bin program.
mmmmm Hummus
(I think you meant "Humus")
It's not even that its a "responsibility toward the social compact". The fact of the matter is - ITS YOUR GARBAGE. If you don't want to play by the rules the rest of us make, you can go have your own little party and bury it in your own damn backyard instead, we sure as hell don't want it.
The "resonsibility" is towards your garbage.
You've framed the question wrong. How about this one: "Should the rest of us be mandated to take your garbage if you don't sort it properly?" That is your X, therefore by your own logic, the answer is No. You don't want to sort your garbage? Then you figure out what to do with it, it isn't going in the public landfill.