I would argue that Linux is both young AND old at the same time: the Linux kernel itself has only been around for 9 years, but it's based on Unix, which has been around since the 1970's. So the "age" of Linux is pretty much irrelevant; it owed a lot of its rapid success to the fact that there were a lot of Unix gurus out there who were able to help out, and that the GNU software was easily ported (once Linus got gcc working, the rest of GNU was (relatively) easy, I imagine).
If you want to look at a really new OS, check out the Extremely Reliable Operating System (a.k.a. the EROS project). It's not ready for users yet, but if want to hack on a new OS, the pre-release might be just what you're looking for. -----
There is more to life then money sir, and the sooner you realize this, the better off you will be. I would prefer to make a far lower salary working on and coding for linux, then to be stuck fixing and coding for M$. There ARE people in this world, believe it or not, who do not agree with the Redmond philosophy that Money determines your self worth. What a wonderful world this would be if greed and money weren't used as the deciding factor on a person's character. Personally, I find Mr. Gates, and all the other country club, CEO, trust fund babies rather disgusting. Im not sure i could live with myself knowing my anual income was greater then the wealth of 3rd world countries. Im couldn't sleep at night, in a house, far beyond my needs, with 60+ bedrooms knowing that there were people in this world happy to find a dry alley to sleep for the night. So, no sir, i do not care about money, and no, i do not agree with the Redmond philosophy. And it is rather disturbing that so many people in this world do.
*Sniff* That was... beautiful. I've don't usually do this, but...
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
Seriously, I wish more people thought and acted like this. What disturbs me the most about America is too many "yuppies" -- you know, the kind of people who live in suburbs, drive SUV's, play golf at the country club every weekend, own a $2,000,000 home, and maybe give $100 to charity every two or three months. So reading your post, Mr. "dev/null", was like a breath of fresh air. Thank you, and I hope I meet more people like you. -----
Ah, now I finally understand... In Microsoft PR-speak, "to innovate" is the term for what the rest of us so fondly (?) refer to as "embrace & extend". Why else would Greg Leake say that "Java is under serious constraint... over how any vendor can innovate around it"? What he means is that Sun has prevented Microsoft from doing another Em&Ex. -----
What's to stop me from taking the PC and putting Linux on it? I could then redirect all the ads to/dev/null and the manufacturer wouldn't have a clue that I wasn't seeing the ads, since the incoming advertisement connections are politely accepted...:-)
I really do NOT see how they're going to stop someone saying, "Hey! A free PC! Cool!", getting one, booting it off a boot disk and reformatting the hard drive. About the only way they could stop people from doing that is with a BIOS password that prevents changing the boot order of the computer. And even that is crackable: just remove the CMOS battery.
And on my Linux box, running Netscape Communicator 4.5, they show up as accented vowels -- the old, familiar extended-ASCII character set that I remember from my DOS days. -----
Next time, wait until the mirrors have had a chance to grab the pages before you post the article. That way the/. load won't be hitting their server ALL DAY, just long enough for people to find a mirror.
As it is, I still haven't found the Feb issue on any mirrors yet. -----
The first tripwire in this sort of attack is, as you suggest, signing of packages and sources you upload. As long as a cyptographically-strong signature (such as PGP) is used, this is usually enough to assure you that the sources haven't been modified. This will not protect against Trojans inserted by the legitimate authors, though, which is why a second tripwire is needed: source review. I'm not a network security expert, and I'm not really capable of reviewing packages: so I trust the PGP signature (at least for my home computer). But I also know that many sysadmins who run sensitive systems are properly paranoid and will not only check the PGP signature but ALSO scrutinize the source themselves. It's one of those paranoid sysadmins who caught the TCP-Wrapper Trojan, and it's one of those paranoid sysadmins who will catch the next Trojan inserted into Open-Source software.
So the only Open-Source Trojan that will really succeed is one put in place by a conspiracy of EVERY single sysadmin worldwide... I'm not worried.
This message has been brought to you by the Sysadmin Conspiracy: There Is No Sysadmin Conspiracy (tinsc). -----
One of the comment-posters (whose name and E-mail address I will not post so that he doesn't get flamed) said the following:
In an open-source environment you will never be paid for your intellectual property. If you manage to create an exciting new feature, or discover a way to increase performance by 50%, you'll never see the rewards of it. Your competitors will take the code you created, and put it into their products. Suddenly your hard work is helping your competitors to beat you in the marketplace. Open source sounds good on paper, but the only way you'll make money at it is in customer support. Because if you come up with anything exciting and new, everyone of your competitors will take it from you and you'll never see a dime from it except from your autobiography. No one is going to get rich making open source software.
Now I know this is one of the classic arguments against Free software, but it seems pretty accurate to me. I realize this guy is coming to software from a businessman's prespective instead of a hacker's perspective (i.e., "How can I make money from this? instead of "How can I make something useful?"). But he *has* hit on one of the fundamental driving forces behind Free software: to eventually replace all proprietary software with Free software. This is RMS's vision, and as more and more really *good* Free software gets written, more and more people will begin to realize the potential for that vision to be fulfilled. As that happens, we're going to get more and more hostility from software companies who don't want to shift their primary business focus to something else (like support, for example). So I ask: does anyone have a good response to this argument? I'm looking for something that will sound good to a businessperson, not just to a hacker. Something to persuade them that there might not be much money in Free software (or Open Source software, as they will be calling it), but that's not the point: the point is to make computers more reliable.
Anyway, I'd like to hear how you would respond to this guy's argument. -----
Ah, yes. After the confusing jumble of books by other publishers, Jon Katz (if I read this right) finally settled on a pair of O'Reilly books to guide him through. A Nutshell Handbook (which might be confusing now but which you will return to again and again), and Running Linux. Well chosen, Jon! I would recommend yet one more: it's small, it's concise, but it's the best book of its type I can remember seeing: Learning the UNIX Operating System, by Jerry Peek, Grace Todino and John Strang (ISBN: 1-56592-390-1). It's published (of course) by O'Reilly & Associates, and it's aimed at people who have never used Unix (of any flavor) before. It may not teach you how to admin your system, but it'll sure teach you how to USE your system (i.e., be a user). And it's cheap: $10.95 according to the O'Reilly on-line catalog.
Now I'll be able to exchange encrypted E-mails with my parents... They're missionaries in France and, though they aren't French citizens, they're still subject to the laws of France because they live there.
This is very good news for me. -----
Dontcha just love the M$ comments?
on
NYT covers WINE
·
· Score: 1
It's very clever PR work, you gotta give 'em that. If you compare Microsoft to the Titanic and Linux to the iceberg, the last few hours of Microsoft's sinking will NOT be spent with musicians playing "Nearer, my God, to Thee" as on the Titanic; it will be spent with the crew running around trying to persuade the passengers that the ship ISN'T sinking and those irresponsibles getting into lifeboats are just going to get lost at sea without the mighty M$itanic under their feet.
Anyway, I was going to comment on the particular piece of FUD here. "The applications that are of the most interest are Windows applications," he says, conveniently forgetting to mention that until recently ALL applications released (from commercial sources, at least) were Windows applications. (Well, there are some scientific packages being sold for various Unices, but I'm thinking about the business realm right now). And "the most stable and reliable environment to run Windows applications in is Windows" is so slick. He might even be able to argue convincingly that it's true: after all, an emulator is usually chasing a moving target and Windows will always be able to run Windows apps. But of course he conveniently fails to mention the fact that what runs *underneath* WINE, whether it be Linux or FreeBSD or something else, is vastly more stable and reliable than the Windows kernel.
Why am I giving FUD-analysing lessons on Slashdot? What a waste of bandwidth. Sorry for wasting your time pointing out stuff you already knew, everybody; I'll shut up now. -----
Nah, it doesn't have to be a security risk. I have a few passwords that I consider "insecure" since anyone who knows me could probably guess them. Those are the ones I use on all the web-based login thingies. After all, it's being transmitted in cleartext over the 'Net -- I'm not gonna use my *real* password, for cryin' out loud! At any one time, I might have the same password on three or four different web-based login thingies. I mean, if someone sniffs my password with a packet-sniffer somewhere, what are they gonna do? Pose as me on Slashdot? I'm not important enough for anyone to bother, and it would only be a minor nuisance... So having the same password in multiple places doesn't *have* to be a security risk. -----
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to look at a really new OS, check out the Extremely Reliable Operating System (a.k.a. the EROS project). It's not ready for users yet, but if want to hack on a new OS, the pre-release might be just what you're looking for.
-----
*Sniff* That was... beautiful. I've don't usually do this, but...
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
Seriously, I wish more people thought and acted like this. What disturbs me the most about America is too many "yuppies" -- you know, the kind of people who live in suburbs, drive SUV's, play golf at the country club every weekend, own a $2,000,000 home, and maybe give $100 to charity every two or three months. So reading your post, Mr. "dev/null", was like a breath of fresh air. Thank you, and I hope I meet more people like you.
-----
And if that doesn't work, "man patch" and find out what the various options do (hint: --dry-run is your friend!)
-----
Ah, now I finally understand... In Microsoft PR-speak, "to innovate" is the term for what the rest of us so fondly (?) refer to as "embrace & extend". Why else would Greg Leake say that "Java is under serious constraint ... over how any vendor can innovate around it"? What he means is that Sun has prevented Microsoft from doing another Em&Ex.
-----
Bad idea on the manufacturer's part, that is...
/dev/null and the manufacturer wouldn't have a clue that I wasn't seeing the ads, since the incoming advertisement connections are politely accepted... :-)
What's to stop me from taking the PC and putting Linux on it? I could then redirect all the ads to
I really do NOT see how they're going to stop someone saying, "Hey! A free PC! Cool!", getting one, booting it off a boot disk and reformatting the hard drive. About the only way they could stop people from doing that is with a BIOS password that prevents changing the boot order of the computer. And even that is crackable: just remove the CMOS battery.
This idea will never fly.
-----
And on my Linux box, running Netscape Communicator 4.5, they show up as accented vowels -- the old, familiar extended-ASCII character set that I remember from my DOS days.
-----
Next time, wait until the mirrors have had a chance to grab the pages before you post the article. That way the /. load won't be hitting their server ALL DAY, just long enough for people to find a mirror.
As it is, I still haven't found the Feb issue on any mirrors yet.
-----
The first tripwire in this sort of attack is, as you suggest, signing of packages and sources you upload. As long as a cyptographically-strong signature (such as PGP) is used, this is usually enough to assure you that the sources haven't been modified. This will not protect against Trojans inserted by the legitimate authors, though, which is why a second tripwire is needed: source review. I'm not a network security expert, and I'm not really capable of reviewing packages: so I trust the PGP signature (at least for my home computer). But I also know that many sysadmins who run sensitive systems are properly paranoid and will not only check the PGP signature but ALSO scrutinize the source themselves. It's one of those paranoid sysadmins who caught the TCP-Wrapper Trojan, and it's one of those paranoid sysadmins who will catch the next Trojan inserted into Open-Source software.
So the only Open-Source Trojan that will really succeed is one put in place by a conspiracy of EVERY single sysadmin worldwide... I'm not worried.
This message has been brought to you by the Sysadmin Conspiracy: There Is No Sysadmin Conspiracy (tinsc).
-----
In an open-source environment you will never be paid for your intellectual property. If you manage to create an exciting new feature, or discover a way to increase performance by 50%, you'll never see the rewards of it. Your competitors will take the code you created, and put it into their products. Suddenly your hard work is helping your competitors to beat you in the marketplace. Open source sounds good on paper, but the only way you'll make money at it is in customer support. Because if you come up with anything exciting and new, everyone of your competitors will take it from you and you'll never see a dime from it except from your autobiography. No one is going to get rich making open source software.
Now I know this is one of the classic arguments against Free software, but it seems pretty accurate to me. I realize this guy is coming to software from a businessman's prespective instead of a hacker's perspective (i.e., "How can I make money from this? instead of "How can I make something useful?"). But he *has* hit on one of the fundamental driving forces behind Free software: to eventually replace all proprietary software with Free software. This is RMS's vision, and as more and more really *good* Free software gets written, more and more people will begin to realize the potential for that vision to be fulfilled. As that happens, we're going to get more and more hostility from software companies who don't want to shift their primary business focus to something else (like support, for example). So I ask: does anyone have a good response to this argument? I'm looking for something that will sound good to a businessperson, not just to a hacker. Something to persuade them that there might not be much money in Free software (or Open Source software, as they will be calling it), but that's not the point: the point is to make computers more reliable.
Anyway, I'd like to hear how you would respond to this guy's argument.
-----
Good luck!
-----
Now I'll be able to exchange encrypted E-mails with my parents... They're missionaries in France and, though they aren't French citizens, they're still subject to the laws of France because they live there.
This is very good news for me.
-----
It's very clever PR work, you gotta give 'em that. If you compare Microsoft to the Titanic and Linux to the iceberg, the last few hours of Microsoft's sinking will NOT be spent with musicians playing "Nearer, my God, to Thee" as on the Titanic; it will be spent with the crew running around trying to persuade the passengers that the ship ISN'T sinking and those irresponsibles getting into lifeboats are just going to get lost at sea without the mighty M$itanic under their feet.
Anyway, I was going to comment on the particular piece of FUD here. "The applications that are of the most interest are Windows applications," he says, conveniently forgetting to mention that until recently ALL applications released (from commercial sources, at least) were Windows applications. (Well, there are some scientific packages being sold for various Unices, but I'm thinking about the business realm right now). And "the most stable and reliable environment to run Windows applications in is Windows" is so slick. He might even be able to argue convincingly that it's true: after all, an emulator is usually chasing a moving target and Windows will always be able to run Windows apps. But of course he conveniently fails to mention the fact that what runs *underneath* WINE, whether it be Linux or FreeBSD or something else, is vastly more stable and reliable than the Windows kernel.
Why am I giving FUD-analysing lessons on Slashdot? What a waste of bandwidth. Sorry for wasting your time pointing out stuff you already knew, everybody; I'll shut up now.
-----
Nah, it doesn't have to be a security risk. I have a few passwords that I consider "insecure" since anyone who knows me could probably guess them. Those are the ones I use on all the web-based login thingies. After all, it's being transmitted in cleartext over the 'Net -- I'm not gonna use my *real* password, for cryin' out loud! At any one time, I might have the same password on three or four different web-based login thingies. I mean, if someone sniffs my password with a packet-sniffer somewhere, what are they gonna do? Pose as me on Slashdot? I'm not important enough for anyone to bother, and it would only be a minor nuisance... So having the same password in multiple places doesn't *have* to be a security risk.
-----
Help stamp out and destroy redundancy, repetition and redundancy!
-----
I'm breaking rule #2 right now.
-----