I don't mean to start a huge flamewar here, but I really don't understand this. He is writing scripts that harden Linux (like the harden-suse perl script in suse?) Have these guys ever heard of OpenBSD? I'm sorry, but I'll take an OS that has been/is proactively code-audited for security, for years longer, over some scripts any day. I noticed in the interview that they found a vulnerability before others did. Wow. This can be said many times over for OpenBSD. Just take a look thru the CERT advisories. I think it's silly to reinvent the wheel here. All of the free Unix' have their jobs, and security is _definitely_not_ Linux' domain. - Horis
I've read the article, and I've read quite a few of the posts here. Here are some of my thoughts: This guy is getting attacked for his grammer. WTF is with that? I think the first person to ever check out the online scene finds that the majority of people haven't clued in to the backspace key, or was not stellar in their grammer. Does this matter? NO. Just because he said things (NOT typed, BTW) that aren't necessarily coherent all of the time, it does not lessen what he is conveying. When you read the article, (without IMHO excessive worry about grammar), he makes his point quite clear. I understand his point, and completely agree with him. Get over the fact that he doesn't have a Ph.D. in English, but you know what he does have? He has a practical Ph.D. in dealing with the music business, understanding that he owns what he creates, and understand that quite simply, he's getting ripped off. And whether or not you like the semantics of this case, he's right. You don't want to create something, only to find it's being given away with your permission. The open source thing implies that: You're giving it away. Well, news flash folks, he didn't give it away to begin with. The questions regarding who is behind this are very important. If it's the RIAA, or (pick your favourite acronym here), that's another story. But the band themselves don't like it. I don't blame them! They put out a product that they expect to make a profit on. Never mind the recording industry. When you can see $$ going down the drain (or as Lars says, it's very little right now), he still has a point. Give it some time. When you take a long hard look at it, the situation isn't that complex. I buy a Metallica CD titled 'A' and you buy a Metallica CD titled 'B'. We swap rips of each CD to each other. That results in a loss to the band (like I said, leave the industry out of it for now.) If you were losing money on this would you like it? Hell no. But you're not in that situation, you're just getting music for free. When you create the music, and lose money, how the heck would you feeL? I'm glad that Metallica has the resources (read: money) to get into this, because AFAIC, this will help the little bands he speaks of. If this were any band that was unknown and didn't have the coin to fund it, a lot of people would be backing the underdog, even though the concepts are the same. No matter which way you rationalize this, they (amongst others!) are getting ripped off. I think people are getting their philosophies wrong: Free software (that we are "used to") does not mean everything (like copyrighted material) is free. For Napster to stand back and say "Well, I didn't infringe...someone else did." is sophistry. They are aiding and abetting a crime. And don't give me crap about free speech. Do you think your ISP is allowed to have it's users distribute kiddie porn? No. It's illegal. And copyright infringement is also illegal. One happens to offend our morals, the other doesn't, but that makes it ok? Think about it. How Napster is allowed to do it's thing via legislation is a whole other story, but until that time comes, it's clear they are in violation of the law. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend otherwise. It would do a lot more good to the open source community to get out and say "Yes, they [Metallica] are right." Rather than "Well, it's on the Internet, so it must be free." The people that should be getting a black eye out of this should be the "I want stuff for free" zealots, not Metallica/OSS/Internet community in general. Stop beating a (common sense) dead horse! - Horis
I'm surprised that AOL didn't just eat NSI. Judging from the posts, I don't think I'm the only one worried about these mega-corps. AOL already controls a HUGE chunk of all media markets, Internet access, browsers, etc (you know what I mean) and now this??? I don't mean to sound apathetic, but this is just the way the world is going, and has been for a long time. Corps just get bigger and bigger. I'm not a big fan of government intrustion, but where does this end? And to think, I thought it would be the oil companies that took over. Then came along this Internet thingy... - Horis
Really folks, electronic pets? I have to admin that even if a friend of mine told me they bought one of these things, I would have to tell them to get a life. This may be interesting from a technology standpoint, (IMHO the technology isn't _that_ great anyway), but I can't believe these huge companies are pouring research dollars into this "pet" thing. Maybe I'm just clueless, because I never could understand those wrist things that you had to change and feed, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to start a huge flamewar here, but I really don't understand this. He is writing scripts that harden Linux (like the harden-suse perl script in suse?) Have these guys ever heard of OpenBSD? I'm sorry, but I'll take an OS that has been/is proactively code-audited for security, for years longer, over some scripts any day. I noticed in the interview that they found a vulnerability before others did. Wow. This can be said many times over for OpenBSD. Just take a look thru the CERT advisories. I think it's silly to reinvent the wheel here. All of the free Unix' have their jobs, and security is _definitely_not_ Linux' domain. - Horis
I've read the article, and I've read quite a few of the posts here. Here are some of my thoughts: This guy is getting attacked for his grammer. WTF is with that? I think the first person to ever check out the online scene finds that the majority of people haven't clued in to the backspace key, or was not stellar in their grammer. Does this matter? NO. Just because he said things (NOT typed, BTW) that aren't necessarily coherent all of the time, it does not lessen what he is conveying. When you read the article, (without IMHO excessive worry about grammar), he makes his point quite clear. I understand his point, and completely agree with him. Get over the fact that he doesn't have a Ph.D. in English, but you know what he does have? He has a practical Ph.D. in dealing with the music business, understanding that he owns what he creates, and understand that quite simply, he's getting ripped off. And whether or not you like the semantics of this case, he's right. You don't want to create something, only to find it's being given away with your permission. The open source thing implies that: You're giving it away. Well, news flash folks, he didn't give it away to begin with. The questions regarding who is behind this are very important. If it's the RIAA, or (pick your favourite acronym here), that's another story. But the band themselves don't like it. I don't blame them! They put out a product that they expect to make a profit on. Never mind the recording industry. When you can see $$ going down the drain (or as Lars says, it's very little right now), he still has a point. Give it some time. When you take a long hard look at it, the situation isn't that complex. I buy a Metallica CD titled 'A' and you buy a Metallica CD titled 'B'. We swap rips of each CD to each other. That results in a loss to the band (like I said, leave the industry out of it for now.) If you were losing money on this would you like it? Hell no. But you're not in that situation, you're just getting music for free. When you create the music, and lose money, how the heck would you feeL? I'm glad that Metallica has the resources (read: money) to get into this, because AFAIC, this will help the little bands he speaks of. If this were any band that was unknown and didn't have the coin to fund it, a lot of people would be backing the underdog, even though the concepts are the same. No matter which way you rationalize this, they (amongst others!) are getting ripped off. I think people are getting their philosophies wrong: Free software (that we are "used to") does not mean everything (like copyrighted material) is free. For Napster to stand back and say "Well, I didn't infringe...someone else did." is sophistry. They are aiding and abetting a crime. And don't give me crap about free speech. Do you think your ISP is allowed to have it's users distribute kiddie porn? No. It's illegal. And copyright infringement is also illegal. One happens to offend our morals, the other doesn't, but that makes it ok? Think about it. How Napster is allowed to do it's thing via legislation is a whole other story, but until that time comes, it's clear they are in violation of the law. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend otherwise. It would do a lot more good to the open source community to get out and say "Yes, they [Metallica] are right." Rather than "Well, it's on the Internet, so it must be free." The people that should be getting a black eye out of this should be the "I want stuff for free" zealots, not Metallica/OSS/Internet community in general. Stop beating a (common sense) dead horse! - Horis
a while until picking up on new chipsets until the bugs are worked out... Like a few years later.
I'm surprised that AOL didn't just eat NSI. Judging from the posts, I don't think I'm the only one worried about these mega-corps. AOL already controls a HUGE chunk of all media markets, Internet access, browsers, etc (you know what I mean) and now this??? I don't mean to sound apathetic, but this is just the way the world is going, and has been for a long time. Corps just get bigger and bigger. I'm not a big fan of government intrustion, but where does this end? And to think, I thought it would be the oil companies that took over. Then came along this Internet thingy... - Horis
Quite simply, how does this merger benefit the end user/purchaser?
Really folks, electronic pets? I have to admin that even if a friend of mine told me they bought one of these things, I would have to tell them to get a life. This may be interesting from a technology standpoint, (IMHO the technology isn't _that_ great anyway), but I can't believe these huge companies are pouring research dollars into this "pet" thing. Maybe I'm just clueless, because I never could understand those wrist things that you had to change and feed, etc.