The practical risk is that Linux, by implicitly endorsing non-free competitors to free products, is helping to cut off it's own air supply
linux shouldn't have competitors. Freedom is freedom. if people use OSS, good, if they don't, that's their choice too. Why try to force it upon people?
It's beginning to sound more like a religious cult to me, using the philosophy as power.
On the contrary, I think the FSF explains the different types of free software [gnu.org] very clearly. The common response to a question such as yours is: would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? You're not a mechanic, so what do you care?
I think a closer argument would be: would you buy a car without the design plans from the company?
Yes the GPL requires you to essentially give up total control of your original code, but it also ensures that no one can hijack your code and prevent you from accessing their changes (if they are publicly releasing those changes).
Isn't that taking away the freedom of the next person using your source?
preventing you from accessing your own code is one thing, but from someone else's changes is not your right anyway.
Public domain software is the only true free sourcecode.
RMS has a valid point in showing concern that the Linux kernel is using non-Free RC software. While it probably would not be difficult for Linus to revert the tree back to CVS if things did not work out for BitKeeper, RMS feels the risk is not worth the expense. The interview mentioned that if BitMover were to go under the code would be released under the GPL. That is nice, but I don't think an interview on a website counts as a legal document
true, but the inability to tolerate any form of proprietary software shows his true non-free colors.
What I said was that the dot-bombs were trying to cover their asses, disclaim liablility for their sloppiness, and backed this up with lies (inflated claims) about their purported losses. If you inflate an insurance claim, the insurer can refuse to pay any part of the claim, at least in this neck of the woods
So amazon.com, yahoo.com, and ebay.com are now considered dotbombs?
They make (or made at the time) millions (or more) in advertising revenue and sales per day, and an outage of service means lost revenue.
If I had been Mafiaboy's lawyer, I would have demanded the server logs for the week subsequent to the attacks, as well as the year-prior corresponding period, and then cross-sued, 'cause traffic was UP, not down, after the attacks, so many of the compainants actually profited from the attacks.
yeah, right. So If i burn down a wallmart, and the publicity creates business for other wallmarts in the area, Should I cross-sue?
It is true, because 99.9% of the population shouldn't be compiling, let alone running on a production box, Linux dev kernels. Read the context.
95% of the population should, however, be able to run Outlook Express without infecting their computers. Since OE is designed for that 95%, it should be OE that protects the dumbass users from hurting themselves.
For all the three year olds who are not oil rig professionals, OE is the closest they have to a padded room. A padded room with a gaping hole containing various sharp objects doesn't do much good!
Outlook is free.
Software that is free shouldn't have a liability attached...
If you could code and cared about the subject,you might learn programming and review sendmail code then alert the dev community and tell them what's up.
Sorry, I use Qmail. (but im not even going to get into that)
You can't and won't of course.
Won't, yes. The main reason I wouldn't contribute to any open-source project, is because of the relentless zealotry.
Have you EVER actually looked at the sendmail source code? It's a nightmare, mostly due to the excessive use of gotos, and sloppy code.
Everyone here knows that sendmail can be secure. You couldn't make it secure though. You don't know what sendmail does, besides 'send mail'
heh
Who is 'they'? 'They' provide code that you can pick up free and use. It is 'free' and 'free'. There are no strings attached. You use it or not. Isn't there someone in your High school imaginary company that could do some research and see if this 'sendmail' works?
yes there are strings attached, it's called the GNU license.
Your analogy is ridiculous. Linux development kernels are not designed for simpletons. Outlook Express is.
A software flaw has nothing to do with a user's intelligence.
Im trying to point out that the developers of linux have just as much responsibility as a compnay such as microsoft.
If you took a 3 year old kid to an oil rig and let them run about, they'd probably get killed/injured in no time. So, it's the kid's fault? No, oil rigs are not designed for kids, and you should not be taking them there.
If this were true, then 99.9% of the population shouldn't even be using a computer.
If you're enough of a techie to be trying development (beta) kernels, then you know full well what the risks are
If you are smart enough to check your e-mail, you should be smart enough to know that a 1K.vbs file named mypics is a virus.
It's users fault if they open attachments by choice.. but when OE has a bug that allows attachments to open by themselves, IT'S THE SOFTWARE'S FAULT
according to this reasoning, it's the fault of the linux programmers. There was no real way to stop the loss of data, other than not installing the update at all.
a) sendmail is free, hardly fair for them to be liable when they give the thing away. On the other hand MS, kazaa et al profit from the software they ship
Why should this be an issue?
Sendmail chooses not to profit from the software they release.
Remember, sendmail is used in businesses that DO make money, just like outlook express (given away for free as well). They should be just as liable as microsoft.
I'm not so sure. The 'e-mail based social engineering worms' you talk of aren't actually triggered by users, but by flaws in Outlook Express. It's not like these 'Pass this onto 20 of your friends' mails, which are viral, but not viruses.
Microsoft allows OE to access too many API functions. I mean, look at how these viruses work. You download them from the POP3 server, and when you preview them in OE, a box comes up saying 'Open' or 'Save As'. Many users just click OK, and end up getting infected. However, this isn't the user's fault, as such.
OE should not automatically open attachments! It's Microsoft's crappy code that has allowed it to be hacked in this way. So.. I think the blame rests with the programmers, not the users. The programmers are meant to create an environment that's safe for users.
Blaming the users is like blaming voters for getting GWB into office. It wasn't their fault, it was the system's fault for allowing it to happen.
this is complete bullshit.
A friend of mine updated his linux kernel awhile back (I believe the kernel, at the time, was in beta). He lost all his important data because of a bug.
Should he blame linus? The programmers that worked on the latest release? Or should it be his own fault for using a beta release of a kernel on important data?
He was given many warnings not to use a beta version of the kernel, just like the many millions of users that are told every day by their sysadmins not to open attachments.
This argument sounds as stupid as a smoker that tries to sue the big-bad companies when they get cancer, when they have been told about this fact for the last 30 years.
People need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.
Software should be open. Stallman was right. No, really. . . bear with me on this.
You are preaching to the converted...around here.
Piracy will end when programming is seen as a service in itself. Programmers provide a service and move on to the next job, like a lawyer, doctor, or engineer. Each of these professions, along with countless other service providers, use an established set of industry-standard guidelines, principles and tools to provide the service the customer requires.
We need to get away from the idea that we will write the perfect program, and sell a million copies and get rich. What is needed is a way to give the customer what they want using a complete, interoperable set of tools.
Do you think joe sixpack would rather pay $45 an hour for my services, or a one time fee with free updates?
So fuck you people who think piracy is wrong. It has its place in the world. It has its risks. And it is worth the risk. We don't need all you law-abiding wackos telling us that we're doing something wrong, on top of the fact that we have to worry about the law already tells us this. So shut the fuck up
with view like this, how can you expect people (or companies) to obey things such as the GPL??
If companies like Microsoft, Adobe, and Macromedia provided free licenses, or even cheap sub 100$ licenses to individuals not seeking to profit from the use of the software I guarantee they would see an extreme decrease in piracy. There are those cheap people who wont pay 50$ for a very powerful piece of software, but there are a lot of people like me, college students, who can't afford a 500$ program that they need for a class.
free licenses, no. Cheap licenses, maybe. If 90% of your customer base are going to be getting it for free, it is not going to be within the interest of the company, at all....
Dam it... I'm tired of over priced video games and the war that wages behind them. Why doesn't someone make an open source console??? Then MS can go F then selves
because unlike software, it takes lots of money to do such a thing, and there is no incentive when your main goal is to make money..
While AOE II does rock, Dungeon Seige is a better game to compete against a console version of EQ
If they really want a killer app, they should use that new starwars game (galactic empire I think it's called). I believe it uses the same engine as AOE2.
As for free software, it would just mean that some of the legal entities that support a packaged product (i.e., Red Hat) would be held to the same standards. IANAL, but if the FSF says 'this isn't a complete product' they can't be held liable any more than a tire company could be for some idiot putting the wrong tire on their car.
What about apache or bind? are they just "pieces" of software?
It sounds like a poor excuse for Open source developers to get out of all liability.
When we have defeated the evil demons of closed formats and binary-only distrobutions, the FSF will be rightly honored as a group that started the revolution.
The only way this will happen, is if a law is passed preventing proprietary formats and or software from being released.
Eh... Linux has a higher market share on the server market, yet there are more MS servers being hacked than Linux servers.
Since the viruses are spread through the client end, and 99.99 of all clients are using outlook, I would have to say that there are going to be many people that are computer illiterate, and don't know how to get the patches.
Doesn't that at least say anything about Linux's security compared to Microsoft?
No. hackers create things like viruses and worms, because they like the attention they get. Why spend the time writing a virus or worm for an OS that could only infect less that 10% of the computer population? Especially on an underdog OS that you like using?
If linux were as popular as windows, you would see the same amount of viruses and or worms.
You don't have to "open" an attachment to get the Klez worm; all you have to do is "view" the message in the Outlook Express preview pane.
The *only* way to see a message in OE without risking viruses is to view the "Message Source" under "Properties" for the email. It is unreasonable to expect that a user view every email this way -- it would take 10 times as long to read email...
Read my post.
People that actually install the PATCH will not have a problem.
metacell writes "A virus (a version of the Chernobyl virus) infects an email worm executable (the Klez worm), and is spread along with it. " It's a damn good *delete* thing that Microsoft has been *delete* spending the last few weeks doing a *delete* security audit *delete* of all of *delete* ah never mind. My wrist hurts from deleting over a meg of mail worm viruses a day.
Maybe you should tell the people on your contact list to stop opening attachments (or at least get the latest patches). Microsoft is all but Moron proof.
linux machines get hacked into every day. Is it a linux flaw? no...it's a user flaw. So why should Microsoft be nay different? Maybe because they're against open source?
As much as they pretend about the money, the REAL reason what "file sharing is wrong" is becuase it allows for a subtle shift in the societal mindshare concerning how music gets distributed. The "content industry" is a misnomer, it's actually a "distributiuon industry", producing either very little or NO new content at all. Allowing the public (PARTICULARLY the artists) to begin to think about alternative means of distribution as actual possibilities (not just pipe dreams) is the first step on the road to utter decimation of the status quo.
I really don't think the RIAA has anything to worry about. If they were cut out of the picture, the artist would have to do all the promotion, marketing, recording, and distribution on their own. With the amount of energy it takes to tour and play shows, this would be an impossibility (especially withou initial capital).
To top it all off, they would get even less money if they gasve their stuff out for free.
Wanting the RIAA cut out of the picture will not bring the internet any closer to free music. In fact, artists may even charge per MP3. And who would we be screwing then? the artist? the one we have been trying to protect from the big, bad recording studio?
He made, as I recall, a couple of mentions that proprietary software being perfectly OK as long as it met the goal of making the data available in an open format
How can this be considered freedom?
As a proprietary software provider, I would be forced to open my protocols. (but this fact seems to be overlooked by the zealouts in favor of it)
If the only way the GPL and or Open source can become popular is by force (through legislation), it's not freedom in my mind.
You're kidding, right? You seriously think that in a world swarming with dangerous monsters it's less challenging to play a peaceful cleric than a muscly warrior with weapons out the wazoo!?!?!? As to fun, I can't really see the fun in "see monster, hack, repeat" but to each their own..
actually...yeah.
Because your opposition is another warrior with different weapons,powers,etc.
If you want a non-confrontational challenge, try something constructive, like programming.
Slashdot Mirror
The practical risk is that Linux, by implicitly endorsing non-free competitors to free products, is helping to cut off it's own air supply
linux shouldn't have competitors. Freedom is freedom. if people use OSS, good, if they don't, that's their choice too. Why try to force it upon people?
It's beginning to sound more like a religious cult to me, using the philosophy as power.
On the contrary, I think the FSF explains the different types of free software [gnu.org] very clearly. The common response to a question such as yours is: would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? You're not a mechanic, so what do you care?
I think a closer argument would be: would you buy a car without the design plans from the company?
Yes the GPL requires you to essentially give up total control of your original code, but it also ensures that no one can hijack your code and prevent you from accessing their changes (if they are publicly releasing those changes).
Isn't that taking away the freedom of the next person using your source?
preventing you from accessing your own code is one thing, but from someone else's changes is not your right anyway.
Public domain software is the only true free sourcecode.
RMS has a valid point in showing concern that the Linux kernel is using non-Free RC software. While it probably would not be difficult for Linus to revert the tree back to CVS if things did not work out for BitKeeper, RMS feels the risk is not worth the expense. The interview mentioned that if BitMover were to go under the code would be released under the GPL. That is nice, but I don't think an interview on a website counts as a legal document
true, but the inability to tolerate any form of proprietary software shows his true non-free colors.
condemned by free software icon Richard Stallman
How can this nutjob be considered an icon of freedom in the linux community?
It's obvious he only has room for his own self interests.
What I said was that the dot-bombs were trying to cover their asses, disclaim liablility for their sloppiness, and backed this up with lies (inflated claims) about their purported losses. If you inflate an insurance claim, the insurer can refuse to pay any part of the claim, at least in this neck of the woods
So amazon.com, yahoo.com, and ebay.com are now considered dotbombs?
They make (or made at the time) millions (or more) in advertising revenue and sales per day, and an outage of service means lost revenue.
If I had been Mafiaboy's lawyer, I would have demanded the server logs for the week subsequent to the attacks, as well as the year-prior corresponding period, and then cross-sued, 'cause traffic was UP, not down, after the attacks, so many of the compainants actually profited from the attacks.
yeah, right. So If i burn down a wallmart, and the publicity creates business for other wallmarts in the area, Should I cross-sue?
It is true, because 99.9% of the population shouldn't be compiling, let alone running on a production box, Linux dev kernels. Read the context.
95% of the population should, however, be able to run Outlook Express without infecting their computers. Since OE is designed for that 95%, it should be OE that protects the dumbass users from hurting themselves.
For all the three year olds who are not oil rig professionals, OE is the closest they have to a padded room. A padded room with a gaping hole containing various sharp objects doesn't do much good!
Outlook is free.
Software that is free shouldn't have a liability attached...
This doesn't mean open source is bad.
no it doesn't. just liable
If you could code and cared about the subject,you might learn programming and review sendmail code then alert the dev community and tell them what's up.
Sorry, I use Qmail. (but im not even going to get into that)
You can't and won't of course.
Won't, yes. The main reason I wouldn't contribute to any open-source project, is because of the relentless zealotry.
Have you EVER actually looked at the sendmail source code? It's a nightmare, mostly due to the excessive use of gotos, and sloppy code.
Everyone here knows that sendmail can be secure. You couldn't make it secure though. You don't know what sendmail does, besides 'send mail'
heh
Who is 'they'? 'They' provide code that you can pick up free and use. It is 'free' and 'free'. There are no strings attached. You use it or not. Isn't there someone in your High school imaginary company that could do some research and see if this 'sendmail' works?
yes there are strings attached, it's called the GNU license.
no strings attached = public domain
Your analogy is ridiculous. Linux development kernels are not designed for simpletons. Outlook Express is.
A software flaw has nothing to do with a user's intelligence.
Im trying to point out that the developers of linux have just as much responsibility as a compnay such as microsoft.
If you took a 3 year old kid to an oil rig and let them run about, they'd probably get killed/injured in no time. So, it's the kid's fault? No, oil rigs are not designed for kids, and you should not be taking them there.
If this were true, then 99.9% of the population shouldn't even be using a computer.
If you're enough of a techie to be trying development (beta) kernels, then you know full well what the risks are
.vbs file named mypics is a virus.
If you are smart enough to check your e-mail, you should be smart enough to know that a 1K
It's users fault if they open attachments by choice.. but when OE has a bug that allows attachments to open by themselves, IT'S THE SOFTWARE'S FAULT
according to this reasoning, it's the fault of the linux programmers. There was no real way to stop the loss of data, other than not installing the update at all.
a) sendmail is free, hardly fair for them to be liable when they give the thing away. On the other hand MS, kazaa et al profit from the software they ship
Why should this be an issue?
Sendmail chooses not to profit from the software they release.
Remember, sendmail is used in businesses that DO make money, just like outlook express (given away for free as well). They should be just as liable as microsoft.
I'm not so sure. The 'e-mail based social engineering worms' you talk of aren't actually triggered by users, but by flaws in Outlook Express. It's not like these 'Pass this onto 20 of your friends' mails, which are viral, but not viruses.
Microsoft allows OE to access too many API functions. I mean, look at how these viruses work. You download them from the POP3 server, and when you preview them in OE, a box comes up saying 'Open' or 'Save As'. Many users just click OK, and end up getting infected. However, this isn't the user's fault, as such.
OE should not automatically open attachments! It's Microsoft's crappy code that has allowed it to be hacked in this way. So.. I think the blame rests with the programmers, not the users. The programmers are meant to create an environment that's safe for users.
Blaming the users is like blaming voters for getting GWB into office. It wasn't their fault, it was the system's fault for allowing it to happen.
this is complete bullshit.
A friend of mine updated his linux kernel awhile back (I believe the kernel, at the time, was in beta). He lost all his important data because of a bug.
Should he blame linus? The programmers that worked on the latest release? Or should it be his own fault for using a beta release of a kernel on important data?
He was given many warnings not to use a beta version of the kernel, just like the many millions of users that are told every day by their sysadmins not to open attachments.
This argument sounds as stupid as a smoker that tries to sue the big-bad companies when they get cancer, when they have been told about this fact for the last 30 years.
People need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.
Software should be open. Stallman was right. No, really. . . bear with me on this.
You are preaching to the converted...around here.
Piracy will end when programming is seen as a service in itself. Programmers provide a service and move on to the next job, like a lawyer, doctor, or engineer. Each of these professions, along with countless other service providers, use an established set of industry-standard guidelines, principles and tools to provide the service the customer requires.
We need to get away from the idea that we will write the perfect program, and sell a million copies and get rich. What is needed is a way to give the customer what they want using a complete, interoperable set of tools.
Do you think joe sixpack would rather pay $45 an hour for my services, or a one time fee with free updates?
So fuck you people who think piracy is wrong. It has its place in the world. It has its risks. And it is worth the risk. We don't need all you law-abiding wackos telling us that we're doing something wrong, on top of the fact that we have to worry about the law already tells us this. So shut the fuck up
with view like this, how can you expect people (or companies) to obey things such as the GPL??
If companies like Microsoft, Adobe, and Macromedia provided free licenses, or even cheap sub 100$ licenses to individuals not seeking to profit from the use of the software I guarantee they would see an extreme decrease in piracy. There are those cheap people who wont pay 50$ for a very powerful piece of software, but there are a lot of people like me, college students, who can't afford a 500$ program that they need for a class.
free licenses, no. Cheap licenses, maybe. If 90% of your customer base are going to be getting it for free, it is not going to be within the interest of the company, at all....
Dam it... I'm tired of over priced video games and the war that wages behind them. Why doesn't someone make an open source console??? Then MS can go F then selves
because unlike software, it takes lots of money to do such a thing, and there is no incentive when your main goal is to make money..
While AOE II does rock, Dungeon Seige is a better game to compete against a console version of EQ
If they really want a killer app, they should use that new starwars game (galactic empire I think it's called). I believe it uses the same engine as AOE2.
As for free software, it would just mean that some of the legal entities that support a packaged product (i.e., Red Hat) would be held to the same standards. IANAL, but if the FSF says 'this isn't a complete product' they can't be held liable any more than a tire company could be for some idiot putting the wrong tire on their car.
What about apache or bind? are they just "pieces" of software?
It sounds like a poor excuse for Open source developers to get out of all liability.
When we have defeated the evil demons of closed formats and binary-only distrobutions, the FSF will be rightly honored as a group that started the revolution.
The only way this will happen, is if a law is passed preventing proprietary formats and or software from being released.
Eh... Linux has a higher market share on the server market, yet there are more MS servers being hacked than Linux servers.
Since the viruses are spread through the client end, and 99.99 of all clients are using outlook, I would have to say that there are going to be many people that are computer illiterate, and don't know how to get the patches.
Doesn't that at least say anything about Linux's security compared to Microsoft?
No. hackers create things like viruses and worms, because they like the attention they get. Why spend the time writing a virus or worm for an OS that could only infect less that 10% of the computer population? Especially on an underdog OS that you like using?
If linux were as popular as windows, you would see the same amount of viruses and or worms.
You don't have to "open" an attachment to get the Klez worm; all you have to do is "view" the message in the Outlook Express preview pane.
The *only* way to see a message in OE without risking viruses is to view the "Message Source" under "Properties" for the email. It is unreasonable to expect that a user view every email this way -- it would take 10 times as long to read email...
Read my post.
People that actually install the PATCH will not have a problem.
metacell writes "A virus (a version of the Chernobyl virus) infects an email worm executable (the Klez worm), and is spread along with it. " It's a damn good *delete* thing that Microsoft has been *delete* spending the last few weeks doing a *delete* security audit *delete* of all of *delete* ah never mind. My wrist hurts from deleting over a meg of mail worm viruses a day.
Maybe you should tell the people on your contact list to stop opening attachments (or at least get the latest patches). Microsoft is all but Moron proof.
linux machines get hacked into every day. Is it a linux flaw? no...it's a user flaw. So why should Microsoft be nay different? Maybe because they're against open source?
It's not about the money!
As much as they pretend about the money, the REAL reason what "file sharing is wrong" is becuase it allows for a subtle shift in the societal mindshare concerning how music gets distributed. The "content industry" is a misnomer, it's actually a "distributiuon industry", producing either very little or NO new content at all. Allowing the public (PARTICULARLY the artists) to begin to think about alternative means of distribution as actual possibilities (not just pipe dreams) is the first step on the road to utter decimation of the status quo.
I really don't think the RIAA has anything to worry about. If they were cut out of the picture, the artist would have to do all the promotion, marketing, recording, and distribution on their own. With the amount of energy it takes to tour and play shows, this would be an impossibility (especially withou initial capital).
To top it all off, they would get even less money if they gasve their stuff out for free.
Wanting the RIAA cut out of the picture will not bring the internet any closer to free music. In fact, artists may even charge per MP3. And who would we be screwing then? the artist? the one we have been trying to protect from the big, bad recording studio?
Just a thought...
He made, as I recall, a couple of mentions that proprietary software being perfectly OK as long as it met the goal of making the data available in an open format
How can this be considered freedom?
As a proprietary software provider, I would be forced to open my protocols. (but this fact seems to be overlooked by the zealouts in favor of it)
If the only way the GPL and or Open source can become popular is by force (through legislation), it's not freedom in my mind.
You're kidding, right? You seriously think that in a world swarming with dangerous monsters it's less challenging to play a peaceful cleric than a muscly warrior with weapons out the wazoo!?!?!? As to fun, I can't really see the fun in "see monster, hack, repeat" but to each their own..
actually...yeah.
Because your opposition is another warrior with different weapons,powers,etc.
If you want a non-confrontational challenge, try something constructive, like programming.