You don't think there's a boatload of money that's been trying to prove you correct for quite a long time now? If Linux were equally insecure, it's a certainty that this would have been demonstrated and advertised, no expense spared. I do admit, though, that a more ignorant user base would go a long way, which is why these may seem like the good old days if Linux ever passes a share of 10% or so of home users.
Part of the problem, though, is in the nature of open-vs-closed software. Even "legitimate" closed-source commercial software is full of spyware and other crap that would be flagged and stripped out immediately if the source code were open and subject to inspection. Why? Because if you can't look at the code (or rely on other independent eyes who can), neither you nor anyone else outside of the original vendor can easily know what the code is really doing when you run it. That means that for the vendor, "the customer" is not only you, but potentially anyone else who can profit by manipulating or collecting information about you. Not all companies will turn down the additional revenue stream.
One of things you get used to with Open Source is that software - whether or not it's of high quality - serves the user, not the other way around. It's much harder to come to the party with a hidden or malicious agenda when anyone can spread the word or fork your code and distribute it with the garbage removed.
I agree with you, if everyone ran Linux they would log in a root so they didn't have to type their password every time they wanted to install smileys.
Just about any user application can be installed in the user's home directory, no root access needed. No problem with that unless you're sharing it with other people with their own user accounts.
But then, the idea of Linux users installing smileys just seems a little off. Maybe the world is OK as it is...
Microsoft is always going to leave network services on by default because otherwise users might have to go admin and turn them on to get their software to work. Of course the goal is to relieve users of the need to be concerned about what's going on in their computers, but unfortunately it also relieves them of the opportunity to ever learn anything and thereby participate in their own security.
So, you can be "insecure by design", or you can expect your users to educate themselves just a little about how things work and their own role in the security equation. I'm sure the focus groups all say, "We'll take our chances, just don't make us have to think!"
Well, it's been over an hour with no answer, so I'll bite too.
GNU-licensed software is analogous to communism in the same way that public streets, utilities, libraries, and schools are. To avoid effectively being a communist, you should (a) refuse to accept any benefit of civilization unless you're paying full monopoly prices for them, and (b) refuse to contribute anything to society or the public good for which you're not fully and directly compensated. There must be no motivation other than greed.
If you create something of potential value to others, it is wrong to allow them to benefit from it without compensation. If you can't sell it, perhaps because market channels have been monopolized or are inaccessible or inequitable, then the only proper course of action is to destroy it. Wipe your disks and forget about it. If you allow your neighbor to use it, you may be taking money out of the pockets of deserving corporations and their shareholders.
Only then can we stamp out communism and keep the rights to software out of the undeserving hands of those who create it.
As you well know, political discussion is all about word association; the realities behind the labels we use only matter to thinking people, and they represent only a wee minority.
What matters is that there is a clump of neurons in our brains that encode "evil", another that encodes "good", and a whole bunch of others that represent words/concepts just waiting to be connected to one or the other. We go through life making most of those connections in a completely unconscious and uncritical way; in fact, there are entire industries dedicated to helping us along with that. The concepts behind those trigger words don't matter; what's important is whether you can make a label stick, and that can be done simply through repetition.
The point is not whether "communism" or "terrorism" or "democracy" are really Good or Evil on their merits; it's that we can make things Good or Evil through indirection just by sticking those labels on them. And so only our enemies are terrorists or dictators, even when the formal definitions of those words often fit the actions of our friends - or ourselves - equally well.
Free Software is not about communism No it isn't, but there are people with a lot of money to spend (or lose) that would like to make it so, at least in the minds of enough of us to matter.
But I dont think it benefits the image of open source to be associated with communists so much. Others will spin and try to claim guilt by association. True, among idiots that idea may gain some traction. But is their any "guilt by association" if communists and dictators continue to patronize Microsoft? Why are vendors of proprietary software not tainted by this blood money?
I've noticed a definite uptick in this sort of commentary (OSS == communism) lately myself, and I wonder whether there's something organized (e.g., an astroturfing PR firm) behind it. Perhaps, having failed to win the day on the merits of open vs. closed software, the money behind proprietary software is preparing to fight the battle in the political and legal arenas. For that, public opinion has to be conditioned, however gradually. Since political discourse in the U.S. is pretty much one bout of mindless hysteria after another, it's just possible that such an effort could succeed.
Is there any chance that this sort of announcement will actually scare (I'm using the term loosely) some people away from OSS? Oh, I dunno... Did it scare anyone away from Microsoft when the Cubans were using Windows?
Whatever the realities, things associated with Cuba and Venezuala are obviously not popular in certain circles in the US at least. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we (the U.S.) aren't at the pinnacle of our popularity around the world, either...
There are now more Vista users than there are Linsux/Open Sores users. There are also more idiots than geniuses, so I'm not exactly sure what you think you're proving there...
how is it that they still can't be sure that my laptop is ready for Vista? Shouldn't that read, "how is it that they still can't be sure that Vista is ready for my laptop?
After all, that's what MS partisans say about Linux when it lacks driver support for something...
Re:Opposite way of thinking?
on
PHP 5 in Practice
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Most often what I'm looking for in example code is not an algorithm, but rather an idea of what available functions, classes, and idioms address the problem at hand (and how to use them). That's usually the biggest nuisance when jumping between multiple languages, especially when they're used infrequently.
Now, if I were a Walmart stock holder I'd be asking some very searching questions about whether or not the board is acting in my best interest with this move. I think Walmart is privately held (i.e., not a public company), so they should be safe from shareholders' suits...
So, you're telling me that conservatives don't have a monopoly on fear-mongering or surrendering liberty for the illusion of security?
Friends, this is the natural outcome of an overfed Security-Industrial Complex run amuck. If I'm being shoveled mountains of cash and have the responsibility of showing people that they're being protected from all bogeymen, then I'm going to find something - anything - out there that can be spun to look like a threat. Then, I'm going to pounce on it, and in a way that everyone is sure to notice.
You'd know more about this than me, perhaps, but war is already a ferociously complex beast even when everyone's on the same page. Throw in a bunch of mixed and crossed motivations, some confused and unclear lines of authority, and a dash of uncertainty about The Plan (and whether there even is one), and you've got quite a chaotic soup simmering there.
When a system gets sufficiently complex, it can get very difficult to predict your outputs given your inputs, and almost impossible to do the inverse (applying inputs to achieve a desired result). There may be more than a little of that going on in the Middle East right now. But if it's all just a big feeding frenzy, if the point is mainly to transfer wealth from taxpayers to a particular group of insiders and industries, then all that hardly matters, does it?
This is a GOOD thing, if NASA would allow private firms to develop a robust launch capability.
I'd agree with you, if we could assume that privatization would be done on a competitive bid basis and lead to significant cost efficiencies that would leave everyone - including taxpayers - a winner.
But that's not how the Big 'P' is done these days, is it?
All these Republicans and Libertarians do is weaken America.
Actually, I think they're generally indifferent to whether their policies strengthen America, weaken it, or whatever. To the Republicans, a policy or program is considered desirable if and only if it opens the federal treasury to their corporate patrons, who are subsequently expected to return a portion of the loot in the form of campaign contributions and other favors. Thus, privatization is a convenient and reliable way of converting taxpayers' money into campaign funds and continued power. It is the "marriage of State and corporate power" of which Mussolini spoke.
The privatization of the Iraq War is especially alarming, and not just because a lot of people close to the Bush admin are getting very, very rich. These contractors probably have more influence over events on the ground in Iraq than the military does, and they're largely unregulated. Might they have their own agenda? Is it in their collective interest for the war to come to an end, even in victory, if it stops the gravy train? Would it be unprecedented for greed and private financial interest to trump patriotism and our national interest?
Not to mention the loss of morale, initiative, and motivation that happens when restrictions become too draconian and employees are routinely treated like potential criminals...
Oh, my... Will the spyware require me to have a valid Fedora Core 5 license to install my new FC6? Or will I have to go out a buy a whole new laptop that can handle all of that awesome power?
You couldn't be any less helpful if you were an idiot fanboy. Oh...yeah...
Hmmm... So you're the one who puts up with this shit, paying for the priviledge of doing so, and I'm the fanboy? Interesting perspective you have there!
Slashdot Mirror
You don't think there's a boatload of money that's been trying to prove you correct for quite a long time now? If Linux were equally insecure, it's a certainty that this would have been demonstrated and advertised, no expense spared. I do admit, though, that a more ignorant user base would go a long way, which is why these may seem like the good old days if Linux ever passes a share of 10% or so of home users.
Part of the problem, though, is in the nature of open-vs-closed software. Even "legitimate" closed-source commercial software is full of spyware and other crap that would be flagged and stripped out immediately if the source code were open and subject to inspection. Why? Because if you can't look at the code (or rely on other independent eyes who can), neither you nor anyone else outside of the original vendor can easily know what the code is really doing when you run it. That means that for the vendor, "the customer" is not only you, but potentially anyone else who can profit by manipulating or collecting information about you. Not all companies will turn down the additional revenue stream.
One of things you get used to with Open Source is that software - whether or not it's of high quality - serves the user, not the other way around. It's much harder to come to the party with a hidden or malicious agenda when anyone can spread the word or fork your code and distribute it with the garbage removed.
I agree with you, if everyone ran Linux they would log in a root so they didn't have to type their password every time they wanted to install smileys.
Just about any user application can be installed in the user's home directory, no root access needed. No problem with that unless you're sharing it with other people with their own user accounts.
But then, the idea of Linux users installing smileys just seems a little off. Maybe the world is OK as it is...
Microsoft is always going to leave network services on by default because otherwise users might have to go admin and turn them on to get their software to work. Of course the goal is to relieve users of the need to be concerned about what's going on in their computers, but unfortunately it also relieves them of the opportunity to ever learn anything and thereby participate in their own security.
So, you can be "insecure by design", or you can expect your users to educate themselves just a little about how things work and their own role in the security equation. I'm sure the focus groups all say, "We'll take our chances, just don't make us have to think!"
Well, it's been over an hour with no answer, so I'll bite too.
GNU-licensed software is analogous to communism in the same way that public streets, utilities, libraries, and schools are. To avoid effectively being a communist, you should (a) refuse to accept any benefit of civilization unless you're paying full monopoly prices for them, and (b) refuse to contribute anything to society or the public good for which you're not fully and directly compensated. There must be no motivation other than greed.
If you create something of potential value to others, it is wrong to allow them to benefit from it without compensation. If you can't sell it, perhaps because market channels have been monopolized or are inaccessible or inequitable, then the only proper course of action is to destroy it. Wipe your disks and forget about it. If you allow your neighbor to use it, you may be taking money out of the pockets of deserving corporations and their shareholders.
Only then can we stamp out communism and keep the rights to software out of the undeserving hands of those who create it.
What matters is that there is a clump of neurons in our brains that encode "evil", another that encodes "good", and a whole bunch of others that represent words/concepts just waiting to be connected to one or the other. We go through life making most of those connections in a completely unconscious and uncritical way; in fact, there are entire industries dedicated to helping us along with that. The concepts behind those trigger words don't matter; what's important is whether you can make a label stick, and that can be done simply through repetition.
The point is not whether "communism" or "terrorism" or "democracy" are really Good or Evil on their merits; it's that we can make things Good or Evil through indirection just by sticking those labels on them. And so only our enemies are terrorists or dictators, even when the formal definitions of those words often fit the actions of our friends - or ourselves - equally well. Free Software is not about communism No it isn't, but there are people with a lot of money to spend (or lose) that would like to make it so, at least in the minds of enough of us to matter.
I've noticed a definite uptick in this sort of commentary (OSS == communism) lately myself, and I wonder whether there's something organized (e.g., an astroturfing PR firm) behind it. Perhaps, having failed to win the day on the merits of open vs. closed software, the money behind proprietary software is preparing to fight the battle in the political and legal arenas. For that, public opinion has to be conditioned, however gradually. Since political discourse in the U.S. is pretty much one bout of mindless hysteria after another, it's just possible that such an effort could succeed.
After all, that's what MS partisans say about Linux when it lacks driver support for something...
Most often what I'm looking for in example code is not an algorithm, but rather an idea of what available functions, classes, and idioms address the problem at hand (and how to use them). That's usually the biggest nuisance when jumping between multiple languages, especially when they're used infrequently.
Because... anything done with a profit motive is holy and beyond criticism?
I don't think that anyone could reasonably have anticipated the hysterical response by city officials, even in "this post-9/11 world".
With so few 3rd-party applications available, it would appear that Windows Vista is simply not ready for the desktop.
You wouldn't happen to be the guy next door to me, would you?
So, you're telling me that conservatives don't have a monopoly on fear-mongering or surrendering liberty for the illusion of security?
Friends, this is the natural outcome of an overfed Security-Industrial Complex run amuck. If I'm being shoveled mountains of cash and have the responsibility of showing people that they're being protected from all bogeymen, then I'm going to find something - anything - out there that can be spun to look like a threat. Then, I'm going to pounce on it, and in a way that everyone is sure to notice.
You'd know more about this than me, perhaps, but war is already a ferociously complex beast even when everyone's on the same page. Throw in a bunch of mixed and crossed motivations, some confused and unclear lines of authority, and a dash of uncertainty about The Plan (and whether there even is one), and you've got quite a chaotic soup simmering there.
When a system gets sufficiently complex, it can get very difficult to predict your outputs given your inputs, and almost impossible to do the inverse (applying inputs to achieve a desired result). There may be more than a little of that going on in the Middle East right now. But if it's all just a big feeding frenzy, if the point is mainly to transfer wealth from taxpayers to a particular group of insiders and industries, then all that hardly matters, does it?
This is a GOOD thing, if NASA would allow private firms to develop a robust launch capability.
I'd agree with you, if we could assume that privatization would be done on a competitive bid basis and lead to significant cost efficiencies that would leave everyone - including taxpayers - a winner.
But that's not how the Big 'P' is done these days, is it?
All these Republicans and Libertarians do is weaken America.
Actually, I think they're generally indifferent to whether their policies strengthen America, weaken it, or whatever. To the Republicans, a policy or program is considered desirable if and only if it opens the federal treasury to their corporate patrons, who are subsequently expected to return a portion of the loot in the form of campaign contributions and other favors. Thus, privatization is a convenient and reliable way of converting taxpayers' money into campaign funds and continued power. It is the "marriage of State and corporate power" of which Mussolini spoke.
The privatization of the Iraq War is especially alarming, and not just because a lot of people close to the Bush admin are getting very, very rich. These contractors probably have more influence over events on the ground in Iraq than the military does, and they're largely unregulated. Might they have their own agenda? Is it in their collective interest for the war to come to an end, even in victory, if it stops the gravy train? Would it be unprecedented for greed and private financial interest to trump patriotism and our national interest?
Not to mention the loss of morale, initiative, and motivation that happens when restrictions become too draconian and employees are routinely treated like potential criminals...
Oh, my... Will the spyware require me to have a valid Fedora Core 5 license to install my new FC6? Or will I have to go out a buy a whole new laptop that can handle all of that awesome power?
Heh heh - Just kiddin'.
You couldn't be any less helpful if you were an idiot fanboy. Oh...yeah...
Hmmm... So you're the one who puts up with this shit, paying for the priviledge of doing so, and I'm the fanboy? Interesting perspective you have there!
I've never had this problem with Linux. Maybe this is Microsoft's way of suggesting that it's time to take the leap...