Um, Try going back to school. You have apparently mixed up Ireland with SCOTLAND!!!!
Braveheart aka William Wallace was from and fought for SCOTLAND. Men in SCOTLAND wear "dresses" or as we prefer to call them kilts. SCOTLAND is attached to England in the North part of the island, Ireland is a whole separate island to the west. SCOTLAND has a separatist political party, but, unlike some fine members of the UDF or IRA, they haven't pipe bombed any school buses full of children lately (as you can see I don't particularly like either side in the Irish Troubles). By God, leave SCOTLAND out of this!
Now that that is off my chest...
Why is anyone surprised about this. Most of the world has known for over 10 years now, since the release of Peter Wright's book Spycatcher, about the exploits of MI5 and MI6 (except my cousin in SCOTLAND, where the book was and still is banned due to "national security"). Why should we be shocked that the British Intelligence community has listened to every phone call between Ireland and England for 10 years when they have had a duplicate key to every lock in the city of London for over 30 years (again see Spycatcher).
Personally I find no comfort or protection in doing or saying nothing "wrong". If the state has and uses this kind of power, your innocence won't matter since they could create evidence, plant evidence or infer anything from your private communications. Planting a bomb and blowing someon e up is a crime...talking about it isn't. Don't take away my freedom for something I say I'm going to do, take it away for actually doing it.
As I beleive one of your "founding fathers" once said (and I think I'm paraphrasing)"Those who would give up liberty for security deserve niether."
Here comes my point....whoops you missed it. Just in case you fit into this crowd - My point was that dismissing a particular user interface out of hand because you don't use it or like it or think its a very good/efficient/easy to use is wrong. I don't like the CLI as a regular, everyday interface. For Net Surfing, graphics, games and even Word processing I prefer a GUI environment, especially if it is well designed. But the CLI is incredibly powerful if you want to know how to use it, so I do use it quite a bit when I'm playing with my Linux box or programming in Oracle/C++ (my job). That doesn't mean I like it. That doesn't mean my wife or kid would like it. Give everyone a choice. Face it, for the kinds of things most average users use a computer for, you don't really need to have a CLI, but its nice to have as a back up. And if you couple it with other kinds of user interface methods, you can get a system that is accessible to EVERYONE, not just able-bodied, able -minded college white boys who can type. What really pissed me off was this guy slagging people with Downs Syndrome, some how indicating that if they could use a system it was somehow bad or inferior quality. Personally, I'll take the system that allows me as a developer and IT professional to do whatever Hacks I can come up with AND allow my child with Downs to use it too.
If the rest of the Linux community shares this guys ideas about the diabled, I'll stick to windows thank you, or maybe BeOS...
Spare me. If and when you graduate from com-sci and enter the real world try watching how people who don't have computer knowledge interact with computers. Or how abould taking a psych course this summer so you can get an understanding of how people think (are you more likely to remember the word dog or a picture of one?). For you, the CLI snob, typing arcane commands in a very particular order at 45 wpm is a very good way to interact with a computer. For my 60 year old father (a farmer with a grade 10 education and NO typing ability) it is not. He is better off with a GUI. Not any GUI, but a well designed GUI (take an HCI course). A lot of stuff in Windows is terrible GUI design...some of it is very good and intuitive. So Linux should keep the CLI for those who WANT or NEED to use it, but provided a well designed, intuitive GUI for those who WANT or NEED to use that. Why stop there? How about voice interaction with a computer (Sound User Interface)? Or touch/movement (for the paralyzed etc)? How about OCR or other kinds of scanners/readers (brainwaves?) a user could employ to interface with a computer? The possibilities are endless. The CLI is not buried but face it, except for programmers and a few older people, no one uses it as their primary interface to a computer any more. They use a GUI. Not because it is easier to use nescesarily (although a properly designed one would be) but because it's easier to remember how to use and more intuitive to figure out if you've never used one (or even to figure out where you are or what application is presented to you). It give the user confidence that they can figure it out - more confidence than a blinking [user]$ or c:\> prompt would be.
BTW, if all of this "Ease of use bullshit" is a "fucking lie", how come most home OSes (Win/Mac making up well over 95% of that market) are GUI based or driven? If your arguement was true, we wouldn't be having this debate - people would want Linux BECAUSE it was solely CLI (and thus by your arguement easier to use)not DESPITE that. Why are so many people asking for a better Linux GUI? Huh?
I like the CLI. I think GUI is better for most things. Niether is the end all be all of computer interface. Use both of these and a lot more (see above) to make the computer truely easy to use...and drop the elitist, snobby attitude. It makes you seem like a hot blooded fool.
You know I agree with you but we have to remember that home computers have been around as common household items (as common as cars) for only about 10 - 15 years (TRS-80, PETs C-64 don't really count - most people may have heard of them but did not own or use them. Only since the Mac in 84 have most people owned or used a computer on a daily basis). Think about the world or cars about 10 - 15 years after they were "invented" or introduced into common use. Except for a few 1900's car "geeks" I'm willing to bet a very large number of people ran out of gas and didn't know what to do. Many people couldn't drive or even start a car because of the way the gears worked or the fact that you had to crank that handle on the front to get it going. But man, when the gears were made a little easier to use and the electric starter was invented (read an easier to use interface) - BOOM - did the car ever take off. A lot of people owned them. Now today you can either buy a car and drive it with minimal maintainance (I don't have to change Power steering fluid or transmission fluid for 5 years in my Sunfire with an automatic transmission)or you can delve into the depths of the engine and hop it up, or choose a manual tranny over automatic, mag wheels or a kicking stereo. Would you even own a car if, in order to drive you had to use one key to open the door, work the throttle and coolant valves by hand, turn with no power steering and use another key to turn on the radio, which you tuned with you other hand (?) by holding the antenna out the window and scratching a crystal with a needle? Conversely would you own it if you could only use an AM Radio and the hood was welded shut and it only went 60 km/h? Computers an OSes are the same way. Just as most people will never change their own oil or will never have to know that they have a 318I 6 cylinder in order to drive to work, they should not have to know that they have an Expert@work 8mg AGP video card and PII with BX-440 chipset or that they have 11 daemons running, 1 active and 9 sleeping, in order to check their e-mail (why should my wife have to know how to start pppd or how to write chat scripts and setuids in order to connect to the net to do her real job - advertising? Seems like a waste when she would only need to click under a GUI). But if they want to completely change the configuration, they should be allowed to, if they know how. I think the author's "Linux for the masses" is more of a "let an expert set it up once so it works well and then just let the average Joe drive it." If they need anything changed that they can't do easily, they bring it to the expert again. If they choose to learn more, then they cando more themselves. If they don't, that's OK too.
Maybe in another generation or 2 when computers are more common place, many of the CLI Vs GUI arguements we have will seem silly. Until then I think there is room for both. But don't turn off most users from Linux by telling them the HAVE to do or know details they could care less about. At my house we could turn on the lights by manually hooking up the wires to the transformer and then twisting the ends together, making sure we have a complete circuit, but we prefer to just flick the switch. I also turn my tv on and change channels with the remote not with the knobs (or buttons as the case may be) - not because it's faster or more efficient but because it's easier and more convenient. I suppose if I wanted to be cool, I could always used to knobs and insist that anyone who used the remote was a "Luser" but I guess I'm just not that immature...
Oh yeah, that's right I forgot...the mentally handicapped do not deserve the same benefits that the rest of us have. If Something is so easy to use that someone with Downs can use it must be bad. Grow up and get a life. If Win 98 is really that user friendly that it can be used to help the mentally handicapped integrate into the mainstream of society, I'll keep buying it ( I personally don't think it's that friendly). Just because the person in your particular example uses it to "peek in on adult sites" doesn't mean its bad. He/she could just as easily use it to do online banking or shopping or actually do some work. They could then become productive members of society and able to live independantly. All that sounds fine to me.
Easy to use does not mean poor efficiency, no power of unstable - they are mutually exclusive. Linux should be easy for you or I or anyone with Downs to use. It should also be complicated so you or I can still use the command line/hex editor to hack the system or files. It can be both ways.
I suppose the blind shouldn't use Linux because they can't see the screen or the deaf because they can't hear the warning beeps? If Linux is only for the elite, able-bodied, non-handicapped among us, I hope it dies a painfull death soon. I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of elitism.
Maybe if you ever graduate and start living in the real world you realize this- MR. Pingo...
Thanks for the link but that project is done...since they changed their mind back and forth so many times on design issues (Mon: Filter this list on city, Tues: don't filter this list - show every thing Wed: why isn't this list filtered etc) that they ran out of money. Besides, without a stable high bandwidth wireless network available realatively cheap, none of my ideas would work very well. And the article would cost me $3.50 - I'm in Canada
Thanks for the link but that project is done...since they changed their mind back and forth so many times on design issues (Mon: Filter this list on city, Tues: don't filter this list - show every thing Wed: why isn't this list filtered etc) that they ran out of money. Besides, without a stable high bandwidth wireless network available realatively cheap, none of my ideas would work very well.
Well for the average Josephine it doesn't mean jack - most people are comfortable using palmtops or laptops for portable computing or don't need portable computing at all. But I just finished a project for the Ministry of Agriculture up here in Toronto Ontario, Canada in which we automated a large part of the business process for Meat Inspection. Right now they still need to have their laptops open and running in a barn or abbatoir - sometimes they can't. That means doing things the old fashioned way and writing it down on paper (thus eliminating the need for the new system!). Some things they need to do (like read a tag with a keyboard wedge bar-code reader) are very difficult with a laptop in a slaughterhouse (there is just no place to plug in or even put the computer down). One of the meat inspectors actually told me he would like a hands free, head nounted display portable computer that he can wear so he can do both the inspection and add information to the database (Oracle) as he works in real time. This means he needs head mounted display, wireless, highspeed networking and wireless peripheral (bar-code reader) connections on a small, light durable computer he can wear on his belt or in his clothes. This will make his job easier and more efficient.
This is only one concrete, recent example where this technology is more than 'cool i can wear it...'.
Think out of the box baby!, How many other jobs couyld be made easier and more efficient if these kinds of portable computing technologies were widely available? Think of the possibilities...
My Stars! Another CLI vs GUI troll. Just because a person does not want to learn bizzare commands does not make them not want to think. As a matter of fact, I would say that most users DO want to think...what they want to think about is another story. You and Imay use the CLI for some things because we, as programmers or IT professionals, find it easier or more powerful to do what we want it to do - we want to think about the commands, how they work and what they do. My wife, on the other hand, would prefer to think about graphic layout, ad placment, ad costs and potential income reports (she's in advertising) rather than how to move a file or find a program or how to compile. For her the computer should be a tool to do what she wants to do, not an end in itself. She would like it to be easy, almost thoughtless to use so she can concentrate on her job of producing print/tv/radio ads not on "chmod ugo+x" stuff. Her jobs is to use her computer for work, not to administer and set it up.
For her, a simple thoughtless GUI is the RIGHT WAY. Pushing the CLI as the only RIGHT WAY is as wrong as pushing a GUI as the only RIGHT WAY. There's room for both. If you don't want to use a GUI, don't. But don't be an idiotic CLI snob and say that people who use GUI don't want to learn or are too stupid to use a CLI. Its just not true.
Well, I've just spent the last 2 hours "hacking" through the Ken vs JP stories here on/. and I must say its really quite amusing. One group Says "yay..us HaXor doodz will destroy anti-online" and other says "hey, that's a violation of free speech! You can't do that!" another says "Yes they can!" Blah blah blah....
For me it boils down to who owns the computers - Harvard. Just as I don't have to have any program on MY computer that I don't want (are you listening MS?) Harvard doesn't have to have ANYTHING on THEIR computers that they don't want, irregardless of free speech or who owns the content. So Harvard did the right thing.
As for the rest, well, it reminds me of two 10 year olds fighting. Personally I don't thing either is telling the whole truth. JP may well just be a "wannabe" who is pumping himself up. But I have also seen some of the "evidence" published by a great many other sources that are, to say the least, laughable and and insult to the intelligence of anyone on/. It seems to me these two kids did something along time ago to each other so they now hate each other and they will battle it out anytime and in any forum. And often in war, truth is the first causalty.
Is JP a rogue bastard who is selling snake oil, making up "hacks" so he can ride in and save the day? Sure, its possible. Its also possible that Ken has enginieered a great many of these so-called "evidence" logs and irc sessions as a disinformation/smear campaign. Either scenario is just as plausible as the other.
Frankly I don't care who is right or wrong. Both sides are indulging in Ad Homenem attacks, which is the least logical, poorly premised and misguided of all arguement. If you can't attack the aguement attack the arguer...
This is incredibly childish. I don't beleive either side. The sad part is that two fairly decent sites for getting security information (anti-code that is, not antionline) are gone (for now) and we are all losing out on information.
Now, when the teenagers are done with the pissing contest, perhaps us adults can get down to the business of discussing some REAL issues...
I agree that it is for the most part a Toy. Even for the people here who love it as a tool, it's not much more than an electronic quo vadis. I don't own or use one but I would in a heartbeat if the following were to happen:
1. Easily available, highspeed wireless network so I could use my Palm Pilot ( I would prefer the E-100, nicer screen) to send and recieve e-mail and browse the web as if I were at my workstation (none of these text only things you get with certain PCS phones). This could mean I could also log into my LAN or WAN in the same way to upload or download information.
2. With the networking in place and very reliable, have an open api for creating very thin client applications to extend the useability into fields we haven't thought of. For instance, I have just completed a project for an Ontario Government Ministry where we created an application for Meat Inspectors. The inspectors have to use clients on a laptop ($2500 Can + for each one X 150 ), record their information and then upload it and download it at different times. This can cause a great deal of problems with data integrity and synchronization. Everyone on our project has dreamt of being able to just give them E-100s ($700 Can) with our client app and a wireless network so they could login to the Oracle DB live while they are doing their work. They would be smaller and much easier to use in the field than laptops. This isn't possible yet due to the lack of high-speed wireless infrastructure and decent graphical API for regualar people (WinCE? Blah! Java? Maybe someday, but not yet. Linux with mini X? Hmmm....)
3. Have a wide variety of peripherals available such as wireless printer adaptors, wireless keyboard wedge or PCI scanners ( our inspectors have to scan tags in too) and hands free PCS attachments, possibly voice command/recognition interface (stop me now I'm really dreaming).
All this boils down to having very high quaility hand held devices as clients in a wireless, distibuted computing environment where using applications is transparent - the UI and functionality is identical on the Palm as it is on the laptop as it is on the desktop. Then we will really have a tool (especially if it converges with voice/picture communications).
All this technology exist, we just need to sew it together.
Actually, back in the late 60's early 70's low dose LSD was used as a treament for alchoholism - it appears acid breaks the physical addiction to alchohol. Amazing the Ying and Yang illicit drugs can have...
Uhmm Sorry, I thought that's what I said. I'm trying to make the point that most ordinary people, when they use a computer, use a GUI rather than a CLI. Many of the less technical are actually intimidated by the CLI. Given that, Caldera's new GUI install is a Good thing because it makes Linux less scary for people to install and use. But until configuring new hardware and software is much easier, they will still stay away because ordinary folks (your sister, my aunt and the guy who servers coffee at Tim Horton's) won't be able to surf the net or print a resume (read : its too hard for them to get the modem and or printer set up properly and working). I don't think I'm over generalizing when I state that most people in the world (who can or do use a computer) would rather know how to type letters or do what ever work they need to do on their box rather than have to spend a week investigating IRQs, DMAs and UARTs just to read e-mail from their cousin in Scotland. A sweet gui means jack if you still need to be a propeller -head technical wiz to do anything useful.
While I applaud the more graphical install process as a boon to new, non-technical users (who no doubt will have to try Linux at home where IS can't install it for them), I still think the process needs a little fixing up. I'm a professional programmer with a keen interest in such things and I found that while the initial install of Linux was rather 'simple' (RH 5.2 with 2.036 kernel), finally configuring it to do something useful was very difficult. I own perhaps one of the most popular modems around (USR 56k internal 3060), yet it could not be autodetected or set up (I ended up using pnpdump and isapnp in rc.d). Same problem with my monitor (Relisys 786). I was only able to get X configured properly and my modem working after reading dozens of articles and how-to's (none of which had the exact right answer) and taking a few educated guesses (the modem still needs a little tweaking since it still works much better and faster under Win98 than RH 5.2). Now as a programmer and IT professional I don't mind, nay, I love poking about in text config files and experimenting with the set up - its my job. But my wife is in advertising and she needs to do presentations, Word processing and search the web for information not play around with configuration for two weeks (which is what it took me to finally get everything working right). If she is to become a Linux convert, its going to need a cool gui and have the ability to be configured and running useful (for her) programs right away - otherwise she will stick with 98 or NT. If you don't want to use a gui or graphical install fine, don't. Just remember that most of the people in the world - read potential Linux users - do want to use one.
98 and NT may be poor OSes, but my wife can install and be up and running programs in a familiar graphical environment in about 3 hours, and with out my help
If you did, you would remember that C++ is a superset of the old C and includes most of it. Language extensions? In MFC? Well this once again shows your ignorance. MFC is a (poor) set of class libraries/class wrappers for the Win32 API (written in your precious C, I beleive) and NOT an extension to the language. I can write perfectly functioning Windows code in ANSI Standard C++ by carefully designing classes. No "extensions" just calls to class libraries (GTK and QT are just class libraries/frameworks and work the same way). I suspect that if you had problems with C++ it was because: A) You only half learned it and were using C++ syntax in old C-style programming (procedural not OO). or B) You never learned proper OO techniques. I suggest a college level course or the Book "Design Patterns" by Gamma et al.
As for your assertion that it is an immature language, well it's been around for 15+ years and is ANSI standardized...which is more than I can say for Scheme and Java (don't get me wrong, I like Java).
BTW if you can program Java, you can program C++.. except for Pointers in C++, they are almost identical. I don't think C++ is perfect. It could certainly use some improvments, but to call it a "hack" and to state that it doesn't do OO very well just shows ignorance. I don't like C too much, but I won't go off making half-assed remarks about it just because I don't...I know for some things it is a very good language. Maybe you should try to do the same.
Well, take from the article what you will, but I read it as very sarcastic. His 23/6 comment was only the most obvious indication. His complaints about Linux being 60's technology seem to point to the fact that while the basis of Windows has changed a great deal over the years, Linux/Unix has eveloved but remained very stable. As for the purposeful factual errors (17% of servers being Unix and a small percentage of that being Linux - we know it's 17 and 17 making 34% according to IDC), they seem also to point out that Linux is currently in use while Win2k is still vapourware and promises at the moment...it's marketshare is 0%! Metcalfe seems to be parroting the views of a lot of the CIO/managers/general public out there have in regard to Linux and thus challenging us in the community to destroy these myth in the corporate/public culture. Think about it. How many of your project managers or MIS managers beleive exactly what Metcalfe said? Most I think. Help destroy the myths about Linux. Is linux perfect? No not really, it probably needs a few more years to develop (GUIs, drivers, ease of use...the same old arguements). But unlike Win2K, it can be used and updated now and at a very attractive price.
Excellent advice guys... I intend to check out both XEmacs and Code Warrior. Sounds like IBM may grant my wish soon. That's what I love about slashdot...always getting great help and advice. Keep up the good work!
I would love for them to port Visual Age for C++ to Linux, then I could have a decent IDE for doing C++... Unless anyone out there can recommend some I haven't heard of.
So we now have a Linux PDA. With voice recognition and sound capabilities. How about an infrared port? or OCR? My in-laws (from Newfoundland) just got back from a trip to Greece and this made me think...A hand held PDA or computer, running linux for stability, Java GUI, which can not only store numbers/emails/etc but, using voice recognition and a mini soundboard, translate speech into either sound or text on the screen (with phonetics so you can answer) or use the OCR to "read" menus and road signs (which would be typed in of course)? My god!.. perfect for the traveller, either the power suit, retired couple or the backpacker. Buy a flash card or better yet one of those Sony mini HDDs and plug in translation modules for different languages/alphabets (can you say Strategy Pattern?)and you've just made it extensible. A REAL universal Translator or Babel Fish.
Does anyone know if this is going on? If I knew how to program PDA's (like the Casiopia E-100, sans the WinCE) man this would be one cool GNU/OSS project... Don't ya think?
...instead of just calling me names (as the poster below seems to have done)? Well I'm glad I irked some response. This seems to have touched a nerve.
First off I never said it was RIGHT. I simply asked how it feels. My point was people are upset because of what Dr. Anderson said, yet don't seem to be very upset when they act like him when it comes to people who use Windows (through choice or circumstances at work) I was certainly not saying ANYBODY should be treated like this. This was more of an ironic observation that/.ers don't seem to like to be on the recieving end of the same treatment they often dish out (and I've been on/. a long time, I see it daily). Again this was just an observation, not a judgment.
Secondly, I stand by the fact that, through the logic of my arguement, his statement is factual. Should they have fixed the Unix client a long time ago? Sure they should have. But they are an all volunteer force and very few in numbers, so at times it can be hard to do all this and keep up with the regular job. If you are so concerned about the quality of the software, why didn't you volunteer a year ago when they asked for people? If you know how to fix the bug why don't you e-mail Dr. Anderson with a solution? Just because I see the door to a store opened at midnight, doesn't mean I should be allowed to walk in and do what I want.
My crack about Windows users not having the mentality is SARCASM! Look it up in a dictionary sometime. You seem to want it both ways - when it suits you, Windows users are idiots who can't type or even use a command line. Also when it makes you look not quite so bad, Windows users are brilliant hackers who seem to have just missed this one.
When he stated that the majority of his headaches came from the Unix/Linux community, I read it just as it is - a small group of people who happen to belong to the Unix/Linux community are causeing all his problems. I didn't see the word "all" in front of Unix/Linux community. Your answer to this never really addressed this. Read it again. If Dr. Anderson has 10 problems, 9 of which are occurring only in the Unix/Linux clients and those 9 problems are causing the system to work improperly or reflect erroneous data is it not fair for him to say that the majority of HIS headaches are caused by members (not ALL members, just members) of the Unix/Linux community, especially when that erroneous data requires purposeful action on behalf of the individuals to create (they have to find the bug and then exploit it)? Given what we know about this problem, what part of this statement is false?
You also seem to be taking Wired as gospel. Do you have the entire transcript of the interview this was based on? Do you know the total context in which this statement was made? Maybe you should feel a little angry at the Wired article for not giving a balanced opinion or sharing both sides of the story.
I think the biggest mistake SETI@HOME did was post the names of the groups and individuals and make it a "competition". Maybe if the get rid of that feature, some of these script kiddies will have no reason to try and send the same results back to the server 5000+ times.
As for generalizing the Slashdot community, as a long time member of that community I would like you to point out in my post where I did that. I beleive I was very specific about the few immature individuals who are doing this.
Does any of this make the project any less interesting or not worthy of support? I don't think so. This is a tempest in a teapot. After all, its a screen saver. If you are so insulted by the truth that you don't want to volunteer - don't. It sounds like with 3.5 x more response than they expected and more people trying to download every day, you won't be missed much.
But what if its true? Somebody is 'hacking'/'cracking' them and chances are they use Unix/Linux. Painting ALL Unix/Linux users with that brush is unfortunate and unfair, but no more unfair than the average/.er generalizing about Windows users in every third line of every post about every story. How does it feel to be on the recieving end of a bigoted gernealization?
Keep that in mind next time you throw a "Winbloze" or "Windows Sux" or a "point and drool" reference to Windows users in a post.
As for the accuracy of the statement well consider:
1. Most of the "headaches" come from people sending too many responses from one downloaded packet (download once, analyze the data and then upload it 5000+ times so it looks like you processed 5000+ data chunks and now your "in the lead"). This results in overloading of the servers (they aren't scalled for 500000 users remember) and running out of disk space. This software bug is causing hardware failures. SETI@home does not have the money to just buy new equipment.
2. This bug is only a bug in the Unix/Linux client, and can't be done in the Windows version. Therefore only Unix/Linux users will ever do this.
3. The bug is a loophole which is exploited by people who go looking for it and code around it - that is people with the 'hacker' mentality. My understanding is that if you don't look for it and exploit the bug, the Unix/Linux client works as expected (Windows users aren't hackers or don't want to be hackers... right?)
Therefore the majority of the "headaches" for the project come from the Unix/Linux community with the hacker mentality, correct? Isn't that what Dr. Anderson said?
Instead of being upset for some percieved insult by the head of the SETI@home project, maybe we should be upset about the fact that some bunch of idiots is screwing with the system just so they can get their names on the web site.
Maybe the person who discovered this should have done the OSS thing and done the exploit once to show it could happen then e-mailed SETI@HOME and tell them about it. But I guess it's "closed "software so it deserves everything it gets, even at the expense of good science.
Man some people here should really grow up...and learn to sign their name if they are gonna troll for responses with four letter words! Grow up chicken shit!
From the SETI@HOME web site: "Dr. David P. Anderson, Project Director. David is Chief Technology Officer at Tunes.com Inc. A former member of the Computer Science faculty at UC Berkeley, he has authored 65 research papers in operating systems, distributed computing, and computer graphics"
I've glanced at some of those 65 papers and a great deal of them have to do with operating systems, distibuted computing and secure computing. IMHO if Dr. Anderson says the Linux/Unix crowd has done the "hacking" and is responsible for his headaches, I tend to beleive him.
And why not? Isn't/. the same place that derides Windows users for NOT having a hacking mentality, which states time and time again that Linux/Unix is a hacker's OS, that Windows users can't hack or that you can't hack with Windows? Should we then be surprised that when somebody is "hacked" they then blame it on members of the Linux/Unix community? Come on! Either were "hackers" or were not. We can't be "hackers" when its cool and be upset at being called "hackers" when its embarassing.
As for his aloofness about who is doing it and exactly what "it" is - I find it perfectly understandable. He's already been hacked/cracked. Telling people exactly what happend may invite others to try. Identifying specifically the pereps may have 2 unwanted effects: 1. A costly lawsuit for defamation or slander. I understand you guys dow there in the US sue people a lot. Seti@home has very little money for this kind of thing 2. The worst - the "hackers" launch a more vicious, destructive attack and destroy the whole project in some bizarre Cyberware, akin to what the FBI is going through right now. In either case, the project ends. I suspect Dr. Anderson thinks this is too important a project to risk that. So he minimizes and acts aloof...
Perhaps a group of us here could do some "hacking" in DEFENSE of SETI@home instead of against it..."hacking" might even get it's good name back! (remember script kiddies, just because I 'can' cheat or f**k with a system, doesn't mean I 'should' or will. Everyone thinks 'hackers' are evil because a few bozos did some stupid destructive things - a few bad apples blah,blah,blah...)
Maybe the sending out of the same data packets is the result of a "hack" not a bug. Something to think about.
I for one will still support the project, since my conscience is clear...
Slashdot Mirror
No.
Um, Try going back to school. You have apparently mixed up Ireland with SCOTLAND!!!!
Braveheart aka William Wallace was from and fought for SCOTLAND. Men in SCOTLAND wear "dresses" or as we prefer to call them kilts. SCOTLAND is attached to England in the North part of the island, Ireland is a whole separate island to the west. SCOTLAND has a separatist political party, but, unlike some fine members of the UDF or IRA, they haven't pipe bombed any school buses full of children lately (as you can see I don't particularly like either side in the Irish Troubles). By God, leave SCOTLAND out of this!
Now that that is off my chest...
Why is anyone surprised about this. Most of the world has known for over 10 years now, since the release of Peter Wright's book Spycatcher, about the exploits of MI5 and MI6 (except my cousin in SCOTLAND, where the book was and still is banned due to "national security"). Why should we be shocked that the British Intelligence community has listened to every phone call between Ireland and England for 10 years when they have had a duplicate key to every lock in the city of London for over 30 years (again see Spycatcher).
Personally I find no comfort or protection in doing or saying nothing "wrong". If the state has and uses this kind of power, your innocence won't matter since they could create evidence, plant evidence or infer anything from your private communications. Planting a bomb and blowing someon e up is a crime...talking about it isn't. Don't take away my freedom for something I say I'm going to do, take it away for actually doing it.
As I beleive one of your "founding fathers" once said (and I think I'm paraphrasing)"Those who would give up liberty for security deserve niether."
A Canadian member of MacDonald of Clanranald.
Here comes my point....whoops you missed it. Just in case you fit into this crowd - My point was that dismissing a particular user interface out of hand because you don't use it or like it or think its a very good/efficient/easy to use is wrong. I don't like the CLI as a regular, everyday interface. For Net Surfing, graphics, games and even Word processing I prefer a GUI environment, especially if it is well designed. But the CLI is incredibly powerful if you want to know how to use it, so I do use it quite a bit when I'm playing with my Linux box or programming in Oracle/C++ (my job). That doesn't mean I like it. That doesn't mean my wife or kid would like it. Give everyone a choice. Face it, for the kinds of things most average users use a computer for, you don't really need to have a CLI, but its nice to have as a back up. And if you couple it with other kinds of user interface methods, you can get a system that is accessible to EVERYONE, not just able-bodied, able -minded college white boys who can type. What really pissed me off was this guy slagging people with Downs Syndrome, some how indicating that if they could use a system it was somehow bad or inferior quality. Personally, I'll take the system that allows me as a developer and IT professional to do whatever Hacks I can come up with AND allow my child with Downs to use it too.
If the rest of the Linux community shares this guys ideas about the diabled, I'll stick to windows thank you, or maybe BeOS...
Spare me.
If and when you graduate from com-sci and enter the real world try watching how people who don't have computer knowledge interact with computers. Or how abould taking a psych course this summer so you can get an understanding of how people think (are you more likely to remember the word dog or a picture of one?).
For you, the CLI snob, typing arcane commands in a very particular order at 45 wpm is a very good way to interact with a computer. For my 60 year old father (a farmer with a grade 10 education and NO typing ability) it is not. He is better off with a GUI. Not any GUI, but a well designed GUI (take an HCI course). A lot of stuff in Windows is terrible GUI design...some of it is very good and intuitive. So Linux should keep the CLI for those who WANT or NEED to use it, but provided a well designed, intuitive GUI for those who WANT or NEED to use that. Why stop there? How about voice interaction with a computer (Sound User Interface)? Or touch/movement (for the paralyzed etc)? How about OCR or other kinds of scanners/readers (brainwaves?) a user could employ to interface with a computer? The possibilities are endless. The CLI is not buried but face it, except for programmers and a few older people, no one uses it as their primary interface to a computer any more. They use a GUI. Not because it is easier to use nescesarily (although a properly designed one would be) but because it's easier to remember how to use and more intuitive to figure out if you've never used one (or even to figure out where you are or what application is presented to you). It give the user confidence that they can figure it out - more confidence than a blinking [user]$ or c:\> prompt would be.
BTW, if all of this "Ease of use bullshit" is a "fucking lie", how come most home OSes (Win/Mac making up well over 95% of that market) are GUI based or driven? If your arguement was true, we wouldn't be having this debate - people would want Linux BECAUSE it was solely CLI (and thus by your arguement easier to use)not DESPITE that. Why are so many people asking for a better Linux GUI? Huh?
I like the CLI. I think GUI is better for most things. Niether is the end all be all of computer interface. Use both of these and a lot more (see above) to make the computer truely easy to use...and drop the elitist, snobby attitude. It makes you seem like a hot blooded fool.
You know I agree with you but we have to remember that home computers have been around as common household items (as common as cars) for only about 10 - 15 years (TRS-80, PETs C-64 don't really count - most people may have heard of them but did not own or use them. Only since the Mac in 84 have most people owned or used a computer on a daily basis). Think about the world or cars about 10 - 15 years after they were "invented" or introduced into common use. Except for a few 1900's car "geeks" I'm willing to bet a very large number of people ran out of gas and didn't know what to do. Many people couldn't drive or even start a car because of the way the gears worked or the fact that you had to crank that handle on the front to get it going. But man, when the gears were made a little easier to use and the electric starter was invented (read an easier to use interface) - BOOM - did the car ever take off. A lot of people owned them. Now today you can either buy a car and drive it with minimal maintainance (I don't have to change Power steering fluid or transmission fluid for 5 years in my Sunfire with an automatic transmission)or you can delve into the depths of the engine and hop it up, or choose a manual tranny over automatic, mag wheels or a kicking stereo. Would you even own a car if, in order to drive you had to use one key to open the door, work the throttle and coolant valves by hand, turn with no power steering and use another key to turn on the radio, which you tuned with you other hand (?) by holding the antenna out the window and scratching a crystal with a needle? Conversely would you own it if you could only use an AM Radio and the hood was welded shut and it only went 60 km/h?
Computers an OSes are the same way. Just as most people will never change their own oil or will never have to know that they have a 318I 6 cylinder in order to drive to work, they should not have to know that they have an Expert@work 8mg AGP video card and PII with BX-440 chipset or that they have 11 daemons running, 1 active and 9 sleeping, in order to check their e-mail (why should my wife have to know how to start pppd or how to write chat scripts and setuids in order to connect to the net to do her real job - advertising? Seems like a waste when she would only need to click under a GUI). But if they want to completely change the configuration, they should be allowed to, if they know how. I think the author's "Linux for the masses" is more of a "let an expert set it up once so it works well and then just let the average Joe drive it." If they need anything changed that they can't do easily, they bring it to the expert again. If they choose to learn more, then they cando more themselves. If they don't, that's OK too.
Maybe in another generation or 2 when computers are more common place, many of the CLI Vs GUI arguements we have will seem silly. Until then I think there is room for both. But don't turn off most users from Linux by telling them the HAVE to do or know details they could care less about.
At my house we could turn on the lights by manually hooking up the wires to the transformer and then twisting the ends together, making sure we have a complete circuit, but we prefer to just flick the switch. I also turn my tv on and change channels with the remote not with the knobs (or buttons as the case may be) - not because it's faster or more efficient but because it's easier and more convenient. I suppose if I wanted to be cool, I could always used to knobs and insist that anyone who used the remote was a "Luser" but I guess I'm just not that immature...
Oh yeah, that's right I forgot...the mentally handicapped do not deserve the same benefits that the rest of us have. If Something is so easy to use that someone with Downs can use it must be bad.
Grow up and get a life. If Win 98 is really that user friendly that it can be used to help the mentally handicapped integrate into the mainstream of society, I'll keep buying it ( I personally don't think it's that friendly). Just because the person in your particular example uses it to "peek in on adult sites" doesn't mean its bad. He/she could just as easily use it to do online banking or shopping or actually do some work. They could then become productive members of society and able to live independantly. All that sounds fine to me.
Easy to use does not mean poor efficiency, no power of unstable - they are mutually exclusive. Linux should be easy for you or I or anyone with Downs to use. It should also be complicated so you or I can still use the command line/hex editor to hack the system or files. It can be both ways.
I suppose the blind shouldn't use Linux because they can't see the screen or the deaf because they can't hear the warning beeps? If Linux is only for the elite, able-bodied, non-handicapped among us, I hope it dies a painfull death soon. I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of elitism.
Maybe if you ever graduate and start living in the real world you realize this- MR. Pingo...
Thanks for the link but that project is done...since they changed their mind back and forth so many times on design issues (Mon: Filter this list on city, Tues: don't filter this list - show every thing Wed: why isn't this list filtered etc) that they ran out of money. Besides, without a stable high bandwidth wireless network available realatively cheap, none of my ideas would work very well. And the article would cost me $3.50 - I'm in Canada
Thanks for the link but that project is done...since they changed their mind back and forth so many times on design issues (Mon: Filter this list on city, Tues: don't filter this list - show every thing Wed: why isn't this list filtered etc) that they ran out of money. Besides, without a stable high bandwidth wireless network available realatively cheap, none of my ideas would work very well.
Well for the average Josephine it doesn't mean jack - most people are comfortable using palmtops or laptops for portable computing or don't need portable computing at all. But I just finished a project for the Ministry of Agriculture up here in Toronto Ontario, Canada in which we automated a large part of the business process for Meat Inspection. Right now they still need to have their laptops open and running in a barn or abbatoir - sometimes they can't. That means doing things the old fashioned way and writing it down on paper (thus eliminating the need for the new system!). Some things they need to do (like read a tag with a keyboard wedge bar-code reader) are very difficult with a laptop in a slaughterhouse (there is just no place to plug in or even put the computer down). One of the meat inspectors actually told me he would like a hands free, head nounted display portable computer that he can wear so he can do both the inspection and add information to the database (Oracle) as he works in real time. This means he needs head mounted display, wireless, highspeed networking and wireless peripheral (bar-code reader) connections on a small, light durable computer he can wear on his belt or in his clothes. This will make his job easier and more efficient.
This is only one concrete, recent example where this technology is more than 'cool i can wear it...'.
Think out of the box baby!, How many other jobs couyld be made easier and more efficient if these kinds of portable computing technologies were widely available? Think of the possibilities...
My Stars! Another CLI vs GUI troll. Just because a person does not want to learn bizzare commands does not make them not want to think. As a matter of fact, I would say that most users DO want to think...what they want to think about is another story. You and Imay use the CLI for some things because we, as programmers or IT professionals, find it easier or more powerful to do what we want it to do - we want to think about the commands, how they work and what they do. My wife, on the other hand, would prefer to think about graphic layout, ad placment, ad costs and potential income reports (she's in advertising) rather than how to move a file or find a program or how to compile. For her the computer should be a tool to do what she wants to do, not an end in itself. She would like it to be easy, almost thoughtless to use so she can concentrate on her job of producing print/tv/radio ads not on "chmod ugo+x" stuff. Her jobs is to use her computer for work, not to administer and set it up.
For her, a simple thoughtless GUI is the RIGHT WAY. Pushing the CLI as the only RIGHT WAY is as wrong as pushing a GUI as the only RIGHT WAY. There's room for both. If you don't want to use a GUI, don't. But don't be an idiotic CLI snob and say that people who use GUI don't want to learn or are too stupid to use a CLI. Its just not true.
Remember, Linux is about choice.
Well, I've just spent the last 2 hours "hacking" through the Ken vs JP stories here on /. and I must say its really quite amusing. One group Says "yay..us HaXor doodz will destroy anti-online" and other says "hey, that's a violation of free speech! You can't do that!" another says "Yes they can!" Blah blah blah....
/. It seems to me these two kids did something along time ago to each other so they now hate each other and they will battle it out anytime and in any forum. And often in war, truth is the first causalty.
For me it boils down to who owns the computers - Harvard. Just as I don't have to have any program on MY computer that I don't want (are you listening MS?) Harvard doesn't have to have ANYTHING on THEIR computers that they don't want, irregardless of free speech or who owns the content. So Harvard did the right thing.
As for the rest, well, it reminds me of two 10 year olds fighting. Personally I don't thing either is telling the whole truth. JP may well just be a "wannabe" who is pumping himself up. But I have also seen some of the "evidence" published by a great many other sources that are, to say the least, laughable and and insult to the intelligence of anyone on
Is JP a rogue bastard who is selling snake oil, making up "hacks" so he can ride in and save the day? Sure, its possible.
Its also possible that Ken has enginieered a great many of these so-called "evidence" logs and irc sessions as a disinformation/smear campaign. Either scenario is just as plausible as the other.
Frankly I don't care who is right or wrong. Both sides are indulging in Ad Homenem attacks, which is the least logical, poorly premised and misguided of all arguement. If you can't attack the aguement attack the arguer...
This is incredibly childish. I don't beleive either side. The sad part is that two fairly decent sites for getting security information (anti-code that is, not antionline) are gone (for now) and we are all losing out on information.
Now, when the teenagers are done with the pissing contest, perhaps us adults can get down to the business of discussing some REAL issues...
I agree that it is for the most part a Toy. Even for the people here who love it as a tool, it's not much more than an electronic quo vadis. I don't own or use one but I would in a heartbeat if the following were to happen:
1. Easily available, highspeed wireless network so I could use my Palm Pilot ( I would prefer the E-100, nicer screen) to send and recieve e-mail and browse the web as if I were at my workstation (none of these text only things you get with certain PCS phones). This could mean I could also log into my LAN or WAN in the same way to upload or download information.
2. With the networking in place and very reliable, have an open api for creating very thin client applications to extend the useability into fields we haven't thought of. For instance, I have just completed a project for an Ontario Government Ministry where we created an application for Meat Inspectors. The inspectors have to use clients on a laptop ($2500 Can + for each one X 150 ), record their information and then upload it and download it at different times.
This can cause a great deal of problems with data integrity and synchronization. Everyone on our project has dreamt of being able to just give them E-100s ($700 Can) with our client app and a wireless network so they could login to the Oracle DB live while they are doing their work. They would be smaller and much easier to use in the field than laptops. This isn't possible yet due to the lack of high-speed wireless infrastructure and decent graphical API for regualar people (WinCE? Blah! Java? Maybe someday, but not yet. Linux with mini X? Hmmm....)
3. Have a wide variety of peripherals available such as wireless printer adaptors, wireless keyboard wedge or PCI scanners ( our inspectors have to scan tags in too) and hands free PCS attachments, possibly voice command/recognition interface (stop me now I'm really dreaming).
All this boils down to having very high quaility hand held devices as clients in a wireless, distibuted computing environment where using applications is transparent - the UI and functionality is identical on the Palm as it is on the laptop as it is on the desktop. Then we will really have a tool (especially if it converges with voice/picture communications).
All this technology exist, we just need to sew it together.
Sounds like a tricorder, doesn't it?
Actually, back in the late 60's early 70's low dose LSD was used as a treament for alchoholism - it appears acid breaks the physical addiction to alchohol. Amazing the Ying and Yang illicit drugs can have...
'Scuse me while I kiss the sky!
Uhmm Sorry, I thought that's what I said. I'm trying to make the point that most ordinary people, when they use a computer, use a GUI rather than a CLI. Many of the less technical are actually intimidated by the CLI. Given that, Caldera's new GUI install is a Good thing because it makes Linux less scary for people to install and use. But until configuring new hardware and software is much easier, they will still stay away because ordinary folks (your sister, my aunt and the guy who servers coffee at Tim Horton's) won't be able to surf the net or print a resume (read : its too hard for them to get the modem and or printer set up properly and working). I don't think I'm over generalizing when I state that most people in the world (who can or do use a computer) would rather know how to type letters or do what ever work they need to do on their box rather than have to spend a week investigating IRQs, DMAs and UARTs just to read e-mail from their cousin in Scotland. A sweet gui means jack if you still need to be a propeller -head technical wiz to do anything useful.
While I applaud the more graphical install process as a boon to new, non-technical users (who no doubt will have to try Linux at home where IS can't install it for them), I still think the process needs a little fixing up. I'm a professional programmer with a keen interest in such things and I found that while the initial install of Linux was rather 'simple' (RH 5.2 with 2.036 kernel), finally configuring it to do something useful was very difficult. I own perhaps one of the most popular modems around (USR 56k internal 3060), yet it could not be autodetected or set up (I ended up using pnpdump and isapnp in rc.d). Same problem with my monitor (Relisys 786). I was only able to get X configured properly and my modem working after reading dozens of articles and how-to's (none of which had the exact right answer) and taking a few educated guesses (the modem still needs a little tweaking since it still works much better and faster under Win98 than RH 5.2). Now as a programmer and IT professional I don't mind, nay, I love poking about in text config files and experimenting with the set up - its my job. But my wife is in advertising and she needs to do presentations, Word processing and search the web for information not play around with configuration for two weeks (which is what it took me to finally get everything working right). If she is to become a Linux convert, its going to need a cool gui and have the ability to be configured and running useful (for her) programs right away - otherwise she will stick with 98 or NT. If you don't want to use a gui or graphical install fine, don't. Just remember that most of the people in the world - read potential Linux users - do want to use one.
98 and NT may be poor OSes, but my wife can install and be up and running programs in a familiar graphical environment in about 3 hours, and with out my help
If you did, you would remember that C++ is a superset of the old C and includes most of it. Language extensions? In MFC? Well this once again shows your ignorance. MFC is a (poor) set of class libraries/class wrappers for the Win32 API (written in your precious C, I beleive) and NOT an extension to the language. I can write perfectly functioning Windows code in ANSI Standard C++ by carefully designing classes. No "extensions" just calls to class libraries (GTK and QT are just class libraries/frameworks and work the same way).
.. except for Pointers in C++, they are almost identical. I don't think C++ is perfect. It could certainly use some improvments, but to call it a "hack" and to state that it doesn't do OO very well just shows ignorance. I don't like C too much, but I won't go off making half-assed remarks about it just because I don't...I know for some things it is a very good language.
I suspect that if you had problems with C++ it was because:
A) You only half learned it and were using C++ syntax in old C-style programming (procedural not OO).
or
B) You never learned proper OO techniques. I suggest a college level course or the Book "Design Patterns" by Gamma et al.
As for your assertion that it is an immature language, well it's been around for 15+ years and is ANSI standardized...which is more than I can say for Scheme and Java (don't get me wrong, I like Java).
BTW if you can program Java, you can program C++
Maybe you should try to do the same.
Well, take from the article what you will, but I read it as very sarcastic. His 23/6 comment was only the most obvious indication. His complaints about Linux being 60's technology seem to point to the fact that while the basis of Windows has changed a great deal over the years, Linux/Unix has eveloved but remained very stable. As for the purposeful factual errors (17% of servers being Unix and a small percentage of that being Linux - we know it's 17 and 17 making 34% according to IDC), they seem also to point out that Linux is currently in use while Win2k is still vapourware and promises at the moment...it's marketshare is 0%! Metcalfe seems to be parroting the views of a lot of the CIO/managers/general public out there have in regard to Linux and thus challenging us in the community to destroy these myth in the corporate/public culture. Think about it. How many of your project managers or MIS managers beleive exactly what Metcalfe said? Most I think.
Help destroy the myths about Linux.
Is linux perfect? No not really, it probably needs a few more years to develop (GUIs, drivers, ease of use...the same old arguements). But unlike Win2K, it can be used and updated now and at a very attractive price.
Excellent advice guys... I intend to check out both XEmacs and Code Warrior. Sounds like IBM may grant my wish soon. That's what I love about slashdot...always getting great help and advice.
Keep up the good work!
I would love for them to port Visual Age for C++ to Linux, then I could have a decent IDE for doing C++...
Unless anyone out there can recommend some I haven't heard of.
So we now have a Linux PDA. With voice recognition and sound capabilities. How about an infrared port? or OCR? My in-laws (from Newfoundland) just got back from a trip to Greece and this made me think...A hand held PDA or computer, running linux for stability, Java GUI, which can not only store numbers/emails/etc but, using voice recognition and a mini soundboard, translate speech into either sound or text on the screen (with phonetics so you can answer) or use the OCR to "read" menus and road signs (which would be typed in of course)?
My god!.. perfect for the traveller, either the power suit, retired couple or the backpacker. Buy a flash card or better yet one of those Sony mini HDDs and plug in translation modules for different languages/alphabets (can you say Strategy Pattern?)and you've just made it extensible. A REAL universal Translator or Babel Fish.
Does anyone know if this is going on? If I knew how to program PDA's (like the Casiopia E-100, sans the WinCE) man this would be one cool GNU/OSS project...
Don't ya think?
Could be used to identify you as Artificial (clone, replicant what have you) or as belonging to MS!!! Trademarks on oil eating microbes etc.
Interesting, maybe not as scary as some people think but a little disturbing...
And this has what to do with the argument I made in my previous post?
...instead of just calling me names (as the poster below seems to have done)?
/.ers don't seem to like to be on the recieving end of the same treatment they often dish out (and I've been on /. a long time, I see it daily). Again this was just an observation, not a judgment.
Well I'm glad I irked some response. This seems to have touched a nerve.
First off I never said it was RIGHT. I simply asked how it feels. My point was people are upset because of what Dr. Anderson said, yet don't seem to be very upset when they act like him when it comes to people who use Windows (through choice or circumstances at work) I was certainly not saying ANYBODY should be treated like this. This was more of an ironic observation that
Secondly, I stand by the fact that, through the logic of my arguement, his statement is factual. Should they have fixed the Unix client a long time ago? Sure they should have. But they are an all volunteer force and very few in numbers, so at times it can be hard to do all this and keep up with the regular job. If you are so concerned about the quality of the software, why didn't you volunteer a year ago when they asked for people? If you know how to fix the bug why don't you e-mail Dr. Anderson with a solution? Just because I see the door to a store opened at midnight, doesn't mean I should be allowed to walk in and do what I want.
My crack about Windows users not having the mentality is SARCASM! Look it up in a dictionary sometime. You seem to want it both ways - when it suits you, Windows users are idiots who can't type or even use a command line. Also when it makes you look not quite so bad, Windows users are brilliant hackers who seem to have just missed this one.
When he stated that the majority of his headaches came from the Unix/Linux community, I read it just as it is - a small group of people who happen to belong to the Unix/Linux community are causeing all his problems. I didn't see the word "all" in front of Unix/Linux community. Your answer to this never really addressed this. Read it again. If Dr. Anderson has 10 problems, 9 of which are occurring only in the Unix/Linux clients and those 9 problems are causing the system to work improperly or reflect erroneous data is it not fair for him to say that the majority of HIS headaches are caused by members (not ALL members, just members) of the Unix/Linux community, especially when that erroneous data requires purposeful action on behalf of the individuals to create (they have to find the bug and then exploit it)? Given what we know about this problem, what part of this statement is false?
You also seem to be taking Wired as gospel. Do you have the entire transcript of the interview this was based on? Do you know the total context in which this statement was made? Maybe you should feel a little angry at the Wired article for not giving a balanced opinion or sharing both sides of the story.
I think the biggest mistake SETI@HOME did was post the names of the groups and individuals and make it a "competition". Maybe if the get rid of that feature, some of these script kiddies will have no reason to try and send the same results back to the server 5000+ times.
As for generalizing the Slashdot community, as a long time member of that community I would like you to point out in my post where I did that. I beleive I was very specific about the few immature individuals who are doing this.
Does any of this make the project any less interesting or not worthy of support? I don't think so. This is a tempest in a teapot. After all, its a screen saver. If you are so insulted by the truth that you don't want to volunteer - don't. It sounds like with 3.5 x more response than they expected and more people trying to download every day, you won't be missed much.
But what if its true? /.er generalizing about Windows users in every third line of every post about every story. How does it feel to be on the recieving end of a bigoted gernealization?
Somebody is 'hacking'/'cracking' them and chances are they use Unix/Linux. Painting ALL Unix/Linux users with that brush is unfortunate and unfair, but no more unfair than the average
Keep that in mind next time you throw a "Winbloze" or "Windows Sux" or a "point and drool" reference to Windows users in a post.
As for the accuracy of the statement well consider:
1. Most of the "headaches" come from people sending too many responses from one downloaded packet (download once, analyze the data and then upload it 5000+ times so it looks like you processed 5000+ data chunks and now your "in the lead"). This results in overloading of the servers (they aren't scalled for 500000 users remember) and running out of disk space. This software bug is causing hardware failures. SETI@home does not have the money to just buy new equipment.
2. This bug is only a bug in the Unix/Linux client, and can't be done in the Windows version. Therefore only Unix/Linux users will ever do this.
3. The bug is a loophole which is exploited by people who go looking for it and code around it - that is people with the 'hacker' mentality. My understanding is that if you don't look for it and exploit the bug, the Unix/Linux client works as expected (Windows users aren't hackers or don't want to be hackers... right?)
Therefore the majority of the "headaches" for the project come from the Unix/Linux community with the hacker mentality, correct? Isn't that what Dr. Anderson said?
Instead of being upset for some percieved insult by the head of the SETI@home project, maybe we should be upset about the fact that some bunch of idiots is screwing with the system just so they can get their names on the web site.
Maybe the person who discovered this should have done the OSS thing and done the exploit once to show it could happen then e-mailed SETI@HOME and tell them about it. But I guess it's "closed "software so it deserves everything it gets, even at the expense of good science.
Man some people here should really grow up...and learn to sign their name if they are gonna troll for responses with four letter words! Grow up chicken shit!
From the SETI@HOME web site:
/. the same place that derides Windows users for NOT having a hacking mentality, which states time and time again that Linux/Unix is a hacker's OS, that Windows users can't hack or that you can't hack with Windows? Should we then be surprised that when somebody is "hacked" they then blame it on members of the Linux/Unix community? Come on! Either were "hackers" or were not. We can't be "hackers" when its cool and be upset at being called "hackers" when its embarassing.
"Dr. David P. Anderson, Project Director. David is Chief Technology Officer at Tunes.com Inc. A former member of the Computer Science faculty at UC Berkeley, he has authored 65 research papers in operating systems, distributed computing, and computer graphics"
I've glanced at some of those 65 papers and a great deal of them have to do with operating systems, distibuted computing and secure computing. IMHO if Dr. Anderson says the Linux/Unix crowd has done the "hacking" and is responsible for his headaches, I tend to beleive him.
And why not? Isn't
As for his aloofness about who is doing it and exactly what "it" is - I find it perfectly understandable. He's already been hacked/cracked. Telling people exactly what happend may invite others to try. Identifying specifically the pereps may have 2 unwanted effects:
1. A costly lawsuit for defamation or slander. I understand you guys dow there in the US sue people a lot. Seti@home has very little money for this kind of thing
2. The worst - the "hackers" launch a more vicious, destructive attack and destroy the whole project in some bizarre Cyberware, akin to what the FBI is going through right now.
In either case, the project ends. I suspect Dr. Anderson thinks this is too important a project to risk that. So he minimizes and acts aloof...
Perhaps a group of us here could do some "hacking" in DEFENSE of SETI@home instead of against it..."hacking" might even get it's good name back! (remember script kiddies, just because I 'can' cheat or f**k with a system, doesn't mean I 'should' or will. Everyone thinks 'hackers' are evil because a few bozos did some stupid destructive things - a few bad apples blah,blah,blah...)
Maybe the sending out of the same data packets is the result of a "hack" not a bug. Something to think about.
I for one will still support the project, since my conscience is clear...