For the rabid reader, I would just like to point out that Dr. Spafford NEVER disagreed with the 'more eyeballs means less bugs' tenet of faith that so many open source advocates preach. He just felt this was irrelevant to his point--how do you judge whether a system is more trusted than another system when there was no design spec or goals listed out to which to test the system against?
I don't see the problem. The fact that the system is more trusted does in no way imply that it is actually more secure.
There is great number of people that trust win98 security model.
MP3 is old, too lossy, sounds bad, and has way too many legal messes surrounding it. I'm sure that eventually all of these can be worked around (MP4?), but why bother? Vorbis is here, and is free (speech) and free (beer). Oh, and It's Just Better (tm), too.
Great! Where can I download free upgrade for my Rio to play Vorbis ? What do you mean I can't ?
Backward compatibility is BIG factor. Not only there are tons of mp3 already around, but there are plenty of hardware for it.
While I eventually could be bothered to reencode hundred or so CDs I own (to get somewhat better quality and get rid of patents and other issues), I will not do it unless I can upgrade/cheaply replace expensive (it was and still is for me - but I just love it, so it was worth it) hardware that does MP3s just fine.
Surrounding the format as a whole? Come off it. Most of the legal trouble is about copyrights, not the format itself.
Sorry, most of the legal trouble is about PATENTS, not copyrights. Ie, even if you develop the MP3 encoder totaly independently, you may be forbidden to use and copy it. If you are lucky, Franhauffer may allow you to use it for a price.
I don't have a hard time grasping it. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
If you are new to "free" licenses and you release they code as GPL, but later decide BSD suits you better, you can release it as BSD and all it well.
Of course, you will have to get rid of all the code that OTHER people added to "your" project in the meantime, since it is now GPLed, and you cannot incorporate it in other licence.
"If copyright were done away with, the GPL would be unecessary."
If copyright were done away with, I could take the Slackware distribution, make a bunch of source code changes, compile those changes and sell the resulting binaries while refusing to give anyone my source code changes.
Is that what you mean by "Unnecessary"?
No, what he means is that if copyrights were done properly, you would be doing your time in prison for not following copyright (meaning not shipping source code ie. obstructing improvement of humankind).
Re:Spread the message, brothers
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
"Do you have anything like this to recommend? If so, please let me know by email..."
A) Legit accounts don't get DoSed. If they do, they've been cracked. The account provoked the attack by their behavior, 99.9% of the time on IRC, and 95% of the time in the course of channel wars.
That is great news! So there is very simple way for ISPs to get rid of 99.9% of DoS -- simply firewall access to IRC ports. Sure, you'll lose few customers that want you just for IRC, but we are speaking for 0.1% of customers.
And you get 99,9% protection from DoS! Any only one DoS will cost you much more that yearly income from all those 0.1% IRC ex-customers!
So the Linux community doesn't want QuickTime for QT, they want it because it has the best codec. Why doesn't the community spend more effort on making a kick ass OSS quicktime codec?
The Linux community wants QuickTime to be able to play quicktime movies that get to them.
It's like Apple gave the community a car with no engine, and the community decides they'd rather build a vehicle from the ground up.
No, it's more like the Apple gave the community complete car [1], but which can only run on roads [2] built by Apple. Which is fine; only Apple prohibits the community to use that Apple-built roads.
So the value of "gift" is very, very low (I'd say null, but it has same educational value I guess). By supporting it, community would only show that it is happy when being treated like that. Since it is not, it does not want to use something that is useless to them.
[1] being QuickTime player [2] being the codec in question
Re:nVidia has incentive to remain closed-source...
on
GPL Violation - NVIDIA
·
· Score: 1
With the BSDL developers are more free to do what they want with my code. If they want to keep their modifications open, that is fine. If they don't, it really doesn't matter either. I write code because I like doing it and I want end users to have the best experience possible. If this means my code will end up in Windows (TM) or some other widely used closed source alternative then all the better.
I can see how you can think that way, if you don't care about that project. So, you don't care if someone takes it, make it propriatory, improves it , and so kill your project. If you don't use it at all, and don't care about those improvements, etc. that BSDL is the licence to go with.
On the other hand, when I write free code, I do it because I use it and need it and care about it. It's something I created and which has grown to my heart. I don't won't to be cut from it by some ethicless corproration tearing it away and not giving me nothing. I use it, and if anybody improves it, and that improvement is useful to me, I want it. I've given it for free use for everyone in good faith, but if someone makes it better, I would like a courtasy returned. So I chose GPL.
Those are valid reasons for both licenses, it's all about how you feel about your project.
I'm not getting paid either way so why try to restrict people from making money of my software. After all, Redhat has proved that it is possible to get rich off other people's code even if it is GPLed.
GPL does not have any restrictions about someone making money on your code. On the contrary, it is encoruged. It's only restriction is that nobody can take away that freedom from ther customers (or whatever).
And one last note..the Kodak guys have been VERY nice to me and from the sound of it most other vendors have been pretty secretive about their specs/transfer protocols. If you want to support companies that treat you right, keep the linux-friendly-support factor in mind.
I would have to disagree. I bought Kodak DC50, which used propriatory.KDC format (note: this is not the same one used in their newer cameras, which is basically JPG) - and made it quite clear that they will not port to Linux, will not give any source or formats, not even a closed-source SDK. (reason given was standard "it is so powerful techology that we would be overrun if we gave any hints how to decode it". Yeah right. And newer models uses standard.JPG)
I've started to use twin/winelib to create application that would use their window SDK to enable me to convert.KDC to.JPG, but eventually I've given up and sold it, and get myself Olympus C900Zoom. Very very nice one, I would recommend it highly.
I mean, can't you just open top secret file, read it, close it, open confidental file for reading, and write in it what you have red and remembered ?
If you can (and I cannot see any way to stop it, barring mind control), then there is no real security in it, just making a little bit more annoying to do "unsecure" stuff. And if your point is to annoy users to gain some pseudo-security, there are even better ways to do it (ask any BOFH:-)
It was first mentioned in NCSA 1997 Computer Virus Prevalence Survey, IIRC. There are also other artuicles refering to it, I don't know URLs anymore, sorry.
Your favourite search engine should find some of them given 'herd computer viruses' (I would recommend Google)
www.ncsa.com should have a link to original site but is unreachable right now(NCSA [National Computer Security Association] changed name to something else, like Ixxx)
I doubt it that Linux viruses will ever become popular. Here are few reasons for that:
- Herd effect. For viruses to be successful (as opposed to trojan horses for example) they must be good at spreading. Herd effect prevents that - if more than say 40% of population is resistant to that virus, it will fail to spred widely; if more than 60% of population is resistant, it will fail to hit more than few people before it stops spreading. (that is real work biology example working everywhere else, computer viruses included, or so am I told). Given that current population of linux users is mostly at least 'advanced user' or 'having knowledgable sysadmin' (think corporate use) herd effect alone should be able to stop viruses for becauming popular.
- The practice of exanging binaries thrtough E-mail is not popular in UN*X world. Here and there sysadmins and experienced users do send diff files or even smaller source via E-mail, but practically NEVER binaries. Novices don't send binaries at all, because they will miss libraries and stuff and would fail to run them in 90% of cases.
- Same thing with exchanging floppies with friends etc. In linux world, it is much more popular to just get URL and grab latest package from developer homepage, or your distribution maker. And there are not that many sources to get programs from even for advanced users (much less for novice users, who will rarely go further than their ftp.redhat.com or simular)
- even if virus catches on, it will need root access to give it effective chances to spread (if it only modifies current user documentes/mails/executables, it will die off _much_ more quickly), and for root it either needs to actively hunt for exploits (very hard and would need constant updates to keep up with kernel updates) or count or user dumbness to do everything as root (which is, thankfully, becoming much harder - every day more and more programs instalntly SUID to some other UID if run as ROOT, or simply refuse to run printing error message)
Not true. If you have a mainframe running two linux images, and one of those linux images is compromised, there is no way for the person to break out of his virtual machine and get into other virtual machines.
Yes, I understand that. The problem is not in virtual machine itself, problem is in ideology of putting your internal servers, external servers and firewalls all on the same networks segment (the fact that it is on the same physical machine is mostly irrelevant)
There ARE security issuses about network topology, DMZ zones, firewalls etc. Firewall on the same network segment as all your hosts is totally useless.
But with multiple OSes running on multiple distinct and unconnected partitions, running completely independant, but on the same hardware, that's just ideal. One instance of Linux/FreeBSD for a router, one for Apache, one for SAMBA, etc, with the same security risks as having them on seperate boxen.
I would disagree.
Having all hosts on same *cable*, much less same interface, is horrible for security. Firstly, forget everything about firewalls etc. Once any one of those 'virtual boxes' are broken into, your whole communication is wiretapped, suspectible to spoofs, all network access restrictions are down, etc.
So you lose your first (firewalling and forwarding - since packets must be approved before they jump from one cable to another) and second (authentication verifying who may access what services on what server) lines of defense own.
What remains is higly suspectable for being broken futher, or at least allowing unauthorized access to your data (all people mail, passwords,...)
And a good point made by aiken_d. As hated as Microsoft is among many Linux users, they did get a lot of people to buy what they created. This is the basic rule of marketing/producing: Find out what people want, make it, then give it to them.
And that is fine. Linux community is producing what Linux community wants, and is fulfilling it just fine. The fact that not a whole of humanity is in Linux community is quite normal.
IMHO, a notion of "One OS for everybody" is quite absurd. Does everybody drives a truck ? Why not, it is sooo superior to a car in transporting large masses of things from one place to another.
You can't be successful in the commercial world without doing the above. Linux will never beat out Microsoft unless Linux does the above better than Microsoft.
It can be, but in different segments of commercial world. "Joe average user" is not whole commercial world, you know.
It's simple, really. If we want everyone to use Linux, we've got to convince everyone that Linux has what they want - otherwise, Linux will forever be the underdog.
Is is simple, yes. Where do you people get the notion that Linux community wants Linux to be the only thing in the world ? Linus's comment about "Taking over a world" was a joke! He really is not another Hitler, you know:-)
I know there is no one "Linux Community," as people have different ideas about OSes in general and Linux in particular. But reading over the posts here, it's clear that in general, people want it both ways.
1) Everyone should use Linux because it's cool/stable/free/fast/whatever. 2) Linux is *ours*, and we don't want stupid apps like AOL on it.
Yes, it is true that those two opinions are most loud. However, point you are missing is that practically nobody makes both claims at once.
I personally, would mostly fall in category 2. I do believe that linux is "cool/stable/free/fast/whatever" but I am far from pushing it down anyone's throat.
If you want to use windows/whatever, that is just fine with me, just dont ask me for help when something goes wrong, as I will not help you. If you used Linux, however, you would be quite welcome to ask for help (and get it, too!)
Why does Slashdot have to always assume that the dating method they use is the one that everyone uses? It's like Taco and Hemos and the others are saying, "Well, we use it, and we're Slashdot, so everyone else must use it, too, because we're the Start Page of the universe!" Well, I got news for you, bubbas, there are other dating systems.
Well, that's probably because whole world accepted it for international communication. So, everyone else DOES use it when communicating outside of their communities.
Same thing with languges, where English is accepted for international communication. So, when I post on local newsgroups, I'll use Croatian, but on/. I'll speak english, and I'll use standard date format and not Julian callendar or whatever.
And when I write E-mail to Japanese, he won't be using Mandarin Chinese, and I won't be using Croatian, but we will both be using English, and headers of E-mail messages will have '03 Jan 2000' in them.
You put whole game in server, and make clients "dumb" X-terminals! Well, it will need some improvements on bandwidth in most cases, but after that, it is ideal solution!
But if a programmer chooses to release it under a non-free license, we should support their right to do so. That, to me, is what freedom is all about. The ability to decide for yourself how your work is disemminated to the rest of the world.
I agree. However, it is my freedom to decide that I don't want to have anything to do with such a software for which I don't have freedom to change and improve.
This does not mean that I will burn houses of those who choose to buy that propriatory software or something like that. Just that I won't buy it, and if anybody asks me for opinion I would recommend not to buy it (and explain philosophy behind that recommendation). Nothing more.
Anyone who claims that open source is free like speech should recognize the parallels to speech here. If you are a supporter of free speech you have to support an environment where people feel safe to express ideas and opinions that not everyone else agrees with. If you start denigrating some forms of expression, then the environment as a whole is no longer free.
"I shall defend your freedom to write propriatory software for money with my life, but there is no way I will ever buy it from you or recommend it to anyone"
I see that many people suggest rpmfind. So let me point out the differences (and inferiority of the rpmfind aproach) 1) Debian's dselect and apt not just download the package that you need, they also solve the dependencies and conflicts automatically (apt-get)
Have you ever actually *USED* rpmfind ? Yes, it does automatically solve the dependencies and download packages you need. Actually, that is it's only purpose. Otherwise you could just browse the freshmeat, or something.
2) apt-get and dselect do not just download packages, they also install them
Hmmm... yes, that is a real big problem with rpmfind. How about creating following shell wrapper, let's call it dselect
3) This is the biggest difference. Debian package management was designed with network installs/updates/upgrades in mind. If a program is a free program (GPL, BSD, etc) then it is most likely a part of the OFFICIAL main Debian distribution.
This at least make some sense. You don't have a RedHat utility that will search ONLY redhat official site. Oh, wait, you have, it's called rpmfind, you just need to RTFM and set preferences line in ~/.rpmfindrc
Note: I actually use both Debian and RedHat, and liked dselect(1) (It is not newest Debian, as my RH is not newest also).
Also, GNORPM comes to mind, something 'fully integrated' (like apt, no need for shell wrapper script above) and in GUI. Not that I like GUIs particullary...
Look, it may be a "well known bug", but it's still a gaping security hole that got installed with the default RedHat distro.
That is simply not true. If you read an exploit, the (primary) problem was with add-on closed-source CGI script. Without it, it would not happen (until someone manages to prove otherwise)
I can foresee a *lot* of situations where this sort of thing would bite a company on the ass. Maybe I'm a new admin. Maybe I'm busy and don't keep up on the latest bug reports. Maybe I just forgot or didn't know how to work around it. The point is, this isn't something I should have to deal with.
If you don't keep up on the latest bug reports, then why do you wonder if you get cracked? You should _AT LEAST_ reguallary follow your distributor announce/errata list and that of all add-on software. Otherwise, you deserve to get fired.
Slashdot Mirror
For the rabid reader, I would just like to point out that Dr. Spafford NEVER disagreed with the 'more eyeballs means less bugs' tenet of faith that so many open source advocates preach. He just felt this was irrelevant to his point--how do you judge whether a system is more trusted than another system when there was no design spec or goals listed out to which to test the system against?
I don't see the problem.
The fact that the system is more trusted does in no way imply that it is actually more secure.
There is great number of people that trust win98 security model.
MP3 is old, too lossy, sounds bad, and has way too many legal messes surrounding it. I'm sure that eventually all of these can be worked around (MP4?), but why bother? Vorbis is here, and is free (speech) and free (beer). Oh, and It's Just Better (tm), too.
Great! Where can I download free upgrade for my Rio to play Vorbis ? What do you mean I can't ?
Backward compatibility is BIG factor. Not only there are tons of mp3 already around, but there are plenty of hardware for it.
While I eventually could be bothered to reencode hundred or so CDs I own (to get somewhat better quality and get rid of patents and other issues), I will not do it unless I can upgrade/cheaply replace expensive (it was and still is for me - but I just love it, so it was worth it) hardware that does MP3s just fine.
Surrounding the format as a whole? Come off it. Most of the legal trouble is about copyrights, not the format itself.
.GIFs...
Sorry, most of the legal trouble is about PATENTS, not copyrights. Ie, even if you develop the MP3 encoder totaly independently, you may be forbidden to use and copy it. If you are lucky, Franhauffer may allow you to use it for a price.
It is as bad as with
I don't have a hard time grasping it. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
If you are new to "free" licenses and you release they code as GPL, but later decide BSD suits you better, you can release it as BSD and all it well.
Of course, you will have to get rid of all the code that OTHER people added to "your" project in the meantime, since it is now GPLed, and you cannot incorporate it in other licence.
"If copyright were done away with, the GPL would be unecessary."
If copyright were done away with, I could take the Slackware distribution, make a bunch of source code changes, compile those changes and sell the resulting binaries while refusing to give anyone my source code changes.
Is that what you mean by "Unnecessary"?
No, what he means is that if copyrights were done properly, you would be doing your time in prison for not following copyright (meaning not shipping source code ie. obstructing improvement of humankind).
"Do you have anything like this to recommend? If so, please let me know by email..."
Like technocrat.net ?
A) Legit accounts don't get DoSed. If they do, they've been cracked. The account provoked the attack by their behavior, 99.9% of the time on IRC, and 95% of the time in the course of channel wars.
That is great news! So there is very simple way for ISPs to get rid of 99.9% of DoS -- simply firewall access to IRC ports. Sure, you'll lose few customers that want you just for IRC, but we are speaking for 0.1% of customers.
And you get 99,9% protection from DoS! Any only one DoS will cost you much more that yearly income from all those 0.1% IRC ex-customers!
The question is, if I'm the victim of a forged packet attack, can I sue Cisco for not setting their routers up to prevent packet forging?
Yeah. And can I sue slashdot, when it does those stores that don't matter to me at all. After all they claim to provide "Stuff that matters."
How about Mindstorms? Good introduction to the relationship between programming and results.
What is needed is ability to play Quake III with them!
So the Linux community doesn't want QuickTime for QT, they want it because it has the best codec. Why doesn't the community spend more effort on making a kick ass OSS quicktime codec?
The Linux community wants QuickTime to be able to play quicktime movies that get to them.
It's like Apple gave the community a car with no engine, and the community decides they'd rather build a vehicle from the ground up.
No, it's more like the Apple gave the community complete car [1], but which can only run on roads [2] built by Apple. Which is fine; only Apple prohibits the community to use that Apple-built roads.
So the value of "gift" is very, very low (I'd say null, but it has same educational value I guess). By supporting it, community would only show that it is happy when being treated like that. Since it is not, it does not want to use something that is useless to them.
[1] being QuickTime player
[2] being the codec in question
With the BSDL developers are more free to do what they want with my code. If they want to keep their modifications open, that is fine. If they don't, it really doesn't matter either. I write code because I like doing it and I want end users to have the best experience possible. If this means my code will end up in Windows (TM) or some other widely used closed source alternative then all the better.
I can see how you can think that way, if you don't care about that project. So, you don't care if someone takes it, make it propriatory, improves it , and so kill your project. If you don't use it at all, and don't care about those improvements, etc. that BSDL is the licence to go with.
On the other hand, when I write free code, I do it because I use it and need it and care about it. It's something I created and which has grown to my heart. I don't won't to be cut from it by some ethicless corproration tearing it away and not giving me nothing. I use it, and if anybody improves it, and that improvement is useful to me, I want it. I've given it for free use for everyone in good faith, but if someone makes it better, I would like a courtasy returned. So I chose GPL.
Those are valid reasons for both licenses, it's all about how you feel about your project.
I'm not getting paid either way so why try to restrict people from making money of my software. After all, Redhat has proved that it is possible to get rich off other people's code even if it is GPLed.
GPL does not have any restrictions about someone making money on your code. On the contrary, it is encoruged.
It's only restriction is that nobody can take away that freedom from ther customers (or whatever).
And one last note..the Kodak guys have been VERY nice to me and from the sound of it most other vendors have been pretty secretive about their specs/transfer protocols. If you want to support companies that treat you right, keep the linux-friendly-support factor in mind.
.KDC format (note: this is not the same one used in their newer cameras, which is basically JPG) - and made it quite clear that they will not port to Linux, will not give any source or formats, not even a closed-source SDK. (reason given was standard "it is so powerful techology that we would be overrun if we gave any hints how to decode it". Yeah right. And newer models uses standard .JPG)
.KDC to .JPG, but eventually I've given up and sold it, and get myself Olympus C900Zoom. Very very nice one, I would recommend it highly.
I would have to disagree. I bought Kodak DC50, which used propriatory
I've started to use twin/winelib to create application that would use their window SDK to enable me to convert
I mean, can't you just open top secret file, read it, close it, open confidental file for reading, and write in it what you have red and remembered ?
:-)
If you can (and I cannot see any way to stop it, barring mind control), then there is no real security in it, just making a little bit more annoying to do "unsecure" stuff. And if your point is to annoy users to gain some pseudo-security, there are even better ways to do it (ask any BOFH
It was first mentioned in NCSA 1997 Computer Virus Prevalence Survey, IIRC. There are also other artuicles refering to it, I don't know URLs anymore, sorry.
Your favourite search engine should find some of them given 'herd computer viruses' (I would recommend Google)
(It looks one copy is NCSA ''97 report is here)
www.ncsa.com should have a link to original site but is unreachable right now(NCSA [National Computer Security Association] changed name to something else, like Ixxx)
I doubt it that Linux viruses will ever become popular. Here are few reasons for that:
- Herd effect. For viruses to be successful (as opposed to trojan horses for example) they must be good at spreading. Herd effect prevents that - if more than say 40% of population is resistant to that virus, it will fail to spred widely; if more than 60% of population is resistant, it will fail to hit more than few people before it stops spreading. (that is real work biology example working everywhere else, computer viruses included, or so am I told). Given that current population of linux users is mostly at least 'advanced user' or 'having knowledgable sysadmin' (think corporate use) herd effect alone should be able to stop viruses for becauming popular.
- The practice of exanging binaries thrtough E-mail is not popular in UN*X world. Here and there sysadmins and experienced users do send diff files or even smaller source via E-mail, but practically NEVER binaries. Novices don't send binaries at all, because they will miss libraries and stuff and would fail to run them in 90% of cases.
- Same thing with exchanging floppies with friends etc. In linux world, it is much more popular to just get URL and grab latest package from developer homepage, or your distribution maker. And there are not that many sources to get programs from even for advanced users (much less for novice users, who will rarely go further than their ftp.redhat.com or simular)
- even if virus catches on, it will need root access to give it effective chances to spread (if it only modifies current user documentes/mails/executables, it will die off _much_ more quickly), and for root it either needs to actively hunt for exploits (very hard and would need constant updates to keep up with kernel updates) or count or user dumbness to do everything as root (which is, thankfully, becoming much harder - every day more and more programs instalntly SUID to some other UID if run as ROOT, or simply refuse to run printing error message)
Not true. If you have a mainframe running two linux images, and one of those linux images is compromised, there is no way for the person to break out of his virtual machine and get into other virtual machines.
Yes, I understand that.
The problem is not in virtual machine itself, problem is in ideology of putting your internal servers, external servers and firewalls all on the same networks segment (the fact that it is on the same physical machine is mostly irrelevant)
There ARE security issuses about network topology, DMZ zones, firewalls etc. Firewall on the same network segment as all your hosts is totally useless.
But with multiple OSes running on multiple distinct and unconnected partitions, running completely independant, but on the same hardware, that's just ideal. One instance of Linux/FreeBSD for a router, one for Apache, one for SAMBA, etc, with the same security risks as having them on seperate boxen.
...)
I would disagree.
Having all hosts on same *cable*, much less same interface, is horrible for security. Firstly, forget everything about firewalls etc. Once any one of those 'virtual boxes' are broken into, your whole communication is wiretapped, suspectible to spoofs, all network access restrictions are down, etc.
So you lose your first (firewalling and forwarding - since packets must be approved before they jump from one cable to another) and second (authentication verifying who may access what services on what server) lines of defense own.
What remains is higly suspectable for being broken futher, or at least allowing unauthorized access to your data (all people mail, passwords,
And a good point made by aiken_d. As hated as Microsoft is among many Linux users, they did get a lot of people to buy what they created. This is the basic rule of marketing/producing: Find out what people want, make it, then give it to them.
:-)
And that is fine. Linux community is producing what Linux community wants, and is fulfilling it just fine. The fact that not a whole of humanity is in Linux community is quite normal.
IMHO, a notion of "One OS for everybody" is quite absurd. Does everybody drives a truck ? Why not, it is sooo superior to a car in transporting large masses of things from one place to another.
You can't be successful in the commercial world without doing the above. Linux will never beat out Microsoft unless Linux does the above better than Microsoft.
It can be, but in different segments of commercial world. "Joe average user" is not whole commercial world, you know.
It's simple, really.
If we want everyone to use Linux, we've got to convince everyone that Linux has what they want - otherwise, Linux will forever be the underdog.
Is is simple, yes. Where do you people get the notion that Linux community wants Linux to be the only thing in the world ? Linus's comment about "Taking over a world" was a joke! He really is not another Hitler, you know
I know there is no one "Linux Community," as people have different ideas about OSes in general and Linux in particular. But reading over the posts here, it's clear that in general, people want it both ways.
1) Everyone should use Linux because it's cool/stable/free/fast/whatever.
2) Linux is *ours*, and we don't want stupid apps like AOL on it.
Yes, it is true that those two opinions are most loud. However, point you are missing is that practically nobody makes both claims at once.
I personally, would mostly fall in category 2.
I do believe that linux is "cool/stable/free/fast/whatever" but I am far from pushing it down anyone's throat.
If you want to use windows/whatever, that is just fine with me, just dont ask me for help when something goes wrong, as I will not help you. If you used Linux, however, you would be quite welcome to ask for help (and get it, too!)
... does it run Linux ?
Why does Slashdot have to always assume that the dating method they use is the one that everyone uses? It's like Taco and Hemos and the others are saying, "Well, we use it, and we're Slashdot, so everyone else must use it, too, because we're the Start Page of the universe!" Well, I got news for you, bubbas, there are other dating systems.
/. I'll speak english, and I'll use standard date format and not Julian callendar or whatever.
Well, that's probably because whole world accepted it for international communication. So, everyone else DOES use it when communicating outside of their communities.
Same thing with languges, where English is accepted for international communication.
So, when I post on local newsgroups, I'll use Croatian, but on
And when I write E-mail to Japanese, he won't be using Mandarin Chinese, and I won't be using Croatian, but we will both be using English, and headers of E-mail messages will have '03 Jan 2000' in them.
It's called standards or something.
You put whole game in server, and make clients "dumb" X-terminals! Well, it will need some improvements on bandwidth in most cases, but after that, it is ideal solution!
But if a programmer chooses to release it under a non-free license, we should support their right to do so. That, to me, is what freedom is all about. The ability to decide for yourself how your work is disemminated to the rest of the world.
I agree. However, it is my freedom to decide that I don't want to have anything to do with such a software for which I don't have freedom to change and improve.
This does not mean that I will burn houses of those who choose to buy that propriatory software or something like that. Just that I won't buy it, and if anybody asks me for opinion I would recommend not to buy it (and explain philosophy behind that recommendation). Nothing more.
Anyone who claims that open source is free like speech should recognize the parallels to speech here. If you are a supporter of free speech you have to support an environment where people feel safe to express ideas and opinions that not everyone else agrees with. If you start denigrating some forms of expression, then the environment as a whole is no longer free.
"I shall defend your freedom to write propriatory software for money with my life, but there is no way I will ever buy it from you or recommend it to anyone"
I see that many people suggest rpmfind. So let me point out the differences (and inferiority of the rpmfind aproach) 1) Debian's dselect and apt not just download the package that you need, they also solve the dependencies and conflicts automatically (apt-get)
/var/rpmfind/*.rpm /var/rpmfind/*.rpm
Have you ever actually *USED* rpmfind ?
Yes, it does automatically solve the dependencies and download packages you need.
Actually, that is it's only purpose. Otherwise you could just browse the freshmeat, or something.
2) apt-get and dselect do not just download packages, they also install them
Hmmm... yes, that is a real big problem with rpmfind. How about creating following shell wrapper, let's call it dselect
#!/bin/sh
rpmfind $*
rpm -ivh
rm -f
Now, that was really hard, wasn't it ?
3) This is the biggest difference. Debian package management was designed with network installs/updates/upgrades in mind. If a program is a free program (GPL, BSD, etc) then it is most likely a part of the OFFICIAL main Debian distribution.
This at least make some sense. You don't have a RedHat utility that will search ONLY redhat official site. Oh, wait, you have, it's called rpmfind, you just need to RTFM and set preferences line in ~/.rpmfindrc
Note: I actually use both Debian and RedHat, and liked dselect(1) (It is not newest Debian, as my RH is not newest also).
Also, GNORPM comes to mind, something 'fully integrated' (like apt, no need for shell wrapper script above) and in GUI. Not that I like GUIs particullary...
FUD? What the hell are you talking about?
Look, it may be a "well known bug", but it's still a gaping security hole that got installed with the default RedHat distro.
That is simply not true. If you read an exploit, the (primary) problem was with add-on closed-source CGI script. Without it, it would not happen (until someone manages to prove otherwise)
I can foresee a *lot* of situations where this sort of thing would bite a company on the ass. Maybe I'm a new admin. Maybe I'm busy and don't keep up on the latest bug reports. Maybe I just forgot or didn't know how to work around it. The point is, this isn't something I should have to deal with.
If you don't keep up on the latest bug reports, then why do you wonder if you get cracked? You should _AT LEAST_ reguallary follow your distributor announce/errata list and that of all add-on software. Otherwise, you deserve to get fired.