Most normal people consider `r and `R to be the same thing, so would expect r[complete] to include README in the names considered. The UNIX method of not ignoring case is therefore strange to them. Thats why, for instance, NTFS on Windows NT/2000 preserves the case, but ignores it unless the POSIX flag is set when a file handle is opened.
But their complaint is not that they lack access to it (in which case the answer would be to request full access or ban it). Their complaint is that the NSA have access; a complaint which favours tighter control of source code, not looser.
Your argument may have merit, but it is not the argument that is being made in this article, which is that the ability of the NSA to see the code (which is suggested as a possibility, not a fact) is the problem. The article is in fact techinically incompetent (the ability to see encryption source code does not itself allow access to data encrypted by that code), but that is beside the point.
Most users lack the time and also the ability to scan the millions of lines of source code for all the software they use. Acquiring binaries from a trusted supplier is generally much safer (but you have to trust both the honest and competence of that supplier).
At the end of the day, the issue is trust. Without a willingness to trust others, something as simple and basic as banking becomes impossible. Software is no different to anything else in this respect.
According to the website for Security-Enhanced Linux, Linux was chosen to allow the NSA to create an example showing that their security ideas could be added to a mainstream operating system, as well as to contribute to further research.
However, if the intention was to allow these ideas, and research based on them, to be used in the overwhelming majority of operating systems which are not licensed under the GPL, the NSA made the wrong choice. Based on the comments, it sounds like this was indeed the intention, so it is likely the people who approved the use of Linux didnt understand the GPL. Maybe this is was spurred Jim Allchins well-known comment about `educating legislators.
How is that? In this case, the concern seems to be that the Windows source code it too open! It is believed that the NSA may have access to it, and can therefore find weaknesses to exploit, where as they lack access to source code owned by Siemens. If the code is open, the NSA obviously have access to it, along with intelligence agencies from actual enemies (rather than allies), which would make things much worse.
Perhaps, but how is computer software any different to the hardware/software controlling other military equipment? Are you saying all military equipment should be built internally by governments? If so, the suggestion is obviously absurd.
If the Cryptonym `Chief Scientist who reported this had any confidence in his claims, he would probably not have removed them. On the whole, this sounds like a storm in a teacup caused by a naïve `scientist who cried wolf upon seeing the word NSA, then decided to slink away by removing his announcement rather than apologising to those he had needlessly worried.
Youll have to to better than making general claims without any backing, and Linux is only a tiny portion of SuSE anyway. For some real evidence, look at the Free Software Foundation contributors page: http://www.fsf.org/people/people.htm.
If youre too lazy to look, a majority of the contributors are American, and the USA is unquestionably the largest single source of contributors. Even among the contributors who are not actually Americans, a great many live in the USA (as, of course, does the most famous contributor to Linux).
In economic terms, Europe is more than a match for the USA (or anyone else) already, and the integration of the east (with or without Russia proper) at similar levels of economic development would dwarf America and Japan economically (not to mention China, which in currency terms has an economy which I believe is still smaller than Italys).
However, the political project of a European state is not very popular in the north (i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the UK), and I dont think it will happen. Already, the thought of ugly euro coins and notes replacing beautiful national ones is repellant.
The most advanced military forces in the world use American and British equipment, and the most powerful espionage system in the world (Echelon) is run by the Anglophone powers (USA/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand). Surely the stupid ones are those who put national pride before military effectiveness?
If the Bundeswehr anticipate a war in which the Anglophone powers will not be on the same side as Germany, I think the last thing they should be worried about is which software their systems will be running when they're vapourised.
Very little of the code in SuSE Linux is of German origin (most is American), and an even smaller portion is actually owned by SuSE. Auditing such a large amount of untrusted code would be a significant task, and would not change the ownership problem, nor the fact that any attacker would be able to scan the code for weaknesses.
There is, however, a UNIX owned by Siemens, which is called Sinix. Since Siemens is mentioned by name in the article, it seems very likely it will use its own operating system. Of course, most UNIX code is also of American origin, but Sinix is fully owned by Siemens, and any changes to code inherited from BSD, or purchased from AT&T/USL, can therefore be kept confidential
Siemens is fully German. Wilhelm Siemens headed the London operations during the 19th century, and was at some point knighted as Sir William ('William' is the Anglicised version of 'Wilhelm') by Queen Victoria.
The link to original site making this claim (which I got from the Slashdot link you provided) seems to be is invalid. However, there is a Microsoft page which denies the existence of such a thing.
Does anyone know of a current link making this claim of a backdoor?
This should not be a surprise. Germany, like France, is very keen to use its military budget to protect domestic industry. It is done in most areas of defence spending already, so if it is believed that a viable alternative to Windows is available from a German firm, any excuse will be made to switch.
One of the reasons the British military is so much more effective than the French and German militaries is that spending is based on what is best for the job, not on politics. This often means buying American (or even French/German) equipment rather than British. The American military is fairly protectionist, but BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) is given equal treatment to American defence companies. In any case, the enormous size of the American defence budget is enough to make up for any inefficiencies caused by protectionism.
Slashdot Mirror
Most normal people consider `r and `R to be the same thing, so would expect r[complete] to include README in the names considered. The UNIX method of not ignoring case is therefore strange to them. Thats why, for instance, NTFS on Windows NT/2000 preserves the case, but ignores it unless the POSIX flag is set when a file handle is opened.
It would take more than the link in this article to convince me that zsh is actually as good as ksh93. ;-)
Your argument may have merit, but it is not the argument that is being made in this article, which is that the ability of the NSA to see the code (which is suggested as a possibility, not a fact) is the problem. The article is in fact techinically incompetent (the ability to see encryption source code does not itself allow access to data encrypted by that code), but that is beside the point.
At the end of the day, the issue is trust. Without a willingness to trust others, something as simple and basic as banking becomes impossible. Software is no different to anything else in this respect.
However, if the intention was to allow these ideas, and research based on them, to be used in the overwhelming majority of operating systems which are not licensed under the GPL, the NSA made the wrong choice. Based on the comments, it sounds like this was indeed the intention, so it is likely the people who approved the use of Linux didnt understand the GPL. Maybe this is was spurred Jim Allchins well-known comment about `educating legislators.
How is that? In this case, the concern seems to be that the Windows source code it too open! It is believed that the NSA may have access to it, and can therefore find weaknesses to exploit, where as they lack access to source code owned by Siemens. If the code is open, the NSA obviously have access to it, along with intelligence agencies from actual enemies (rather than allies), which would make things much worse.
Perhaps, but how is computer software any different to the hardware/software controlling other military equipment? Are you saying all military equipment should be built internally by governments? If so, the suggestion is obviously absurd.
If the Cryptonym `Chief Scientist who reported this had any confidence in his claims, he would probably not have removed them. On the whole, this sounds like a storm in a teacup caused by a naïve `scientist who cried wolf upon seeing the word NSA, then decided to slink away by removing his announcement rather than apologising to those he had needlessly worried.
If youre too lazy to look, a majority of the contributors are American, and the USA is unquestionably the largest single source of contributors. Even among the contributors who are not actually Americans, a great many live in the USA (as, of course, does the most famous contributor to Linux).
However, the political project of a European state is not very popular in the north (i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the UK), and I dont think it will happen. Already, the thought of ugly euro coins and notes replacing beautiful national ones is repellant.
If the Bundeswehr anticipate a war in which the Anglophone powers will not be on the same side as Germany, I think the last thing they should be worried about is which software their systems will be running when they're vapourised.
There is, however, a UNIX owned by Siemens, which is called Sinix. Since Siemens is mentioned by name in the article, it seems very likely it will use its own operating system. Of course, most UNIX code is also of American origin, but Sinix is fully owned by Siemens, and any changes to code inherited from BSD, or purchased from AT&T/USL, can therefore be kept confidential
Siemens is fully German. Wilhelm Siemens headed the London operations during the 19th century, and was at some point knighted as Sir William ('William' is the Anglicised version of 'Wilhelm') by Queen Victoria.
Does anyone know of a current link making this claim of a backdoor?
One of the reasons the British military is so much more effective than the French and German militaries is that spending is based on what is best for the job, not on politics. This often means buying American (or even French/German) equipment rather than British. The American military is fairly protectionist, but BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) is given equal treatment to American defence companies. In any case, the enormous size of the American defence budget is enough to make up for any inefficiencies caused by protectionism.