Everybody doing it thinks it's the coolest damned thing since the toaster. Nobody else gives a shit.
And yet... these people that nobody else "gives a shit" about are apparently getting front-row treatment. Interesting way to be ignored.
Not that your pithy comment doesn't have some merrit - there's a lot of hubris around blogs that need some reality checks. But let's at least try to do it reasonably. Obviously SOMEONE other than "bloggers" care. But one point is that posting up a blog doesn't buy you in to this newfound interest any more than getting an article published by your local community newspaper and calling yourself a "reporter" gets you national press credentials.
It depends on how you use it. What your describing is how I also used Google Desktop when I had it running. However, there IS an embeded part too. I seem to remember something about HTML being rendered in a slide-up window from the taskbar. I didn't use this feature much because it did use IE to render it and I don't trust IE.
Having been the victim of on-line defamation before myself (by an ex on LiveJournal in my case), I believe something should be done here, because at present you basically have little comeback, or none at all if you're in a different jurisdiction to the hosting web site.
The thing is - he DOES have an avenue open to him. Bell South even told him. From the article:
After three weeks, hearing nothing further about the Abuse Team investigation, I phoned BellSouth's Atlanta corporate headquarters, which led to conversations between my lawyer and BellSouth's counsel. My only remote chance of getting the name, I learned, was to file a "John or Jane Doe" lawsuit against my "biographer." Major communications Internet companies are bound by federal privacy laws that protect the identity of their customers, even those who defame online. Only if a lawsuit resulted in a court subpoena would BellSouth give up the name.
If this is really a serious issue worth persuing, take it to court. Get a judge to agree and lend authority of the Court to get the identity of the individual involved. This cuts back frivolous fishing expaditions from entities who would claim "libel" or "defamation", but who's real motivation are more along the lines of "we didn't like what he had to say - whether it is the truth or not."
One side note - the author seems to play a little fast and loose with the facts himself. From the article:
I had heard for weeks from teachers, journalists and historians about "the wonderful world of Wikipedia," where millions of people worldwide visit daily for quick reference "facts," composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge -- and sometimes by people with malice.
Does he know, for a fact, that no authors contributing to the Wikipedia have any special expertise or knowledge? Or does that simply make his case sound a bit better? And if so... if this is incorrect and the author knew it to be incorrect, and maybe even damaging to the Wikipedia project's reputation... is it libel?
The only cure is for smart people who know better to cite better, direct information and to let Wikipedia play the role that its entire structure demands that it play: one big idealogical squabble-fest.
I have a set of dated encycopedias with copyrights spreading from 1916 to 1930. They make an interesting read. There is a consistent... bias... that seems to fall in line with thinking from bygone eras. Most of the information contained is correct. Some is incorrect compared to more recent understandings of the subject. And some is simply incorrect by today's social standards.
No source no matter what institution it comes from is free of bias - particularly due to ideology. I agree that anyone using the Wikipedia should be aware of it's nature. But I would be careful about claiming any other source of information is inherently safe.
Re:End of the day, you don't eat good intentions
on
Nessus 3.0 discussed
·
· Score: 1
The nature of open sources gives way to far more leeches using your stuff than actual contributers contributing.
It can. And it has in some cases. The real issue is whether the leeches are damaging you or not.
And its not exactly a commodity. A true commodity is a commodity even to the company that sells it. With open source, some company out there is actually putting in the effort of creating the product which is then released for free (either GPL or BSD license) to the world. So for the rest of the world its a commodity, for the author its their creation and they need to profit from it regardless that its a commodity to others.
Take any given commodity market and there are expenses to bringing that product to market. Sure - the author is incuring an expense. No suprise there. Sure, they need to make a profit. Any business does. The point being that plenty of businesses operate within markets that do not have the luxury of proprietary products. The proprietary piece is NOT required (even if it can be an advantage).
So yeah there was something wrong with Tenable...they're the creators. The open source business model is great if your a leech. Leeching isn't limited to individuals. Whole companies can benefit via leeching. But if you are a creator open source basically screws you.
Well - I can agree that the situation stinks for Tenable. It has to be agrivating to see someone else being successful with your work where you are failing. But the issue of what was wrong with Tenable is not the Open Source business model. Tenable failed to attract community involvement. And they failed to capitalize on their work, even as others were doing so. Switching to a proprietary model is not going to solve these issues.
For those who care more about information freedom then thats just fine. But if you have more head on the ground concerns then you need to find another business model and quick.
I'm not so sure. My professional loyalties lie with my employer. As such, those high-headed ideals like information freedom are important. After all, the information and architecture should belong to my employer and not any given vendor. I am, and have, been much more interested in products that will fall in line with my employer's best interest. So any business that does pay attention to those ideals will have an advantage over more "grounded" businesses. We do buy Open Source products. YMMV.
I understand all that. But it still does not demonstrate a time when any GPL violation lead to the automatic relicensing of code under the GPL. To be sure - conforming to the GPL would require such. But once discovered, violators have had the choice of either replacing the GPL code with something else or licensing their derivitive under the GPL.
That's not to say that violating the terms of the GPL won't have an associated cost. Violators will either have to release code they hadn't intended to release or go to the expense of replacing that code. But then, a company who violates the terms of a proprietary license is going to find themselves in a very simular situation. Again - the problem seems to be developers who either think they can get away with copyright violation or those who fail to understand that the GPL is not public domain (there's probably a dig at SCO here).
Another way to attack this is looking at the violation of a proprietary license. How are those cases resolved? And does this resolution force the compliance of the license involved?
Re:End of the day, you don't eat good intentions
on
Nessus 3.0 discussed
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so sure that IS an obvious tenant. The problem would be coming up with decent hard data to show this one way or another. Otherwise, this is simply a statement of personal perception. It would seem mine is different than yours.
Having said that - I won't claim that a business based on Open Source code is easy. And, in fact, it is probably counter to many individual's instincts. So it may very well be harder. But on the other side, there are plenty of industries based on commodity products that manage to thrive and differentiate themselves.
An interesting point would be that Nessus was being used as a commodity; someone else was apparently doing a better job at selling Nessus than Nessus' developers / sponsor. That seems to indicate something wrong with Tenable. Whats more, a project as well-received and respected as Nessus should be seeing plenty of involvement - other projects do. Again - is this more about Tenable than Nessus? And if so... will Tenable be around in another couple years?
I know my organization was looking at IDS systems. Nessus, although highly regarded, was not in the running. I would be suprised if I ever see Nessus 3 mentioned.
Feel free to point out any time that this has been the case. There have already been numerous discoveries of GPL violations. These situations have either lead to the removal of GPL'd code, or more likely, proper publishing of code in compliance with the GPL. I have not seen a single case where any code has been involuntarily released under a GPL license. Granted - the distinction is very slight. But the offender has always had the option. And I would suppose the underlying decission is whether it would cost more to replace GPL code or comply with the license. And even releasing code is not handing over a product. Go download GPL code from Tivo and see how close you are to a knock-off product.
The point is that the GPL is not public domain. And it would seem that some individuals either genuinely or willfully lack this understanding. These indivudals put their employers at the same risk as they would ignoring any other license - including common proprietary licenses. No more, no less... not that this is a minor issue.
One final point - dealing with GPL code is certainly doable. There are plenty of corporate entities simply using GPL code without consequence. Developing with GPL code requires the aforementioned understanding of the GPL. But it's not hard to work with. Again - ask entities like Tivo.
Re:End of the day, you don't eat good intentions
on
Nessus 3.0 discussed
·
· Score: 1
The Industry is paved by failed companies following proprietary models. And that's the point; business is difficult no matter what strategy you follow.
Try running a restaurant where you have fountain drinks with both Coke and Pepsi. products. See how much of a price break you get, if either vendor will even agree to sell to you. It happens every day, in every business that I've ever worked in, studied, or owned. You just aren't aware of it.
Now... according to you... Coke and Pepsi should be up on the legal block by now. Big pockets, right? Yet they aren't. Maybe it's got something to do with the IT market? Cisco tends to dominate their sector of the market. No lawsuit there. Oracle... nope. Odd that Microsoft was singled out when there are so many other potential marks.
If you can't prove the behavior was involuntary, you can't say there has been an ethics breach. An unknown in a situation does not make the situation "blurry", it simply means we have an unknown. In those situations, we must, of course, go with this rule: innocent until proven guilty.
This is an interesting point. I can certainly agree with the demand for proof of a misdeed and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". But I also know that it does not work this way.
At the most fundimental layer, this is an issue of trust. Those who's positions are based on trust must take steps to avoid erroding that trust. Once that trust is erroded, the situation certainly becomes blury. This is not a binary "known" vs. "unknown" issue. This is weighing knowns against unknowns and the imperfect tendancy of people to fill in the unknowns with their own guesses - whether they have any base or not.
The best way to avoid this mess is to take pains to avoid any such errosion of trust. Which really is where the issue of "ethics" comes in. It's not that a scientist must be ethical to produce good scientific research rather that a scientist (among other positions this individual held) must be trusted and ethical behavior shows a tendancy to be trustworthy.
Every definition of coercion I've read involves force or threats of force. Taking something away from someone that they were never entitled to (e.g. their job) has nothing to do with force. That doesn't mean every act that does not involve force is a nice one, but we must keep things in perspective. Let's not water down the language.
From dictionary.com:
Main Entry: coercion Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n Function: noun : the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion --see also DEFENSE, DURESS --compare UNDUE INFLUENCE
You missed the point of the parent poster. Sure - you can draw the line between voluntary and involuntary behavior. The trouble is, after the fact, proving that such behavior really was voluntary or not. And that's where the line blurs.
Incidentally, involuntary action is not coerced solely with threats of violence. There are plenty of other threats one can make (professional / career, financial, personal relationships... just to name very few).
"Dude - you gotta check out this Barny mod for Doom!" "OK - let me fire it up. Huh... cool. Barnys to kill left and right. Heh. I like using the shotgun."
(...boom...boom...sploitch...)
"Dadddy..." "Oh... hi Kiddo. What'cha want?" "Daddy... is that Barny...?" "..."
My point was that the attacks against him were based on his specific actions not on his views.
The problem is that the attacks against him are just as bad as his own actions. Worse yet, these attacks will end up becoming the focus and the message that Thompson's own actions and beliefs are suspect will be lost. Attack his beliefs. Attack his actions. But do so without stooping to his level; do not provide him with more ammunition.
You don't suppose it's possible to point out the flaws in Jack Thompson's claims and highlight his inappropriate behavior without also stooping to his level, do you?
You don't suppose someone could be FOR copyright but AGAINST draconian laws used to enforce copyright or the constant re-definition of copyright to support the interests of a relative few and against the interests of the public for which copyright was supposed to serve, do you? I know that makes things appear a little more complex. And it's kind of hard to make a pithy little post out of complex issues. But do me a favor and think about it a bit. Or... heck... actually READ about the issues involved. That is, beyond the press releases coming from those relative few.
And you're conveniently ignoring evidence of Microsoft's anti-competative behavior that came out during the infamous trial. The actual quality of Microsoft products is a good point - but it was hardly the entire argument (especially since not everything Microsoft does is actually 'good' - but perhapse more than it's toughest critics would admit).
I don't know how far your circle of friends and aquaintenances go, but I would suspect for every person you could name that specifically chooses Windows I can name someone else who would rather use one of the choices you listed or someone who really doesn't care one way or the other.
And there's the problem. Those who would use something else if given the choice often do not have the choice due to the behavior of Microsoft. And because of that, it's hard to tell exactly how many people WOULD really choose Windows over any other given alternative (or how many alternatives there really would be if the market hadn't been affected the way it has been).
The kicker is that Microsoft could probably compete entirely on the quality of its technology. But that would require a major change in Microsoft - a remixing of its culture to put technology back in control over marketing. And it would lead to a rougher time for Microsoft. It's much easier when you can dictate the direction of an industry. Just ask IBM.
With any luck... Microsoft will become the next IBM. The IBM of today. And we'll have true competition. And you'll be able to stick with your Windows and I'll stick with my Linux... and it won't matter. Except to those who have a stake in the current status quo.
Pedantic about "worm" versus "virus". The point about milestone was serious... and it still stands.
Milestone may be inaccurate, technically, but its being covered by mainstream press, so you can consider the cherry broken.
Other Linux worms have been covered by mainstream press. Rather well. The ironic thing about your statement is that McAfee's writeup, quoted in the post, mentions Linux/Slapper which itself was rather well covered. Again - it's not a milestone... just rare.
Anyhow, I had a shit day at work so if you want to argue you might as well pick another post.
I'm not after an argument - I'm offering education.:P If it was just a flippant statement due to a rough day... let's just call this errata.:P
Remember, we just hit a milestone. First known virus in the wild.
I assume you're referring to Linux/Lupper.worm (aka Linux.Plupii, Exploit.Linux.Lupii, among others). If so, you need to do a bit of research and get some historical perspective. First, being a bit pedantic, it's a worm. Secondly, and more to the point, it is far from the first of it's kind. This was no milestone.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet... these people that nobody else "gives a shit" about are apparently getting front-row treatment. Interesting way to be ignored.
Not that your pithy comment doesn't have some merrit - there's a lot of hubris around blogs that need some reality checks. But let's at least try to do it reasonably. Obviously SOMEONE other than "bloggers" care. But one point is that posting up a blog doesn't buy you in to this newfound interest any more than getting an article published by your local community newspaper and calling yourself a "reporter" gets you national press credentials.
Sure Linus blogs. Only wimps use a central site to blog. Real bloggers attach code to their comments and allow the world to publish it.
It depends on how you use it. What your describing is how I also used Google Desktop when I had it running. However, there IS an embeded part too. I seem to remember something about HTML being rendered in a slide-up window from the taskbar. I didn't use this feature much because it did use IE to render it and I don't trust IE.
The thing is - he DOES have an avenue open to him. Bell South even told him. From the article:
If this is really a serious issue worth persuing, take it to court. Get a judge to agree and lend authority of the Court to get the identity of the individual involved. This cuts back frivolous fishing expaditions from entities who would claim "libel" or "defamation", but who's real motivation are more along the lines of "we didn't like what he had to say - whether it is the truth or not."
One side note - the author seems to play a little fast and loose with the facts himself. From the article:
Does he know, for a fact, that no authors contributing to the Wikipedia have any special expertise or knowledge? Or does that simply make his case sound a bit better? And if so... if this is incorrect and the author knew it to be incorrect, and maybe even damaging to the Wikipedia project's reputation... is it libel?
I have a set of dated encycopedias with copyrights spreading from 1916 to 1930. They make an interesting read. There is a consistent... bias... that seems to fall in line with thinking from bygone eras. Most of the information contained is correct. Some is incorrect compared to more recent understandings of the subject. And some is simply incorrect by today's social standards.
No source no matter what institution it comes from is free of bias - particularly due to ideology. I agree that anyone using the Wikipedia should be aware of it's nature. But I would be careful about claiming any other source of information is inherently safe.
It can. And it has in some cases. The real issue is whether the leeches are damaging you or not.
Take any given commodity market and there are expenses to bringing that product to market. Sure - the author is incuring an expense. No suprise there. Sure, they need to make a profit. Any business does. The point being that plenty of businesses operate within markets that do not have the luxury of proprietary products. The proprietary piece is NOT required (even if it can be an advantage).
Well - I can agree that the situation stinks for Tenable. It has to be agrivating to see someone else being successful with your work where you are failing. But the issue of what was wrong with Tenable is not the Open Source business model. Tenable failed to attract community involvement. And they failed to capitalize on their work, even as others were doing so. Switching to a proprietary model is not going to solve these issues.
I'm not so sure. My professional loyalties lie with my employer. As such, those high-headed ideals like information freedom are important. After all, the information and architecture should belong to my employer and not any given vendor. I am, and have, been much more interested in products that will fall in line with my employer's best interest. So any business that does pay attention to those ideals will have an advantage over more "grounded" businesses. We do buy Open Source products. YMMV.
I understand all that. But it still does not demonstrate a time when any GPL violation lead to the automatic relicensing of code under the GPL. To be sure - conforming to the GPL would require such. But once discovered, violators have had the choice of either replacing the GPL code with something else or licensing their derivitive under the GPL.
That's not to say that violating the terms of the GPL won't have an associated cost. Violators will either have to release code they hadn't intended to release or go to the expense of replacing that code. But then, a company who violates the terms of a proprietary license is going to find themselves in a very simular situation. Again - the problem seems to be developers who either think they can get away with copyright violation or those who fail to understand that the GPL is not public domain (there's probably a dig at SCO here).
Another way to attack this is looking at the violation of a proprietary license. How are those cases resolved? And does this resolution force the compliance of the license involved?
I'm not so sure that IS an obvious tenant. The problem would be coming up with decent hard data to show this one way or another. Otherwise, this is simply a statement of personal perception. It would seem mine is different than yours.
Having said that - I won't claim that a business based on Open Source code is easy. And, in fact, it is probably counter to many individual's instincts. So it may very well be harder. But on the other side, there are plenty of industries based on commodity products that manage to thrive and differentiate themselves.
An interesting point would be that Nessus was being used as a commodity; someone else was apparently doing a better job at selling Nessus than Nessus' developers / sponsor. That seems to indicate something wrong with Tenable. Whats more, a project as well-received and respected as Nessus should be seeing plenty of involvement - other projects do. Again - is this more about Tenable than Nessus? And if so... will Tenable be around in another couple years?
I know my organization was looking at IDS systems. Nessus, although highly regarded, was not in the running. I would be suprised if I ever see Nessus 3 mentioned.
Feel free to point out any time that this has been the case. There have already been numerous discoveries of GPL violations. These situations have either lead to the removal of GPL'd code, or more likely, proper publishing of code in compliance with the GPL. I have not seen a single case where any code has been involuntarily released under a GPL license. Granted - the distinction is very slight. But the offender has always had the option. And I would suppose the underlying decission is whether it would cost more to replace GPL code or comply with the license. And even releasing code is not handing over a product. Go download GPL code from Tivo and see how close you are to a knock-off product.
The point is that the GPL is not public domain. And it would seem that some individuals either genuinely or willfully lack this understanding. These indivudals put their employers at the same risk as they would ignoring any other license - including common proprietary licenses. No more, no less... not that this is a minor issue.
One final point - dealing with GPL code is certainly doable. There are plenty of corporate entities simply using GPL code without consequence. Developing with GPL code requires the aforementioned understanding of the GPL. But it's not hard to work with. Again - ask entities like Tivo.
The Industry is paved by failed companies following proprietary models. And that's the point; business is difficult no matter what strategy you follow.
Now... according to you... Coke and Pepsi should be up on the legal block by now. Big pockets, right? Yet they aren't. Maybe it's got something to do with the IT market? Cisco tends to dominate their sector of the market. No lawsuit there. Oracle... nope. Odd that Microsoft was singled out when there are so many other potential marks.
This is an interesting point. I can certainly agree with the demand for proof of a misdeed and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". But I also know that it does not work this way.
At the most fundimental layer, this is an issue of trust. Those who's positions are based on trust must take steps to avoid erroding that trust. Once that trust is erroded, the situation certainly becomes blury. This is not a binary "known" vs. "unknown" issue. This is weighing knowns against unknowns and the imperfect tendancy of people to fill in the unknowns with their own guesses - whether they have any base or not.
The best way to avoid this mess is to take pains to avoid any such errosion of trust. Which really is where the issue of "ethics" comes in. It's not that a scientist must be ethical to produce good scientific research rather that a scientist (among other positions this individual held) must be trusted and ethical behavior shows a tendancy to be trustworthy.
From dictionary.com:
You missed the point of the parent poster. Sure - you can draw the line between voluntary and involuntary behavior. The trouble is, after the fact, proving that such behavior really was voluntary or not. And that's where the line blurs.
Incidentally, involuntary action is not coerced solely with threats of violence. There are plenty of other threats one can make (professional / career, financial, personal relationships... just to name very few).
I THINK that's a happy ending.
If only that eye-scouring had happened earlier, we'd all be better off.
"Dude - you gotta check out this Barny mod for Doom!"
"OK - let me fire it up. Huh... cool. Barnys to kill left and right. Heh. I like using the shotgun."
(...boom...boom...sploitch...)
"Dadddy..."
"Oh... hi Kiddo. What'cha want?"
"Daddy... is that Barny...?"
"..."
The problem is that the attacks against him are just as bad as his own actions. Worse yet, these attacks will end up becoming the focus and the message that Thompson's own actions and beliefs are suspect will be lost. Attack his beliefs. Attack his actions. But do so without stooping to his level; do not provide him with more ammunition.
You don't suppose it's possible to point out the flaws in Jack Thompson's claims and highlight his inappropriate behavior without also stooping to his level, do you?
There's a difference between respecting the right to be a fool and respecting the fool. Nobody is claiming Thompson's view is valid.
I had no idea Microsoft was willing to pay Novell, IBM, or Red Hat for a study.
You're clearly trying to get attention / publicity. It probably won't work as this tactic has been tried before.
You don't suppose someone could be FOR copyright but AGAINST draconian laws used to enforce copyright or the constant re-definition of copyright to support the interests of a relative few and against the interests of the public for which copyright was supposed to serve, do you? I know that makes things appear a little more complex. And it's kind of hard to make a pithy little post out of complex issues. But do me a favor and think about it a bit. Or... heck... actually READ about the issues involved. That is, beyond the press releases coming from those relative few.
And you're conveniently ignoring evidence of Microsoft's anti-competative behavior that came out during the infamous trial. The actual quality of Microsoft products is a good point - but it was hardly the entire argument (especially since not everything Microsoft does is actually 'good' - but perhapse more than it's toughest critics would admit).
I don't know how far your circle of friends and aquaintenances go, but I would suspect for every person you could name that specifically chooses Windows I can name someone else who would rather use one of the choices you listed or someone who really doesn't care one way or the other.
And there's the problem. Those who would use something else if given the choice often do not have the choice due to the behavior of Microsoft. And because of that, it's hard to tell exactly how many people WOULD really choose Windows over any other given alternative (or how many alternatives there really would be if the market hadn't been affected the way it has been).
The kicker is that Microsoft could probably compete entirely on the quality of its technology. But that would require a major change in Microsoft - a remixing of its culture to put technology back in control over marketing. And it would lead to a rougher time for Microsoft. It's much easier when you can dictate the direction of an industry. Just ask IBM.
With any luck... Microsoft will become the next IBM. The IBM of today. And we'll have true competition. And you'll be able to stick with your Windows and I'll stick with my Linux... and it won't matter. Except to those who have a stake in the current status quo.
Pedantic about "worm" versus "virus". The point about milestone was serious... and it still stands.
Other Linux worms have been covered by mainstream press. Rather well. The ironic thing about your statement is that McAfee's writeup, quoted in the post, mentions Linux/Slapper which itself was rather well covered. Again - it's not a milestone... just rare.
I'm not after an argument - I'm offering education.
I assume you're referring to Linux/Lupper.worm (aka Linux.Plupii, Exploit.Linux.Lupii, among others). If so, you need to do a bit of research and get some historical perspective. First, being a bit pedantic, it's a worm. Secondly, and more to the point, it is far from the first of it's kind. This was no milestone.