"Any exploit that is found by someone malicious will be quickly fixed by the overwhelming majority that belongs to the benevolent OSS community."
Or all of us members of the "benevolent OSS community" can assume that the above is true, and remain blissfully ignorant of problems found in OSS because we are confident that someone out there is taking care of it.
You're more than welcome to stick to your own narrow and ignorant interpretation of Badnarik's words as reason to not vote for him. You might learn something, though, if you abandoned your prejudices and took the time to try understanding him.
Not quite. These days Republicans want my money as much as Democrats do.
"you must also understand where and when the size of a well-aimed, temporary government subsidy works, and where it does not."
I understand that there's no such thing as a "temporary government subsidy". When was the last time you heard of a government program being shut down because it was no longer needed?
"...it should be possible for the governemt to step in with incentives and pick up the tab of the difference."
First of all, the cost to install these systems is hardly marginal.
And I hate to have to tell you this, but the "government" doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do.
So explain to me why taxpayers should be compelled to pay so that somebody else can have a lower energy bill? If you're going to do that, why not save some money and simply send that person's energy bill right to the taxpayers?
"The difference is that when a security hole IS found (whether it be by the good guys or the bad guys), it gets patched VERY quickly compared to commercial software..."
I often hear this claim made by proponents of OSS, but I have yet to see any hard evidence backing it up. Can anyone offer something more solid than assumptions?
Which only goes to show that TCO pissing contests between Linux and Windows are utterly meaningless, because different situations demand different solutions.
Let's look at the acronym itself: Total Cost of Ownership.
That means the cost of the system goes beyond the initial purchase of the software and hardware. It includes installation and maintenance of the system, the REAL cost of any system. Claiming that Linux is free (as in beer) because the software doesn't cost anything is a naiive and uninformed stance.
As someone who indeed finished FF7, I'll vouch for it as a game with one of the most compelling storylines ever, not to mention the great open-ended conclusion.
It's a shame that so much emphasis is being put on having the most cutting-edge graphics and features, apparently at the expense of developing a good story.
"As I see it, there are as many vulnerabilities found in OSS as there are in microsofts offerings, BUT with MS, there is one organisation responsible for all of them, but with OSS there are lots of different people responsible."
Even if there are many contributors to Mozilla/Firefox code (and I don't know that there are), is it not the Mozilla Foundation's responsibility to make sure that the code that gets implemented is clean? They produce the binaries. They are responsible.
"So no single OSS org/group is responsible for having a vuln. every week or so as microsoft is."
No single OSS org/group produces the volume of code that Microsoft does either.
"The other thing is when vulns. are found in OSS, there is quicker response."
Is that a fact? Considering that this particular vulnerability was present since before the 1.0 release of Mozilla, I'm not inclined to believe that OSS ensures faster bug detection and correction.
And by no means am I saying that Microsoft's patch methods are perfect, or even acceptable. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of many Slashdotters who blame Microsoft for user apathy, but don't hold OSS to the same standard.
As people have time and time again pointed out, a patch for the vulnerability that allowed Sasser to spread had been available long before Sasser became a problem. That was a case of lazy sysadmins, not Microsoft.
Quite the valid comparison! After all, we all know what it's like to be faced with LIFE AND DEATH computer problems! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!!?
Oh good lord! Terrorists??? Are you people just not R'ing TFA, or are you simply lying to spew blind Microsoft hatred?
Contrary to what some morons are saying, Microsoft IS NOT witholding patches from people who aren't members of their premium service. They are simply giving NOTICE to premium customers earlier!
Get your stories straight, people. This kind of nonsense makes you sound like foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics.
What obstacles do third party candidates have to overcome to get on a state ballot? How do they differ from how Democrats and Republicans get on the ballot?
Ever drive on our roads? PennDOT is doing a bang-up job, let me tell you! I'd gladly pay for the state to contract out and let someone else give it a try.
I don't see why you think choice is a bad thing. Would you rather one government monopoly that has zero accountability, or several companies that have to earn customers through fair prices and quality service? However, I will cede that capitalism only works when businesses aren't propped up by tax dollars. PP&L is a private company, by the way.
Having access to the Internet from home is not a right, just like TV, phone, and a host of other services we take for granted. And I, for one, am not about to trust government beaurocracy to provide acceptable service.
I live in PA too, but I don't see what's so idiotic about that bill. All it says is that government won't compete with private industry.
Newsflash: Government isn't a business. Government should not be out using our tax dollars to divert money away from private industry.
Government should only provide an environment where private industry can thrive within acceptable legal boundaries. The reason our legislators squeeze our nuts at every opportunity is because government has encroached on services that private industry already provides.
"The problem with this is that you are confusing copyright infringement and theft."
I am very well aware of the differences, but thank you for your concern.
"But folks like this [the freeloaders] are few and far between."
Look at a few computers in the dorms of your local university, and you'll find that these folks aren't as uncommon as you've convinced yourself.
The other folks are potential customers. They aren't opposed to buying music, but they want to buy good music, music that they like.
What, then, of all the other music that they download? Is that the stuff they don't like? That must be the case, because you are arguing that this group pays for music it likes.
"the RIAA is suing people like me -- people that may have downloaded some tunes"
Wrong. They are suing people who are distributing (sharing) music on P2P networks. As of yet, downloading it is not illegal.
"A better analogy, really, would be book publishers suing people that go to the library."
Wrong again; every book in a library has, at one time or another, been paid for.
"not bacause it violates their rights or their ill-gotten revenue stream, but because both downloading and indie music are the greatest long-term threat to their business model they've ever faced."
The fact that people buy their crap doesn't make their gains "ill-gotten". And independent music won't be a "threat" to the RIAA as long as idiots sell their souls to the RIAA for promises of riches and fame.
"suing your customers...it tends to piss people off and then they tend not to buy your products."
But of course, the people who are copying and redistributing music they haven't paid for aren't the RIAA's customers. That would be like suggesting that someone is a customer of GM after stealing a Buick.
IANAL so somebody correct me if I'm off-base here, but the way I understand it, you can download all you want. However the second you make your collection accessible to other P2P users, you are in viloation.
I'm still waiting for the part where you explain the need that prompted this upstanding citizen to write a malicious worm, or the evils that society committed against him that forced his hand.
The boundaries of 'right' and 'wrong can blur when necessity comes into play, but can you apply your moral relativism to cases such as this where there is no good served or need met?
Python and Perl... (take two!)
on
Dive Into Python
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
...are for rank amateurs, and there's no two ways about it! They are inelegant and clumsy languages that are only used by unsophisticated, lazy, self-titled "developers" who don't understand Unix as well as they would have us or their employers believe.
There is nothing, and i do mean NOTHING that a real Unix professional can do with Python or Perl that he or she can't do with awk, sed, and grep.
Any argument to the contrary would not only expose your own inadequacies as a Unix programmer, but would also perpetuate the myth that (as Microsoft also argues) bloated, "feature-rich" languages are appropriate for use in business applications. I submit that such an argument would be itself an attack on the very concept of open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
Or all of us members of the "benevolent OSS community" can assume that the above is true, and remain blissfully ignorant of problems found in OSS because we are confident that someone out there is taking care of it.
You're more than welcome to stick to your own narrow and ignorant interpretation of Badnarik's words as reason to not vote for him. You might learn something, though, if you abandoned your prejudices and took the time to try understanding him.
Not quite. These days Republicans want my money as much as Democrats do.
"you must also understand where and when the size of a well-aimed, temporary government subsidy works, and where it does not."
I understand that there's no such thing as a "temporary government subsidy". When was the last time you heard of a government program being shut down because it was no longer needed?
...you're already blown the sale.
I imagine filtering out that word alone can keep you out of a lot of trouble when it comes to buying IT software/services.
Take off the tinfoil hat; that's not a bad thing. Or would you rather people remain unaware of security threats and perpetuate this problem?
First of all, the cost to install these systems is hardly marginal.
And I hate to have to tell you this, but the "government" doesn't pay for anything. Taxpayers do.
So explain to me why taxpayers should be compelled to pay so that somebody else can have a lower energy bill? If you're going to do that, why not save some money and simply send that person's energy bill right to the taxpayers?
I often hear this claim made by proponents of OSS, but I have yet to see any hard evidence backing it up. Can anyone offer something more solid than assumptions?
Which only goes to show that TCO pissing contests between Linux and Windows are utterly meaningless, because different situations demand different solutions.
You clearly don't understand TCO.
Let's look at the acronym itself: Total Cost of Ownership.
That means the cost of the system goes beyond the initial purchase of the software and hardware. It includes installation and maintenance of the system, the REAL cost of any system. Claiming that Linux is free (as in beer) because the software doesn't cost anything is a naiive and uninformed stance.
As someone who indeed finished FF7, I'll vouch for it as a game with one of the most compelling storylines ever, not to mention the great open-ended conclusion.
It's a shame that so much emphasis is being put on having the most cutting-edge graphics and features, apparently at the expense of developing a good story.
Even if there are many contributors to Mozilla/Firefox code (and I don't know that there are), is it not the Mozilla Foundation's responsibility to make sure that the code that gets implemented is clean? They produce the binaries. They are responsible.
"So no single OSS org/group is responsible for having a vuln. every week or so as microsoft is."
No single OSS org/group produces the volume of code that Microsoft does either.
"The other thing is when vulns. are found in OSS, there is quicker response."
Is that a fact? Considering that this particular vulnerability was present since before the 1.0 release of Mozilla, I'm not inclined to believe that OSS ensures faster bug detection and correction.
And by no means am I saying that Microsoft's patch methods are perfect, or even acceptable. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of many Slashdotters who blame Microsoft for user apathy, but don't hold OSS to the same standard.
Afterall, it's Microsoft's fault when their users don't keep up to date with security patches.
"Scenarii"?? I've seen some bad ones on Slashdot in my time, but some of you people aren't even trying to mimic the English language anymore.
As people have time and time again pointed out, a patch for the vulnerability that allowed Sasser to spread had been available long before Sasser became a problem. That was a case of lazy sysadmins, not Microsoft.
Quite the valid comparison! After all, we all know what it's like to be faced with LIFE AND DEATH computer problems! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!!?
Oh good lord! Terrorists??? Are you people just not R'ing TFA, or are you simply lying to spew blind Microsoft hatred?
Contrary to what some morons are saying, Microsoft IS NOT witholding patches from people who aren't members of their premium service. They are simply giving NOTICE to premium customers earlier!
Get your stories straight, people. This kind of nonsense makes you sound like foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics.
What obstacles do third party candidates have to overcome to get on a state ballot? How do they differ from how Democrats and Republicans get on the ballot?
Did you have to pay any kind of lisencing fees to Nintendo? If so, how much did that cost?
Ever drive on our roads? PennDOT is doing a bang-up job, let me tell you! I'd gladly pay for the state to contract out and let someone else give it a try.
I don't see why you think choice is a bad thing. Would you rather one government monopoly that has zero accountability, or several companies that have to earn customers through fair prices and quality service? However, I will cede that capitalism only works when businesses aren't propped up by tax dollars. PP&L is a private company, by the way.
Having access to the Internet from home is not a right, just like TV, phone, and a host of other services we take for granted. And I, for one, am not about to trust government beaurocracy to provide acceptable service.
Newsflash: Government isn't a business. Government should not be out using our tax dollars to divert money away from private industry.
Government should only provide an environment where private industry can thrive within acceptable legal boundaries. The reason our legislators squeeze our nuts at every opportunity is because government has encroached on services that private industry already provides.
I am very well aware of the differences, but thank you for your concern.
"But folks like this [the freeloaders] are few and far between."
Look at a few computers in the dorms of your local university, and you'll find that these folks aren't as uncommon as you've convinced yourself.
The other folks are potential customers. They aren't opposed to buying music, but they want to buy good music, music that they like.
What, then, of all the other music that they download? Is that the stuff they don't like? That must be the case, because you are arguing that this group pays for music it likes.
"the RIAA is suing people like me -- people that may have downloaded some tunes"
Wrong. They are suing people who are distributing (sharing) music on P2P networks. As of yet, downloading it is not illegal.
"A better analogy, really, would be book publishers suing people that go to the library."
Wrong again; every book in a library has, at one time or another, been paid for.
The fact that people buy their crap doesn't make their gains "ill-gotten". And independent music won't be a "threat" to the RIAA as long as idiots sell their souls to the RIAA for promises of riches and fame.
"suing your customers ...it tends to piss people off and then they tend not to buy your products."
But of course, the people who are copying and redistributing music they haven't paid for aren't the RIAA's customers. That would be like suggesting that someone is a customer of GM after stealing a Buick.
IANAL so somebody correct me if I'm off-base here, but the way I understand it, you can download all you want. However the second you make your collection accessible to other P2P users, you are in viloation.
I'm still waiting for the part where you explain the need that prompted this upstanding citizen to write a malicious worm, or the evils that society committed against him that forced his hand.
The boundaries of 'right' and 'wrong can blur when necessity comes into play, but can you apply your moral relativism to cases such as this where there is no good served or need met?
...are for rank amateurs, and there's no two ways about it! They are inelegant and clumsy languages that are only used by unsophisticated, lazy, self-titled "developers" who don't understand Unix as well as they would have us or their employers believe.
There is nothing, and i do mean NOTHING that a real Unix professional can do with Python or Perl that he or she can't do with awk, sed, and grep.
Any argument to the contrary would not only expose your own inadequacies as a Unix programmer, but would also perpetuate the myth that (as Microsoft also argues) bloated, "feature-rich" languages are appropriate for use in business applications. I submit that such an argument would be itself an attack on the very concept of open source software.