The company called in forensic investigators and they discovered
"unauthorized code" in their system that provided access for the hacker or
hackers.
Moglia, speaking in an online video-taped message to customers,
said he is "confidant" that they have figured out how the information was
taken.
It's necessary to know how to translate those statements. It looks
like plain English, but it isn't. It's Exec-lish, and must be translated.
Exec-lish to English translation: "We don't actually have anyone
our company that understands technical computer issues. The software was
written by a low bidder to whom we awarded a contract. Since we don't have any
technically knowledgeable people on staff, we had no way to understand if we
should have confidence in the bidder or not."
"We don't know how many people accessed our system through the back
door, or how many times, or for how long. (Actually I had never heard the term
'back door' until yesterday.) Since we don't have any technical knowledge, we
can't assess whether there are other back doors. Possibly even the forensic
investigators have left their own back doors."
Exec-lish is a weird language that doesn't allow the expression of
negative facts. So, it is possible that, if the executive wanted to be
truthful, he or she would say, "I'm not qualified to be in this job, since I
don't know enough to understand the company's operations thoroughly."
I'm just guessing about that translation, but gathering from what I've
seen at other companies, it is not far off.
"I can list quite a few things wrong with the GPLv3 that wasn't wrong in the GPLv2. I can list scenarios where the GPLv3 doesn't protect any more then the GPLv2 and is actually harmful. Is that the idea of a good license?"
But, you didn't do that.
"I don't know... if you actually thought that Tivo wasn't giving the source out."
You missed the point. The point is that it would be easy to hide some proprietary code in "hardware" which is actually code manufactured into silicon, and use that to avoid the protection of GPL2 or GPL3, apparently.
Yes, I had visited TiVo's web site page which offers the code it is willing to share. It is the code that it wasn't willing to share that is the issue.
That may not work. Windows XP is designed to hide where some requests for internet access are originating. Run DLL as an App [lication] is an example. The point is not that this particular update was a problem. The issue is how much control does Microsoft retain over user's computers?
Kerio was bought by Sunbelt. Before Sunbelt bought Kerio, Sunbelt did some things which made me lose confidence in the company.
Does Kerio software firewall prevent hidden internet access? To do so it needs to prevent all leaks, and the last test I saw showed that it did not.
My hardware and software firewalled Windows XP SP2 computer was updated, and Automatic Updates is turned off. This is the list copied from the Event Viewer:
Information 8/27/2007 3:54:58 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:54:23 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:54:17 PM NtServicePack None 4377 MichaelJ MT Information 8/27/2007 3:54:10 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:54:05 PM NtServicePack None 4377 MichaelJ MT Information 8/27/2007 3:53:57 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:53:49 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:53:47 PM Service Control Manager None 7036 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:53:47 PM Service Control Manager None 7035 SYSTEM MT Information 8/27/2007 3:53:44 PM WindowsMedia None 4377 MichaelJ MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:50 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:45 PM NtServicePack None 4377 MichaelJ MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:26 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:21 PM NtServicePack None 4377 MichaelJ MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:15 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:10 PM NtServicePack None 4377 MichaelJ MT Information 8/27/2007 3:51:02 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT Information 8/27/2007 3:49:19 PM Windows Update Agent Installation 19 N/A MT
(I submitted the Slashdot story, and mistakenly said the time was AM.)
This was definitely without my permission, and raises the question about who has control over my computer, me or Microsoft. If Microsoft can put files on my computer without my knowledge, then it is really Microsoft's computer, which is control that I find extremely objectionable.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr. Torvalds seem to have discussed the underlying issue: Can a company move part of its code into hardware and thereby escape control of the GPL? The statements referenced in the Wikipedia article about "Tivoization" seem inadequate.
"Eh? Why is the burden upon Torvalds here? There's a new GPL, but why should he care?"
The burden is on Mr. Torvalds to be a leader in the case of the Linux kernel. That is a HUGE burden, obviously. To be a leader, he needs to convince those he leads with logic. Nothing else will function.
The issue appears to be: Does what Tivo did cause a loophole in the GPL? If it does, how should the loophole be closed?
"I think Mr. Torvalds may just understand the issue more than you give him
credit."
Certainly I think Mr. Torvalds understands more than I. However, Mr.
Torvalds does not control the situation, logic does. If he wants to be
powerful in this case, Mr. Torvalds must convince the contributors of the code
he uses. He should make the logical argument, not me, and I have found no
evidence that he has done that. If you have information that I don't have,
please educate me.
"... RMS's insults..." I was not aware that Mr. Stallman was
insulting. Could you provide a source?
The issue appears to be this: If the Tivo exception is allowed, anyone
can move their proprietary code into "hardware", where it is executed like any
code. If there is a Tivo exception, the GPL2 license becomes largely
meaningless, apparently.
But I shouldn't be me making these arguments, because I admittedly
don't know much. Mr. Stallman should be making these arguments. The only
reason I am commenting extensively on this Slashdot story is because I felt
bad that the initial comments were so ignorant and foolish.
"... ignorant condescending..." The intent is to be entirely
respectful.
"I seem to recall reading Linus didn't care if someone Tivoizes Linux, that he's perfectly fine with what Tivo did. All that matters is that it, Linux, is being used."
That's not really the issue, however. The issue is whether there is a logical reason to reject the GPL3. It has to be a discussion based on logic, since Mr. Torvalds does not own or control all the code that goes into the Linux kernel.
"... I'm not sure why everyone erects this invisible barrier between the software and the hardware."
That is exactly the issue, apparently. (I wish Richard Stallman was commenting about this, instead of me.)
If "Tivoization" is allowed, anyone can just burn their proprietary code into hardware, and avoid the effect of GPL2. It's still procedures that are run by a processor, but now it is stored inside a programmable gate array, or some other hardware.
Not that the word "Tivoization" is a misuse of trademark.
Intron, you posted your comment while I was editing mine, below.
MythTV has not taken away Tivo users because MythTV has been available only to those with a lot of technical knowledge and a lot of time to spend.
I don't agree that the cell phone service provider's methods of selling low and making money on monthly charges is something that Linus and others who might use the GPL3 license should help them do. I think it is an abuse that happens because people are very busy and don't read the legal contracts carefully, and don't have any other choices anyway, since all cell phone providers use tricky business behavior.
He says, "The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use
by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates
tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses
and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion
explicitly.)"
The paragraph before that says, "GPLv3 ensures you are free to
remove the [DRM] handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of
feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a
program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to
remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them.
Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom,
GPLv3 forbids tivoization."
The thinking and writing in Mr. Stallman's article is of excellent
quality, in my opinion. The mistake he is making is not providing enough
examples of abuses possible under GPL2, to show why GPL3 is necessary. We know
that he has made a mistake in not providing those examples, because people are
posting nonsense comments to this Slashdot story.
Mr. Stallman also makes the mistake of assuming that all readers
understand the meaning of "Tivoization", a new word recently invented.
I think Linus Torvalds is a wonderful leader. But sometimes Mr. Torvalds does
not think carefully enough about the social implications of what he says. Mr.
Torvalds is not perfect, but he is the best we have at what he does well; he
is a truly beneficial leader.
My best understanding, which may be very imperfect, is that Mr. Torvalds
does not understand the potential for abuse in the GPL2 license. Why? Maybe partly
because Mr. Stallman didn't explain it well enough.
The only thing that allowing Tivoization would provide is that
companies could sell products for less than they expect to make, and trick
buyers into paying more later, as happens with 2 year cell phone contracts
when cell phone service prices are dropping fast.
Note that the invented word "Tivoization" is an abuse of trademark.
Mr. Stallman is suffering from his adoption of that abuse, because people like
their Tivos and, without thinking or investigating, they assume that the GPL3
license would take their Tivos away.
Mr. Stallman should read the comments on this Slashdot story carefully
to take the true measure of what even technically knowledgeable people know
and don't know, and how little they are willing to investigate before they
think they understand. His articles should be written for the audience he has,
not the audience he wishes he had. After more than 24 years of thinking about
this, Mr. Stallman makes the mistake of not realizing how advanced he is in
his thinking, and makes the mistake of not realizing most people are not as
advanced.
(Copyright 2007, as are all my comments, and everyone else's also.
I don't want someone using what I have said here without my permission.)
Quote: "The fact that they don't let you buy one of their subsidized boxes
and not pay for the service that subsidizes it may not be ideal, but does
nothing to inhibit the success of the Linux software they use."
Slashdot needs a sensible, thoughtful discussion of these issues.
Tivo is doing something very abusive, but most people don't see the
abuse. They are selling hardware locked to their service for less than the
amount that they are willing to accept (but probably much more than it costs
them, I'm guessing).
If the GPL allows that, the license becomes wide open to extreme
abuse. Suppose a company begins advertising Linux desktop computers locked to
their internet provider service, and heavily discounted. Many, many people
will buy them, not really understanding the negatives: If they find their
service is terrible, they cannot switch to another ISP without paying a huge
penalty that is hidden in the fine print of their contract.
I know that people accept that extreme abuse as normal business
behavior with cell phones. However, it is abuse. The abusive companies know
they can trick the average person, who doesn't know how to defend himself or
herself from the extraordinary hostility and negativity that is now common in
U.S. society.
Even the U.S. government has made it legal to unlock cell phones. The
GPL3 license tries to prevent the locking of other equipment, if it has a GPL3
license.
The Tivo issue is just a test. If Tivo is allowed to be abusive, many,
many other habitually abusive companies will follow Tivo's abusiveness. For
example, Microsoft could use GPL code in a proprietary computer, and not give
the source because they charge $1 per month, and are therefore allowed a Tivo
exception.
But it shouldn't be me who is writing about these issues. I wish
Richard Stallman were more eloquent. I wish Mr. Stallman realized he needs an
editor. I have sometimes earned my living as a professional writer, and I
always demand to have editor.
Both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are very important leaders. They both
show a lack of social skills at times.
But, for Mr. Stallman, this was NOT one of those times. Everything
Stallman said in the interview was very well considered and expressed.
Remember, Stallman is interested in the legal issues, which are sometimes very
subtle. This is an important quote from the PC World Australia interview: "Stallman: Microsoft is trying to deny
that their contract with Novell means what it says. This shows that our
efforts in GPLv3 to make their contract backfire against Microsoft are
working. I believe Novell disagrees with Microsoft about this point, and says
that the deal does apply to software under GPL version 3."
With GPL3, Mr. Stallman believes that he is closing a very serious
flaw in the GPL that would allow Microsoft and other companies to make trouble. In my opinion,
Microsoft is a basically dishonest, adversarial company, although there may be
many people who work there who are honest and cooperative. Stallman's
efforts with GPL3 are designed to stop exactly the dishonesty that Microsoft
is attempting.
I don't know if there is a reason not to like the GPL3 license.
Unfortunately, Mr. Torvalds' reasons for not liking it were expressed in a
very socially backward way, at least in the discussion I saw. However, Mr.
Torvalds has often in the past shown a lack of appreciation of social issues,
and GPL3 is entirely a social issue, since, if people were cooperative and
weren't adversarial and even self-destructive, there would be no need for a
license.
There are other players here. PC World of Australia gave the
interview an inflammatory title. PC World made the "Print this story" option
display only a small part of the interview, with ads at the bottom. PC World of
Australia has established its position that content is just the stuff that
goes between ads. It is apparent to me, at least, that PC World of Australia
is not concerned about the issues, and only wanted to attract attention by
causing more dissension.
Other players are Slashdot editors, who post VERY sloppy stories that
often have misleading titles, and Slashdot readers, who, as in this story,
often post foolish jokes, intense opinions that have not had the benefit of
thought, and other lame spewings.
What exactly does Mr. Torvalds not like about the GPL3? Is there a good
reason from him not to like the GPL3? I don't know. Those are the issues, and the
only ones that really matter.
Frankly, someone should tell Mr. Stallman to get help with his hair
and beard; his message would be much stronger if he didn't look like a poor
aging drugee hippie throwback from the 60s, as he does in the photo that
accompanies the PC World Australia article.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr.
Torvalds are my dad. I'm an adult and I recognize that good leaders are
usually not good leaders in every area.
If I had to take a guess, without having anything more than the insufficient information I have now, I would guess that Mr. Stallman knows more about legal issues than
Mr. Torvalds because Mr. Stallman has been thinking about software licensing
intensely since before 1983, and he has hired lawyers to help him.
These are all only my opinions. What really matters are the FACTS of the GPL3 license.
The confusion is in the fact that you are talking about one situation, and he
is talking about another.
Business: Mary Jane in accounting wants to write a letter. It's
boring. There is nothing special in the letter, just routine business. She
does not want to spend time learning anything, because she is busy. No amount
of innovation could make her want to change software.
Actual example: One woman was switched from Microsoft Office to
Open Office, and did not notice that anything had changed. She doesn't use any
of the fancy features. Her letters are all one page.
Slashdot Readers: Computer programs are partly a hobby. They
are interested in trying new things. They have a high tolerance for changes in
the way things work. The advance of computer technology is fascinating, and
they are very sensibly fascinated.
Actual examples: I have friends who can easily find flaws in
even the latest technology. When I examine what they say, I discover they are
right. Generally, though, I am busy doing things and don't have much interest
in the way things could be, unless it is my own product.
Biggest Issue for both groups: With Microsoft Office, you are a
dog on a leash. You must accept whatever Microsoft decides, and sometimes
Microsoft is extremely adversarial toward customers.
Actual example: Microsoft recently killed an entire computer
language: FoxPro. It is dead. Software's Doctor Death, Bill Gates, said so. No serious
explanation, and no conversion path. Just, that's it, the end. A few years
ago, FoxPro had 1,500,000 users, I was told by someone at Microsoft. There are
billions of lines of FoxPro legacy code. Now FoxPro is dead, and in a few
years there won't be any support for it.
This was the first link on the first Google page, a Wikipedia link about Star
Office:
"The company, copyright and trademark of StarOffice were acquired by
Sun Microsystems in 1999 for US $73.5 million. Sun was seeking to compete with
Microsoft Office, and also wanted to save money on licenses for Microsoft
Office and Windows:
"The number one reason why Sun bought StarDivision in 1999 was
because, at the time, Sun had something approaching forty-two thousand
employees. Pretty much every one of them had to have both a Unix workstation
and a Windows laptop. And it was cheaper to go buy a company that could make a
Solaris and Linux desktop productivity suite than it was to buy forty-two
thousand licenses from Microsoft. (Simon Phipps, Sun, LUGradio podcast)"
However, the figure of $88 million was reported at the time, and, for
some reason, which I don't remember, the $88 million seemed authoritative. Of
course, the exact figure doesn't matter.
"On the Mac, it managed to crash _and_ lose my document. Yes, it corrupted the file on disk and couldn't restore it."
Here is the fix: Open the Microsoft Word file, that Microsoft Word is not able to read, in Open Office. Save it as a Microsoft Word file. That will fix the file, and you will then be able to get Microsoft Word to read its own file.
For that reason I think Microsoft should include a copy of Open Office with every copy of Microsoft Word. If you have Word, OO is a necessary tool.
I'm not joking. I've had Microsoft Word destroy its own file and I've used OO to repair the file, and so have many other people.
Wow. A LOT of work went into making that malware. According to the F-Secure page you linked, it terminates a list of 534 processes. Whoever is doing that is dedicated. Seems like such a person could make money honestly.
This discussion is about ShowMyPC.com, Fox Creek's CoPilot, and other closed
source remote access software that has been mentioned.
ShowMyPC.com is new, and may not survive, since there are so many
companies doing the same thing.
CoPilot is shockingly expensive: $5 to use it for 24 hours.
In my opinion, all the closed source commercial companies who make
remote access software, that I've seen, have shaky business models. That means
that you are partnering with a shaky partner. If the partner disappears or is
sold, it can be expensive to find some other way to connect remotely.
Microsoft recently killed an entire computer language: FoxPro. It is
dead. Software's Doctor Death, Bill Gates, said so. No serious explanation.
Just, that's it, the end. A few years ago, FoxPro had 1,500,000 users, I was
told by someone at Microsoft. Now it is dead, and in a few years there won't
be any support for it.
If someone commits fraud using commercial software, the commercial
company will almost certainly try to hide the incidents. If someone commits
fraud using open source, free software, it is likely that numerous people in
the user community will make sure that the fraudster goes to jail.
If a company finds a serious vulnerability in its commercial software,
it will almost certainly try to hide the vulnerability, because of the
negative public relations. Open source vulnerabilities are advertised.
Open Source non-commercial software will always be there, and carries
FAR less risk.
We use UltraVNC over a VPN built into a hardware firewall. UltraVNC has
"repeater" software that works around firewalls: "Repeater: With the
help of the repeater you can use UltraVNC viewer behind a NAT router.
NAT-to-NAT: The NAT to NAT connector allows for connections between
UltraVNC viewer and server behind NAT routers without any router
modification."
OpenVPN works
around firewalls: "With OpenVPN, you can: * tunnel any IP subnetwork
or virtual ethernet adapter over a single UDP or TCP port". I haven't used
OpenVPN because the documentation was cryptic, but it looks like very good
software. There is an OpenVPN How-To, but it seemed poorly written to me. OpenVPN 2.1_rc4,
released on 2007-04-25 looks a little easier, but I didn't test it. The basic
idea of OpenVPN software seems to be that, if you are a very advanced
networking professional, you will be able to read the explanation.
UltraVnc SC, as someone said below: "UltraVNC
SC is a mini (166k) UltraVNC Server that can be customized and
preconfigured for download by a Customer. UltraVNC SC does not require
installation and does not make use of the registry. The customer only has to
download the little executable and Click to make a connection. The connection
is initiated by the server, to allow easy access thru customers firewall."
It's crazy to use closed-source remote software, in my opinion. They
say, in effect, "You can trust us, none of our employees built in a back door.
Really. You can trust us also that our company hasn't been sold recently, or
changed policies without notifying customers."
Joel on Software's Fog Creek remote software is a joke, in my opinion.
Joel says, in effect, "Let us perform a billectomy on your wallet. Then you
can use our software that built on open source software and was extended by
some interns over one summer."
I think the same about encryption software. There is only one good
option. The open source, excellent, cross-platform TrueCrypt.
Don't waste time. Install UltraVNC. Version 1.02 with the supplied video driver works fine. Open source.
Wow. You replied without reading my comment.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
I understand that Slashdot readers often don't read the article about which they are commenting. But, in this case, you didn't read the comment on which you are commenting.
The ENTIRE issue, emphasized in bold in my comment is that reporters arrived in Singapore after being told they would not have to sign the extreme NDA that was originally submitted to them. Then, on the second day, when they were in a foreign city and it would be much more difficult to say no, they were asked to sign the original NDA, again.
As someone from AMD said, they should not have done that. It is my guess that the hassle was probably caused by people at AMD who have very little technical knowledge, because if they had technical knowledge they would have understood enough not to do something so stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Quotes, and translation:
The company called in forensic investigators and they discovered "unauthorized code" in their system that provided access for the hacker or hackers.
Moglia, speaking in an online video-taped message to customers, said he is "confidant" that they have figured out how the information was taken.
It's necessary to know how to translate those statements. It looks like plain English, but it isn't. It's Exec-lish, and must be translated.
Exec-lish to English translation: "We don't actually have anyone our company that understands technical computer issues. The software was written by a low bidder to whom we awarded a contract. Since we don't have any technically knowledgeable people on staff, we had no way to understand if we should have confidence in the bidder or not."
"We don't know how many people accessed our system through the back door, or how many times, or for how long. (Actually I had never heard the term 'back door' until yesterday.) Since we don't have any technical knowledge, we can't assess whether there are other back doors. Possibly even the forensic investigators have left their own back doors."
Exec-lish is a weird language that doesn't allow the expression of negative facts. So, it is possible that, if the executive wanted to be truthful, he or she would say, "I'm not qualified to be in this job, since I don't know enough to understand the company's operations thoroughly."
I'm just guessing about that translation, but gathering from what I've seen at other companies, it is not far off.
"I can list quite a few things wrong with the GPLv3 that wasn't wrong in the GPLv2. I can list scenarios where the GPLv3 doesn't protect any more then the GPLv2 and is actually harmful. Is that the idea of a good license?"
... if you actually thought that Tivo wasn't giving the source out."
But, you didn't do that.
"I don't know
You missed the point. The point is that it would be easy to hide some proprietary code in "hardware" which is actually code manufactured into silicon, and use that to avoid the protection of GPL2 or GPL3, apparently.
Yes, I had visited TiVo's web site page which offers the code it is willing to share. It is the code that it wasn't willing to share that is the issue.
That may not work. Windows XP is designed to hide where some requests for internet access are originating. Run DLL as an App [lication] is an example. The point is not that this particular update was a problem. The issue is how much control does Microsoft retain over user's computers?
Kerio was bought by Sunbelt. Before Sunbelt bought Kerio, Sunbelt did some things which made me lose confidence in the company.
Does Kerio software firewall prevent hidden internet access? To do so it needs to prevent all leaks, and the last test I saw showed that it did not.
This was definitely without my permission, and raises the question about who has control over my computer, me or Microsoft. If Microsoft can put files on my computer without my knowledge, then it is really Microsoft's computer, which is control that I find extremely objectionable.
See also the CNet article: Torvalds 'pretty pleased' about new GPL 3 draft.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr. Torvalds seem to have discussed the underlying issue: Can a company move part of its code into hardware and thereby escape control of the GPL? The statements referenced in the Wikipedia article about "Tivoization" seem inadequate.
"Eh? Why is the burden upon Torvalds here? There's a new GPL, but why should he care?"
The burden is on Mr. Torvalds to be a leader in the case of the Linux kernel. That is a HUGE burden, obviously. To be a leader, he needs to convince those he leads with logic. Nothing else will function.
The issue appears to be: Does what Tivo did cause a loophole in the GPL? If it does, how should the loophole be closed?
"I think Mr. Torvalds may just understand the issue more than you give him credit."
Certainly I think Mr. Torvalds understands more than I. However, Mr. Torvalds does not control the situation, logic does. If he wants to be powerful in this case, Mr. Torvalds must convince the contributors of the code he uses. He should make the logical argument, not me, and I have found no evidence that he has done that. If you have information that I don't have, please educate me.
"... RMS's insults..." I was not aware that Mr. Stallman was insulting. Could you provide a source?
The issue appears to be this: If the Tivo exception is allowed, anyone can move their proprietary code into "hardware", where it is executed like any code. If there is a Tivo exception, the GPL2 license becomes largely meaningless, apparently.
But I shouldn't be me making these arguments, because I admittedly don't know much. Mr. Stallman should be making these arguments. The only reason I am commenting extensively on this Slashdot story is because I felt bad that the initial comments were so ignorant and foolish.
"... ignorant condescending..." The intent is to be entirely respectful.
"I seem to recall reading Linus didn't care if someone Tivoizes Linux, that he's perfectly fine with what Tivo did. All that matters is that it, Linux, is being used."
That's not really the issue, however. The issue is whether there is a logical reason to reject the GPL3. It has to be a discussion based on logic, since Mr. Torvalds does not own or control all the code that goes into the Linux kernel.
"... I'm not sure why everyone erects this invisible barrier between the software and the hardware."
That is exactly the issue, apparently. (I wish Richard Stallman was commenting about this, instead of me.)
If "Tivoization" is allowed, anyone can just burn their proprietary code into hardware, and avoid the effect of GPL2. It's still procedures that are run by a processor, but now it is stored inside a programmable gate array, or some other hardware.
Not that the word "Tivoization" is a misuse of trademark.
Thanks. That makes me laugh. I certainly made my point that I need an editor.
Intron, you posted your comment while I was editing mine, below.
MythTV has not taken away Tivo users because MythTV has been available only to those with a lot of technical knowledge and a lot of time to spend.
I don't agree that the cell phone service provider's methods of selling low and making money on monthly charges is something that Linus and others who might use the GPL3 license should help them do. I think it is an abuse that happens because people are very busy and don't read the legal contracts carefully, and don't have any other choices anyway, since all cell phone providers use tricky business behavior.
Here is an addition to my comment above:
Read Richard Stallman's excellent article: Why Upgrade to GPLv3?
He says, "The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion explicitly.)"
The paragraph before that says, "GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the [DRM] handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids tivoization."
The thinking and writing in Mr. Stallman's article is of excellent quality, in my opinion. The mistake he is making is not providing enough examples of abuses possible under GPL2, to show why GPL3 is necessary. We know that he has made a mistake in not providing those examples, because people are posting nonsense comments to this Slashdot story.
Mr. Stallman also makes the mistake of assuming that all readers understand the meaning of "Tivoization", a new word recently invented.
I think Linus Torvalds is a wonderful leader. But sometimes Mr. Torvalds does not think carefully enough about the social implications of what he says. Mr. Torvalds is not perfect, but he is the best we have at what he does well; he is a truly beneficial leader.
My best understanding, which may be very imperfect, is that Mr. Torvalds does not understand the potential for abuse in the GPL2 license. Why? Maybe partly because Mr. Stallman didn't explain it well enough.
The only thing that allowing Tivoization would provide is that companies could sell products for less than they expect to make, and trick buyers into paying more later, as happens with 2 year cell phone contracts when cell phone service prices are dropping fast.
Note that the invented word "Tivoization" is an abuse of trademark. Mr. Stallman is suffering from his adoption of that abuse, because people like their Tivos and, without thinking or investigating, they assume that the GPL3 license would take their Tivos away.
Mr. Stallman should read the comments on this Slashdot story carefully to take the true measure of what even technically knowledgeable people know and don't know, and how little they are willing to investigate before they think they understand. His articles should be written for the audience he has, not the audience he wishes he had. After more than 24 years of thinking about this, Mr. Stallman makes the mistake of not realizing how advanced he is in his thinking, and makes the mistake of not realizing most people are not as advanced.
(Copyright 2007, as are all my comments, and everyone else's also. I don't want someone using what I have said here without my permission.)
Quote: "The fact that they don't let you buy one of their subsidized boxes and not pay for the service that subsidizes it may not be ideal, but does nothing to inhibit the success of the Linux software they use."
Slashdot needs a sensible, thoughtful discussion of these issues.
Tivo is doing something very abusive, but most people don't see the abuse. They are selling hardware locked to their service for less than the amount that they are willing to accept (but probably much more than it costs them, I'm guessing).
If the GPL allows that, the license becomes wide open to extreme abuse. Suppose a company begins advertising Linux desktop computers locked to their internet provider service, and heavily discounted. Many, many people will buy them, not really understanding the negatives: If they find their service is terrible, they cannot switch to another ISP without paying a huge penalty that is hidden in the fine print of their contract.
I know that people accept that extreme abuse as normal business behavior with cell phones. However, it is abuse. The abusive companies know they can trick the average person, who doesn't know how to defend himself or herself from the extraordinary hostility and negativity that is now common in U.S. society.
Even the U.S. government has made it legal to unlock cell phones. The GPL3 license tries to prevent the locking of other equipment, if it has a GPL3 license.
The Tivo issue is just a test. If Tivo is allowed to be abusive, many, many other habitually abusive companies will follow Tivo's abusiveness. For example, Microsoft could use GPL code in a proprietary computer, and not give the source because they charge $1 per month, and are therefore allowed a Tivo exception.
But it shouldn't be me who is writing about these issues. I wish Richard Stallman were more eloquent. I wish Mr. Stallman realized he needs an editor. I have sometimes earned my living as a professional writer, and I always demand to have editor.
Both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are very important leaders. They both show a lack of social skills at times.
But, for Mr. Stallman, this was NOT one of those times. Everything Stallman said in the interview was very well considered and expressed.
Remember, Stallman is interested in the legal issues, which are sometimes very subtle. This is an important quote from the PC World Australia interview: "Stallman: Microsoft is trying to deny that their contract with Novell means what it says. This shows that our efforts in GPLv3 to make their contract backfire against Microsoft are working. I believe Novell disagrees with Microsoft about this point, and says that the deal does apply to software under GPL version 3."
With GPL3, Mr. Stallman believes that he is closing a very serious flaw in the GPL that would allow Microsoft and other companies to make trouble. In my opinion, Microsoft is a basically dishonest, adversarial company, although there may be many people who work there who are honest and cooperative. Stallman's efforts with GPL3 are designed to stop exactly the dishonesty that Microsoft is attempting.
I don't know if there is a reason not to like the GPL3 license. Unfortunately, Mr. Torvalds' reasons for not liking it were expressed in a very socially backward way, at least in the discussion I saw. However, Mr. Torvalds has often in the past shown a lack of appreciation of social issues, and GPL3 is entirely a social issue, since, if people were cooperative and weren't adversarial and even self-destructive, there would be no need for a license.
There are other players here. PC World of Australia gave the interview an inflammatory title. PC World made the "Print this story" option display only a small part of the interview, with ads at the bottom. PC World of Australia has established its position that content is just the stuff that goes between ads. It is apparent to me, at least, that PC World of Australia is not concerned about the issues, and only wanted to attract attention by causing more dissension.
Other players are Slashdot editors, who post VERY sloppy stories that often have misleading titles, and Slashdot readers, who, as in this story, often post foolish jokes, intense opinions that have not had the benefit of thought, and other lame spewings.
What exactly does Mr. Torvalds not like about the GPL3? Is there a good reason from him not to like the GPL3? I don't know. Those are the issues, and the only ones that really matter.
Frankly, someone should tell Mr. Stallman to get help with his hair and beard; his message would be much stronger if he didn't look like a poor aging drugee hippie throwback from the 60s, as he does in the photo that accompanies the PC World Australia article.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr. Torvalds are my dad. I'm an adult and I recognize that good leaders are usually not good leaders in every area.
If I had to take a guess, without having anything more than the insufficient information I have now, I would guess that Mr. Stallman knows more about legal issues than Mr. Torvalds because Mr. Stallman has been thinking about software licensing intensely since before 1983, and he has hired lawyers to help him.
These are all only my opinions. What really matters are the FACTS of the GPL3 license.
The confusion is in the fact that you are talking about one situation, and he is talking about another.
Business: Mary Jane in accounting wants to write a letter. It's boring. There is nothing special in the letter, just routine business. She does not want to spend time learning anything, because she is busy. No amount of innovation could make her want to change software.
Actual example: One woman was switched from Microsoft Office to Open Office, and did not notice that anything had changed. She doesn't use any of the fancy features. Her letters are all one page.
Slashdot Readers: Computer programs are partly a hobby. They are interested in trying new things. They have a high tolerance for changes in the way things work. The advance of computer technology is fascinating, and they are very sensibly fascinated.
Actual examples: I have friends who can easily find flaws in even the latest technology. When I examine what they say, I discover they are right. Generally, though, I am busy doing things and don't have much interest in the way things could be, unless it is my own product.
Biggest Issue for both groups: With Microsoft Office, you are a dog on a leash. You must accept whatever Microsoft decides, and sometimes Microsoft is extremely adversarial toward customers.
Actual example: Microsoft recently killed an entire computer language: FoxPro. It is dead. Software's Doctor Death, Bill Gates, said so. No serious explanation, and no conversion path. Just, that's it, the end. A few years ago, FoxPro had 1,500,000 users, I was told by someone at Microsoft. There are billions of lines of FoxPro legacy code. Now FoxPro is dead, and in a few years there won't be any support for it.
This was the first link on the first Google page, a Wikipedia link about Star Office:
"The company, copyright and trademark of StarOffice were acquired by Sun Microsystems in 1999 for US $73.5 million. Sun was seeking to compete with Microsoft Office, and also wanted to save money on licenses for Microsoft Office and Windows:
"The number one reason why Sun bought StarDivision in 1999 was because, at the time, Sun had something approaching forty-two thousand employees. Pretty much every one of them had to have both a Unix workstation and a Windows laptop. And it was cheaper to go buy a company that could make a Solaris and Linux desktop productivity suite than it was to buy forty-two thousand licenses from Microsoft. (Simon Phipps, Sun, LUGradio podcast)"
However, the figure of $88 million was reported at the time, and, for some reason, which I don't remember, the $88 million seemed authoritative. Of course, the exact figure doesn't matter.
CNet News reported $73.5 million at the time: Sun shelled out $73.5 million for Star Division.
"Who would've guessed that a bunch of hobbyist programmers could give a billion dollar corporation a shiver. That's quite an accomplishment."
It was not "hobbyist programmers". Sun paid $88,000,000 for the software that became Open Office.
"On the Mac, it managed to crash _and_ lose my document. Yes, it corrupted the file on disk and couldn't restore it."
Here is the fix: Open the Microsoft Word file, that Microsoft Word is not able to read, in Open Office. Save it as a Microsoft Word file. That will fix the file, and you will then be able to get Microsoft Word to read its own file.
For that reason I think Microsoft should include a copy of Open Office with every copy of Microsoft Word. If you have Word, OO is a necessary tool.
I'm not joking. I've had Microsoft Word destroy its own file and I've used OO to repair the file, and so have many other people.
Wow. A LOT of work went into making that malware. According to the F-Secure page you linked, it terminates a list of 534 processes. Whoever is doing that is dedicated. Seems like such a person could make money honestly.
This discussion is about ShowMyPC.com, Fox Creek's CoPilot, and other closed source remote access software that has been mentioned.
ShowMyPC.com is new, and may not survive, since there are so many companies doing the same thing.
CoPilot is shockingly expensive: $5 to use it for 24 hours.
In my opinion, all the closed source commercial companies who make remote access software, that I've seen, have shaky business models. That means that you are partnering with a shaky partner. If the partner disappears or is sold, it can be expensive to find some other way to connect remotely.
Microsoft recently killed an entire computer language: FoxPro. It is dead. Software's Doctor Death, Bill Gates, said so. No serious explanation. Just, that's it, the end. A few years ago, FoxPro had 1,500,000 users, I was told by someone at Microsoft. Now it is dead, and in a few years there won't be any support for it.
If someone commits fraud using commercial software, the commercial company will almost certainly try to hide the incidents. If someone commits fraud using open source, free software, it is likely that numerous people in the user community will make sure that the fraudster goes to jail.
If a company finds a serious vulnerability in its commercial software, it will almost certainly try to hide the vulnerability, because of the negative public relations. Open source vulnerabilities are advertised.
Open Source non-commercial software will always be there, and carries FAR less risk.
You may want to see the full story, a comment I just posted: UltraVNC: 1) Repeater, 2) NAT-to-NAT 3) UVNC SC 4) OpenVPN.
We use UltraVNC over a VPN built into a hardware firewall. UltraVNC has "repeater" software that works around firewalls: "Repeater: With the help of the repeater you can use UltraVNC viewer behind a NAT router. NAT-to-NAT: The NAT to NAT connector allows for connections between UltraVNC viewer and server behind NAT routers without any router modification."
OpenVPN works around firewalls: "With OpenVPN, you can: * tunnel any IP subnetwork or virtual ethernet adapter over a single UDP or TCP port". I haven't used OpenVPN because the documentation was cryptic, but it looks like very good software. There is an OpenVPN How-To, but it seemed poorly written to me. OpenVPN 2.1_rc4, released on 2007-04-25 looks a little easier, but I didn't test it. The basic idea of OpenVPN software seems to be that, if you are a very advanced networking professional, you will be able to read the explanation.
UltraVnc SC, as someone said below: "UltraVNC SC is a mini (166k) UltraVNC Server that can be customized and preconfigured for download by a Customer. UltraVNC SC does not require installation and does not make use of the registry. The customer only has to download the little executable and Click to make a connection. The connection is initiated by the server, to allow easy access thru customers firewall."
It's crazy to use closed-source remote software, in my opinion. They say, in effect, "You can trust us, none of our employees built in a back door. Really. You can trust us also that our company hasn't been sold recently, or changed policies without notifying customers."
Joel on Software's Fog Creek remote software is a joke, in my opinion. Joel says, in effect, "Let us perform a billectomy on your wallet. Then you can use our software that built on open source software and was extended by some interns over one summer."
I think the same about encryption software. There is only one good option. The open source, excellent, cross-platform TrueCrypt.
The lead poisoning is minor compared to the fact that by visiting that web site you have now been programmed to do everything a woman says.
"If not, he just wasted our precious time."
Don't waste time. Install UltraVNC. Version 1.02 with the supplied video driver works fine. Open source.
I understand that Slashdot readers often don't read the article about which they are commenting. But, in this case, you didn't read the comment on which you are commenting.
The ENTIRE issue, emphasized in bold in my comment is that reporters arrived in Singapore after being told they would not have to sign the extreme NDA that was originally submitted to them. Then, on the second day, when they were in a foreign city and it would be much more difficult to say no, they were asked to sign the original NDA, again.
As someone from AMD said, they should not have done that. It is my guess that the hassle was probably caused by people at AMD who have very little technical knowledge, because if they had technical knowledge they would have understood enough not to do something so stupid.