Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing here but a couple of things should be pointed out.
1) Company B would have to sell the item for at least $150,000 assuming that their manufacturing costs are no less than yours. If their manufacturing costs are lower than that's your fault. They still need to charge that $125,000 you tacked on for "profit,marketing,insurance, and legal fees,etc."
2) All other things being equal, without patents your R&D costs would be lower as you would save on the monopoly price of any equipment that you used that had patents. Since I'm not an economist I can't say how much lower. It's likely that labour costs are most significant here anyway.
3) Considering that an MRI costs about $2,000,000 Canadian I'm wondering what it is that took you 5 years & $50M to design & build that your only selling for $200,000?
4) If a company with 2 employees can reverse engineer your product fast enough to make a dent in your plans than your device was trivial and shouldn't have taken 5 years & $50 million to design.
I know this is Slashdot, but if your going to use "hard numbers" in an example and make them "big" to scare someone than you've got to do a better job than this.
Since I have no reason to doubt you, especially given the veracity of that "yes". Why would any of the developers of things like mplayer,xine,mythtv and probably a dozen other viewers take the chance of being sued? If MPEG2 is patented these people are just asking for trouble. Furthermore, wouldn't Redhat or the other distributors be in violation if they include these programs?
I just don't get it.
The simple answer of single developers just ignoring the law is fine for some of these as it's unlikely the patent holder would bother to sue them. But the commercial distributors are another thing completely.
I don't personally like software patents but I won't just ignore them. There may be some that are so obvious or trivial that I would take a chance on "prior art"(e.g. Microsoft's recent timed button click). But something like MPEG2 surely has "real" value. I don't have to like it but I can't believe a commercial entity would play with fire like that.
I did a not insignificant search on google and followed some links but I didn't come across any definitive answer to issues surrounding decoding of MPEG2. I got the general feeling that people weren't just ignoring it. A posting on some Debian site implied that writing a decoder without reference to the "MPEG groups decoder" somehow made it legal(the only issue surrounded DeCSS).
At this point I'm under the impression that either some standard gives us the right to to these patents provided we reverse engineer them or there's something else going on. If you know please enlighten me as I'll sleep better.
Since you don't seem to have read the part where I explictly said I don't commit copyright infringement let me repeat that again "I don't commit copyright infringment".
I don't live in a country with the DMCA so the use of DeCSS is completely legal for me. Not only that but I have fair use rights explicitly granted to me that the US doesn't have.
Not paying for movies from the MPAA members is not a legitimate option in the context of this discussion. Whether I buy their product or not will not reduce one iota their attempt to have my rights removed. They're current tactics may in fact be "legal" but that doesn't make them legitimate to me. Nor does it mean that I can't laugh,boo or geer a self-serving attempt at telling us not to pick on them while they actively try to pick on us.
Consider for instance your roofing analogy. The part you didn't add for the analogy to be complete is if the roofing industry was paying political candidates for favors in order to pass laws to remove my right to roof my own house. In such a scenario you can damn well bet I'd laugh in their faces and not feel bad about it at all.
In the context of playing fair. If the MPAA and RIAA play fair I will continue to not only play fair(as I do already) but I will stop ridiculing them. Since they are actually trying to change the rules to the game I feel no particular desire to be nice.
I wasn't implying that going to a movie was robbery.
I was trying to point out that "maximizing profits" by whatever means is not always a good thing(tm). Maybe I used a bad analogy in the context of the discussion but I didn't mean to imply me paying them was robbery. I meant to imply that if "maximizing" profits through whatever means necessary is the only point than robbing me(literally not figuratively) is one of those means so why wouldn't that be a legitimate activity?
The movie industry actively tries to remove my fair use rights AND than preaches to me that I shouldn't commit copyright infringment. That is a double standard by any measure, so laughing,booing and geering at their self-serving "public service announcements" is a legitimate form of expression. The "little guy" in these announcements should know better and have refused to participate, thus again they get no sympathy.
As far as I know there are no patent infringment issues with DeCSS. It wasn't/isn't being marketed and therefore there isn't anyone to sue. The problem with CSS is currently only in America where their DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent" an encryption scheme used to protect material that has been copyrighted.
As far as I know it isn't illegal from a patent stand point to write your own software to be able to circumvent CSS.
I paid to see the movie, not to be preached to about how it's wrong to sell illegal copies of a movie. Which by the way I don't do and never would. I also am not a pirate as I don't have the eye patch or wooden leg.
Trading music or movies with friends is a legitimate fair use right. The "fuckers" here are those people who are trying to take away my right to use the material I purchase in an otherwise legal manner and than preaching to me about not doing something illegal.
If robbing me makes the movie industry more money than NOT robbing me makes them less money. The less money they make, the fewer jobs there are. Therefore the movie industry must rob me.
If the movie industry was an otherwise shining example of morality & propriety and stood up for my rights as an individual I would have no problem sitting through their anti-piracy clap trap but as they are actively attempting to remove my fair use rights they neither get sympathy from me nor does someone who is "just a grunt" get sympathy from me.
The point behind people laughing at this crap(or more likely booing which is what I've heard in theatres) is that people know there is a double standard. Treat the consumer fairly and we treat companies fairly. These farcical attempts at garnering sympathy by using "the little guy" just makes it worse because I wonder if "the little guy" knows that their company is actively working to remove my fair use rights. These companies are actively doing this whether I pay to see a movie or not so I have no legitimate means of expression other than to "complain".
Truely I'm curious. Where on the back of a DVD does it say I must use a "licensed" DVD player and if I don't use a licensed DVD player than I'm infringing on someone's copyright?
It may in fact be there but I've never seen such a statement. If your saying that just because I know it's a DVD than I must use a DVD player well "Duh!". But using DeCSS in conjunction with an MPEG2 viewer is a DVD player so how am I infringing?
Furthermore someone using a logo without paying for it isn't my problem. I have committed no crime purchasing such a device to watch DVDs on. The manufacturer may be committing a crime but I'm not.
So now let's take this one step further. If I design and build my own DVD player from scratch using published standards purely for my own use have I done something illegal? If yes please explain why? Using the argument that the DMCA makes it so will not cut it, presume that I don't live in a country with the DMCA but I do live in one with otherwise sane patent and copyright laws.
Except that once I've purchased or rented the DVD I automatically have the right to view it. Show me where on the DVD that it says I must watch it only on a "licensed" DVD player. Furthermore once I have payed money to watch the DVD I do have the right to decrypt it otherwise I wouldn't be able to watch it.
If in fact somebody was losing their job over a free DVD player than you might have a point but since nobody is than you don't.
The selfserving crap before movies is intended to make us 'see the light'. Meanwhile they charge you $10 or more to see the movie and than $20 or more inside for a couple of cokes and a large popcorn. If the movie industry ever does actually start losing money it will be because people have better things to do with their money and not because someone cracked CSS.
Oh, and besides the money I had to pay to see the movie they also make me waste time waiting for the movie to start showing me commercials that I'm quite sure I don't want to pay for.
Yup that set designer or stuntman is sure going to get sympathy from this crowd I tell ya.
Without a specific license "granting" them some use rights than standard copyright applies which means they can't just copy it. Any 5th grader on Slashdot knows this, surely Linspire has lawyers that can tell them this.
Anybody would be stupid to download some company's copywritten code or documentation and use it without some license attached. In fact I'd like to know who you think does this? Actually you say "IP" by which I presume you mean "Intellectual Property", since no such animal actually exists you'll have to be more specific as to what your talking about. I assumed here "copywritten material" since that is what the original article was talking about.
Let's try this again. Lighten up and have some fun that is what Free software is about NOT world domination, marketing or suits. If the suits want this application to succeed they'll do it in their own fashion. The OO leaders specifically chose this mascot for a reason. These are the same people putting in the "thousands of man-hours" so who are you or any random Slashdot reader that you should criticize their decision.
It's one thing to say something like "well I don't particularly find it appealing" it's a total different thing to complain that it's "unprofessional".
I guess it's time to go back to proprietary software because the Free Software group has obviously lost their drive for just general fun. Sure that mascot looks a little crazy but for crying out loud this is "free" software. You want world domination go clone Napoleon or something.
We're talking about negotiating a salary and benefits I've already assumed the person has been offered the job. Either your skills are in demand or they aren't. This is easy to tell from the number of job offers you get. But in the end it simply comes down to "what am I willing to work for?" If at some point the salary isn't enough or you're being worked too hard than it's time to move on. If you aren't willing to move on than they have you, but whose fault is that?
>And you cannot say exactly the same thing about >working for a corporation? In both cases there is >a way out, namely, quitting. It may not be a >feasible option, but it just cold economic fact.
I never said a corp. can't but it's a fact that with a company & a union you have 2 masters cracking a whip. Please explain how it's better having to dance to the tune of 2 masters rather than 1? Especially when ones a waltz and the other's jazz!
So what gives you the right to the job over some other poor bloke that will work for less?
If the union sets the salary thus there's no incentive to "work for less"(because you can't), than the other guy doesn't get the job, correct? I'm sure the other guy is real happy that you have a high paying job and he has none! Thanks for proving my point, unions aren't out for the benefit of the whole.
Unions aren't designed for the benefit of the whole only the benefit of their members. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing if your in the union but if your not, good luck finding a job.
I may be presuming too much but I would think that a computer professional is likely smart enough to negotiate their own contract. If you aren't getting paid enough or you haven't negotiated an overtime scale than that's your fault. Why would you want to abdicate responsibility to a union anyway? Soon enough they will do something you don't like and than you have no way out.
I totally understand that market forces may be such that computer professional salaries are low due to over supply in the market. Artificially increasing the salary through unionization won't benefit you in the long run. Already I see people here complaining about off-shoring. Just wait until you have a union, the jobs will bolt like there's no tomorrow.
The best way to fight an over supply in your field is to train for a different field! Or simply be the best in your field.
Re:Windows has ACLs you know.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
Why would you assume that KDE would do this? If they do I will personally remove it and submit a patch!
The fact is if this happens in open source you would likely so a fork and a major backlash.
Re:Viruses on Linux? Yeah, right.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
Huh? How is a tarball executable? or is that not what you meant?
Re:Windows has ACLs you know.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
If user's are smart enough to save an attachment, mark it as executable and than click on it than their smart enough not to run as root.
Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
No we don't know that.
Viruses are spread by the stupidity of developer's that code apps that run executable attachments automatically or by a single click.
There was a time when I could tell people in all seriousness that they COULDN'T be infected by a virus through e-mail. Than Outlook came along and all hell broke loose. Outlook is the most popular so I blame it's developers but it could be any e-mail app that automatically runs.bat,.exe,.com etc. files. How is that the user's fault! They shouldn't have been able to do this in the first place!
Bugs in code that allow specially crafted JPEG's or something to run are a seperate issue. Still the "fault" of developers but it can happen to anyone. This again is hardly the fault of stupid users.
I'm all in favor of calling users stupid when they are but it isn't their fault that MS ruined the e-mail experience.
Re:Viruses spread by stupidity not OS'es.
on
Linux in Canada
·
· Score: 1
This came up in a seperate article earlier in the week and I still don't see how Linux users could ever be affected by a supposed "exectable" sent in an e-mail.
As far as I know there are no linux e-mail apps that run a file automatically. Files have to be specifically marked as executable and I know of no way to do that within an e-mail. So you would have to be not just stupid but brain dead to save the attachment, mark it as executable, and than click on it before it could possibly have an affect. Someone that stupid can't be helped.
Bugs on the other hand are a seperate issue and not the fault of "stupid" users. Securing against these is the developer's business so maybe SELinux would help there?
He is indeed making it sound as if a Linux supporter was quoted verbatim but in fact no Linux supporter ever sayed anything about "stolen" code(at least none that I am aware of).
Unless I'm mistaken the series of events he is referring to involves SCO showing purportedly "stolen" code during a PowerPoint presentation. The code snippets were tracked to BSD code which had previously been placed in the public domain(or as close as you can get).
Every piece of purported evidence that SCO has dained to release has been soundly discredited.
In english we do not call this paraphrasing we call it an "attempt to deliberately mislead and deride", some might call it "mocking". Had he actually made it sound like a specific individual made the "what was stolen..." comment he could quite possibly be sued for defamation of character. Instead he refers only to "linux supporters", a group can't sue for comments like this.
Furthermore he even "begs the question" by stating "once a crime had been committed" when in fact no crime has been committed or at least none has yet been proven and the way the case is going none is likely to be.
The whole article is written in a manner to deride the linux community rather than support a position as to why he believes SCO is correct. He refers to linux supporters as criminals completely without evidence, gee that's sure unbiased. I'm sure like any large group there is a criminal or two in it but as a whole we are as law abiding as the next person.
I don't believe that's fair enough to the average user. There's no reason that clicking on an e-mail attachment should cause you to get a virus or otherwise harm your system. It is only because of Outlook's complete lack of security that this even happens. It isn't the user's fault.
I guarantee that any Linux based e-mail program that acted in this manner would be shunned so quickly it wouldn't see the light of day.
To be labled "dumb" a user should at least have to click on an attachment, save it to disk, mark it as executable and than double-click it, all without questioning whether this is a good idea or not.
Not picking on you in particular but there seems to be something generally being missed here. Clicking on a shell script sent as an attachment isn't normally run by any e-mail program that I am aware of. The user's would have to save it to disk and than click on it. This doesn't make it an insignificant threat but seriously, how many user's of the type we're refering to would do this two step approach? Most would just delete it.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing here but a couple of things should be pointed out.
1) Company B would have to sell the item for at least $150,000 assuming that their manufacturing costs are no less than yours. If their manufacturing costs are lower than that's your fault. They still need to charge that $125,000 you tacked on for "profit,marketing,insurance, and legal fees,etc."
2) All other things being equal, without patents your R&D costs would be lower as you would save on the monopoly price of any equipment that you used that had patents. Since I'm not an economist I can't say how much lower. It's likely that labour costs are most significant here anyway.
3) Considering that an MRI costs about $2,000,000 Canadian I'm wondering what it is that took you 5 years & $50M to design & build that your only selling for $200,000?
4) If a company with 2 employees can reverse engineer your product fast enough to make a dent in your plans than your device was trivial and shouldn't have taken 5 years & $50 million to design.
I know this is Slashdot, but if your going to use "hard numbers" in an example and make them "big" to scare someone than you've got to do a better job than this.
Since I have no reason to doubt you, especially given the veracity of that "yes". Why would any of the developers of things like mplayer,xine,mythtv and probably a dozen other viewers take the chance of being sued? If MPEG2 is patented these people are just asking for trouble. Furthermore, wouldn't Redhat or the other distributors be in violation if they include these programs?
I just don't get it.
The simple answer of single developers just ignoring the law is fine for some of these as it's unlikely the patent holder would bother to sue them. But the commercial distributors are another thing completely.
I don't personally like software patents but I won't just ignore them. There may be some that are so obvious or trivial that I would take a chance on "prior art"(e.g. Microsoft's recent timed button click). But something like MPEG2 surely has "real" value. I don't have to like it but I can't believe a commercial entity would play with fire like that.
I did a not insignificant search on google and followed some links but I didn't come across any definitive answer to issues surrounding decoding of MPEG2. I got the general feeling that people weren't just ignoring it. A posting on some Debian site implied that writing a decoder without reference to the "MPEG groups decoder" somehow made it legal(the only issue surrounded DeCSS).
At this point I'm under the impression that either some standard gives us the right to to these patents provided we reverse engineer them or there's something else going on. If you know please enlighten me as I'll sleep better.
O.k. Now let's take this one step further. Is implementing a patent for non-commercial or just personal use illegal?
Since you don't seem to have read the part where I explictly said I don't commit copyright infringement let me repeat that again "I don't commit copyright infringment".
I don't live in a country with the DMCA so the use of DeCSS is completely legal for me. Not only that but I have fair use rights explicitly granted to me that the US doesn't have.
Not paying for movies from the MPAA members is not a legitimate option in the context of this discussion. Whether I buy their product or not will not reduce one iota their attempt to have my rights removed. They're current tactics may in fact be "legal" but that doesn't make them legitimate to me. Nor does it mean that I can't laugh,boo or geer a self-serving attempt at telling us not to pick on them while they actively try to pick on us.
Consider for instance your roofing analogy. The part you didn't add for the analogy to be complete is if the roofing industry was paying political candidates for favors in order to pass laws to remove my right to roof my own house. In such a scenario you can damn well bet I'd laugh in their faces and not feel bad about it at all.
In the context of playing fair. If the MPAA and RIAA play fair I will continue to not only play fair(as I do already) but I will stop ridiculing them. Since they are actually trying to change the rules to the game I feel no particular desire to be nice.
I wasn't implying that going to a movie was robbery.
I was trying to point out that "maximizing profits" by whatever means is not always a good thing(tm). Maybe I used a bad analogy in the context of the discussion but I didn't mean to imply me paying them was robbery. I meant to imply that if "maximizing" profits through whatever means necessary is the only point than robbing me(literally not figuratively) is one of those means so why wouldn't that be a legitimate activity?
The movie industry actively tries to remove my fair use rights AND than preaches to me that I shouldn't commit copyright infringment. That is a double standard by any measure, so laughing,booing and geering at their self-serving "public service announcements" is a legitimate form of expression. The "little guy" in these announcements should know better and have refused to participate, thus again they get no sympathy.
As far as I know there are no patent infringment issues with DeCSS. It wasn't/isn't being marketed and therefore there isn't anyone to sue. The problem with CSS is currently only in America where their DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent" an encryption scheme used to protect material that has been copyrighted.
As far as I know it isn't illegal from a patent stand point to write your own software to be able to circumvent CSS.
Wow you got a bug up your ass huh?
I paid to see the movie, not to be preached to about how it's wrong to sell illegal copies of a movie. Which by the way I don't do and never would. I also am not a pirate as I don't have the eye patch or wooden leg.
Trading music or movies with friends is a legitimate fair use right. The "fuckers" here are those people who are trying to take away my right to use the material I purchase in an otherwise legal manner and than preaching to me about not doing something illegal.
If robbing me makes the movie industry more money than NOT robbing me makes them less money. The less money they make, the fewer jobs there are. Therefore the movie industry must rob me.
If the movie industry was an otherwise shining example of morality & propriety and stood up for my rights as an individual I would have no problem sitting through their anti-piracy clap trap but as they are actively attempting to remove my fair use rights they neither get sympathy from me nor does someone who is "just a grunt" get sympathy from me.
The point behind people laughing at this crap(or more likely booing which is what I've heard in theatres) is that people know there is a double standard. Treat the consumer fairly and we treat companies fairly. These farcical attempts at garnering sympathy by using "the little guy" just makes it worse because I wonder if "the little guy" knows that their company is actively working to remove my fair use rights. These companies are actively doing this whether I pay to see a movie or not so I have no legitimate means of expression other than to "complain".
Truely I'm curious. Where on the back of a DVD does it say I must use a "licensed" DVD player and if I don't use a licensed DVD player than I'm infringing on someone's copyright?
It may in fact be there but I've never seen such a statement. If your saying that just because I know it's a DVD than I must use a DVD player well "Duh!". But using DeCSS in conjunction with an MPEG2 viewer is a DVD player so how am I infringing?
Furthermore someone using a logo without paying for it isn't my problem. I have committed no crime purchasing such a device to watch DVDs on. The manufacturer may be committing a crime but I'm not.
So now let's take this one step further. If I design and build my own DVD player from scratch using published standards purely for my own use have I done something illegal? If yes please explain why? Using the argument that the DMCA makes it so will not cut it, presume that I don't live in a country with the DMCA but I do live in one with otherwise sane patent and copyright laws.
Except that once I've purchased or rented the DVD I automatically have the right to view it. Show me where on the DVD that it says I must watch it only on a "licensed" DVD player. Furthermore once I have payed money to watch the DVD I do have the right to decrypt it otherwise I wouldn't be able to watch it.
If in fact somebody was losing their job over a free DVD player than you might have a point but since nobody is than you don't.
The selfserving crap before movies is intended to make us 'see the light'. Meanwhile they charge you $10 or more to see the movie and than $20 or more inside for a couple of cokes and a large popcorn. If the movie industry ever does actually start losing money it will be because people have better things to do with their money and not because someone cracked CSS.
Oh, and besides the money I had to pay to see the movie they also make me waste time waiting for the movie to start showing me commercials that I'm quite sure I don't want to pay for.
Yup that set designer or stuntman is sure going to get sympathy from this crowd I tell ya.
Yeah, Yeah, I've been having a real bizarre time with that word lately. I have no idea why, must be getting old.
Without a specific license "granting" them some use rights than standard copyright applies which means they can't just copy it. Any 5th grader on Slashdot knows this, surely Linspire has lawyers that can tell them this.
Anybody would be stupid to download some company's copywritten code or documentation and use it without some license attached. In fact I'd like to know who you think does this? Actually you say "IP" by which I presume you mean "Intellectual Property", since no such animal actually exists you'll have to be more specific as to what your talking about. I assumed here "copywritten material" since that is what the original article was talking about.
And this has anything to do with my comment how?
Let's try this again. Lighten up and have some fun that is what Free software is about NOT world domination, marketing or suits. If the suits want this application to succeed they'll do it in their own fashion. The OO leaders specifically chose this mascot for a reason. These are the same people putting in the "thousands of man-hours" so who are you or any random Slashdot reader that you should criticize their decision.
It's one thing to say something like "well I don't particularly find it appealing" it's a total different thing to complain that it's "unprofessional".
I guess it's time to go back to proprietary software because the Free Software group has obviously lost their drive for just general fun. Sure that mascot looks a little crazy but for crying out loud this is "free" software. You want world domination go clone Napoleon or something.
Damn people have some fun will you.
We're talking about negotiating a salary and benefits I've already assumed the person has been offered the job. Either your skills are in demand or they aren't. This is easy to tell from the number of job offers you get. But in the end it simply comes down to "what am I willing to work for?" If at some point the salary isn't enough or you're being worked too hard than it's time to move on. If you aren't willing to move on than they have you, but whose fault is that?
>And you cannot say exactly the same thing about >working for a corporation? In both cases there is >a way out, namely, quitting. It may not be a >feasible option, but it just cold economic fact.
I never said a corp. can't but it's a fact that with a company & a union you have 2 masters cracking a whip. Please explain how it's better having to dance to the tune of 2 masters rather than 1? Especially when ones a waltz and the other's jazz!
So what gives you the right to the job over some other poor bloke that will work for less?
If the union sets the salary thus there's no incentive to "work for less"(because you can't), than the other guy doesn't get the job, correct? I'm sure the other guy is real happy that you have a high paying job and he has none! Thanks for proving my point, unions aren't out for the benefit of the whole.
Unions aren't designed for the benefit of the whole only the benefit of their members. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing if your in the union but if your not, good luck finding a job.
I may be presuming too much but I would think that a computer professional is likely smart enough to negotiate their own contract. If you aren't getting paid enough or you haven't negotiated an overtime scale than that's your fault. Why would you want to abdicate responsibility to a union anyway? Soon enough they will do something you don't like and than you have no way out.
I totally understand that market forces may be such that computer professional salaries are low due to over supply in the market. Artificially increasing the salary through unionization won't benefit you in the long run. Already I see people here complaining about off-shoring. Just wait until you have a union, the jobs will bolt like there's no tomorrow.
The best way to fight an over supply in your field is to train for a different field! Or simply be the best in your field.
Why would you assume that KDE would do this? If they do I will personally remove it and submit a patch!
The fact is if this happens in open source you would likely so a fork and a major backlash.
Huh? How is a tarball executable? or is that not what you meant?
If user's are smart enough to save an attachment, mark it as executable and than click on it than their smart enough not to run as root.
No we don't know that.
.bat,.exe,.com etc. files. How is that the user's fault! They shouldn't have been able to do this in the first place!
Viruses are spread by the stupidity of developer's that code apps that run executable attachments automatically or by a single click.
There was a time when I could tell people in all seriousness that they COULDN'T be infected by a virus through e-mail. Than Outlook came along and all hell broke loose. Outlook is the most popular so I blame it's developers but it could be any e-mail app that automatically runs
Bugs in code that allow specially crafted JPEG's or something to run are a seperate issue. Still the "fault" of developers but it can happen to anyone. This again is hardly the fault of stupid users.
I'm all in favor of calling users stupid when they are but it isn't their fault that MS ruined the e-mail experience.
This came up in a seperate article earlier in the week and I still don't see how Linux users could ever be affected by a supposed "exectable" sent in an e-mail.
As far as I know there are no linux e-mail apps that run a file automatically. Files have to be specifically marked as executable and I know of no way to do that within an e-mail. So you would have to be not just stupid but brain dead to save the attachment, mark it as executable, and than click on it before it could possibly have an affect. Someone that stupid can't be helped.
Bugs on the other hand are a seperate issue and not the fault of "stupid" users. Securing against these is the developer's business so maybe SELinux would help there?
You are partly correct.
He is indeed making it sound as if a Linux supporter was quoted verbatim but in fact no Linux supporter ever sayed anything about "stolen" code(at least none that I am aware of).
Unless I'm mistaken the series of events he is referring to involves SCO showing purportedly "stolen" code during a PowerPoint presentation. The code snippets were tracked to BSD code which had previously been placed in the public domain(or as close as you can get).
Every piece of purported evidence that SCO has dained to release has been soundly discredited.
In english we do not call this paraphrasing we call it an "attempt to deliberately mislead and deride", some might call it "mocking". Had he actually made it sound like a specific individual made the "what was stolen..." comment he could quite possibly be sued for defamation of character. Instead he refers only to "linux supporters", a group can't sue for comments like this.
Furthermore he even "begs the question" by stating "once a crime had been committed" when in fact no crime has been committed or at least none has yet been proven and the way the case is going none is likely to be.
The whole article is written in a manner to deride the linux community rather than support a position as to why he believes SCO is correct. He refers to linux supporters as criminals completely without evidence, gee that's sure unbiased. I'm sure like any large group there is a criminal or two in it but as a whole we are as law abiding as the next person.
I don't believe that's fair enough to the average user. There's no reason that clicking on an e-mail attachment should cause you to get a virus or otherwise harm your system. It is only because of Outlook's complete lack of security that this even happens. It isn't the user's fault.
I guarantee that any Linux based e-mail program that acted in this manner would be shunned so quickly it wouldn't see the light of day.
To be labled "dumb" a user should at least have to click on an attachment, save it to disk, mark it as executable and than double-click it, all without questioning whether this is a good idea or not.
Not picking on you in particular but there seems to be something generally being missed here. Clicking on a shell script sent as an attachment isn't normally run by any e-mail program that I am aware of. The user's would have to save it to disk and than click on it. This doesn't make it an insignificant threat but seriously, how many user's of the type we're refering to would do this two step approach? Most would just delete it.