But the FSF isn't much better. They want to keep information safely behind the fences of public preserves. They do not want people to do with it as they will.
Yes, they want precisely that, and *also* to avoid that someone could prevent other from being able to do the same.
Sometimes you realize that 100% free freedom is impossible, when living in a society at least. We all give up a little of it to cohabit this planet. Else, someone could claim to have the freedom to kill his neighbor, or whatever thing that sounds "stupid" enough to us who are used to respect others' freedom.
People run around screaming "Communist!" like it's a threat to democracy. It's really not. Soviet Russia suffered under Stalinism.
This actually what RMS said a few weeks ago in Chile, actually comparing MS model with stalinism:
(translated) "[Gates] doesn't believe in private property, because his company says the copy buyed by the user is not actually his own property, he's only paying the rent. He doesn't believe in your private property, only his own, which seems almost stalinist to me."
Granted, I don't think BG could answer *that* to "the commie":)
The grandparent poster was refering to "monetary" price.
Of course you have to learn it. It hasn't a breast-and-nipple interface, the only one you could possibly know since you were born!
(and, being and extremely flexible and powerful tool, learning to administrate or develop for it can cost you some sweat; you could otherwise use a mom-distro and get some work done)
How many home users have partitions set up to disable execution rights? Anyway, if this was the case in the user's home directory (for example), they wouldn't be able to install any new applications with becoming the superuser, which kinda defeats the purpose.
There is "su" in Unix and "Run as..." in Windows. I think the transient privilege escalation behaviour is well supported by all.
And once the user has installed one program, it can easily download, chmod, and install others.
This isn't fair, IMO. Windows lets you click just after the thing got downloaded. Unix needs you to conciously enable execution of the thingie, by chmod'ing in the command line, or a property sheet of nautilus, whatever. I think stuff like this it (requiring some additional action from you) really stops lazy / passive users from launching just about anything.
But yes, Richard Crook's quote is completely valid:
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Spyware could still install itself to any folder within that users own Documents and Settings folder.
Which is 100% true on UNIX systems also.
Last time I checked, you can disable execution rights in an entire partition.
That, and the fact that the "executable attribute" of Windows binaries is on the *filename* (which is by default *set by the remote party*), makes me thing there is still a big difference.
You can't send a Unix script or binary ready for execution (chmod'ed +x) through e-mail or HTTP, right?
At first I thought you were saying something along the lines of the typical discourse of a cracker/abuser, stating that if a system is vulnerable there's no sin/illegality in breaking into it, and even more, it SHOULD be vandalized in order to have the vulnerability exposed and corrected (I think this is what they call "ethical hacking", provided s/hack/crack/g).
I'd just like to make a point (and I think you'll agree with me): wether or not the admin is lazy and has his machines wide open (think: lazy admins and/or end-users), this doesn't make any more legal to crack them. And by that I mean there's not a lot of difference between 'real estate' and 'computing' property with respect to trespassing; IMHO this is illegal in any of them.
Oh, and no, I don't think a/. posting is an effective way to get any cuter (don't need it, either;-).
Slashdot Mirror
But the FSF isn't much better. They want to keep information safely behind the fences of public preserves. They do not want people to do with it as they will.
Yes, they want precisely that, and *also* to avoid that someone could prevent other from being able to do the same.
Sometimes you realize that 100% free freedom is impossible, when living in a society at least. We all give up a little of it to cohabit this planet. Else, someone could claim to have the freedom to kill his neighbor, or whatever thing that sounds "stupid" enough to us who are used to respect others' freedom.
People run around screaming "Communist!" like it's a threat to democracy. It's really not. Soviet Russia suffered under Stalinism.
:)
This actually what RMS said a few weeks ago in Chile, actually comparing MS model with stalinism:
(translated)
"[Gates] doesn't believe in private property, because his company says the copy buyed by the user is not actually his own property, he's only paying the rent. He doesn't believe in your private property, only his own, which seems almost stalinist to me."
Granted, I don't think BG could answer *that* to "the commie"
You cannot install software ... virus/worm/trojan writters do not necessarily apply.
Yeah, like Opera's MSR mode ... it's the r0xx0r!
Easily handled with Opera's MSR (Medium Screen Rendering) :-)
Chime! oh, wait. Who uses those bloated editors anyway? Nano!
I can't believe you have to use *several* precious lines of display to get your work done.
!!ED IS THE STANDARD TEXT EDITOR!!!
ed, man!
!man ed
?
^D
?
^C
?
God forbid I ever "View Source" on one of your pages.
What? You don't browse the web with curl?
The grandparent poster was refering to "monetary" price.
Of course you have to learn it. It hasn't a breast-and-nipple interface, the only one you could possibly know since you were born!
(and, being and extremely flexible and powerful tool, learning to administrate or develop for it can cost you some sweat; you could otherwise use a mom-distro and get some work done)
And where's the "upgrade all the mother*****ng software I have installed, right away!" technology?
Don't know about a list, but regarding videocard manufacurers, I have to mention:
Matrox , oh baby.
The only manufacturer I know that provides a full-blown XFree86 configuration utility, quality drivers, and open specs.
The SUSE LiveCD works, but I'd rather not fork out $30 for the personal edition.
So, the reason I don't use Linux is because it doesn't work. At least, for the machines I own.
Do I see a contradiction here?
How many home users have partitions set up to disable execution rights? Anyway, if this was the case in the user's home directory (for example), they wouldn't be able to install any new applications with becoming the superuser, which kinda defeats the purpose.
There is "su" in Unix and "Run as..." in Windows. I think the transient privilege escalation behaviour is well supported by all.
And once the user has installed one program, it can easily download, chmod, and install others.
This isn't fair, IMO. Windows lets you click just after the thing got downloaded. Unix needs you to conciously enable execution of the thingie, by chmod'ing in the command line, or a property sheet of nautilus, whatever. I think stuff like this it (requiring some additional action from you) really stops lazy / passive users from launching just about anything.
But yes, Richard Crook's quote is completely valid:
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
ASCII art rendering of jpegs is all I need, hell you can print a load out and staple them together and have a flick book movie.
:-)
There's always the aalib output from mplayer
Spyware could still install itself to any folder within that users own Documents and Settings folder.
Which is 100% true on UNIX systems also.
Last time I checked, you can disable execution rights in an entire partition.
That, and the fact that the "executable attribute" of Windows binaries is on the *filename* (which is by default *set by the remote party*), makes me thing there is still a big difference.
You can't send a Unix script or binary ready for execution (chmod'ed +x) through e-mail or HTTP, right?
You really think that they're going to actually get up out of the house to buy a book??
Buzzword of the day: e-shop
I don't think he sounds like a rabid "true believer" at all.
He might have written his '''article''' using Emacs. He seems to have a crush on RMS, after all.
So, for our children, we must ensure the continued propagation and promotion of the Linux kernel!
It didn't work, I'm a (geekish) male.
May be the other way around works for us:
Let's have lots of children so they can mantain future Linux kernels!
...and it runs on fast machines.
That's the easy part. The difficult part is to scale down.
Mplayer on a P-200 MMX.
:-)
I dare you to try playing those big fat Matrix Quicktime trailers without an MMX enabled Mplayer on that kind of machine
I also have a theory that next programmers will complain about having to use end-paren and close-bracket...
:-)
Close enough.. but actually it is "we're only interested in indentation... the computer should recognize blocks for us!"
(apologies to Guido et al
... other than the fact that you don't have to leave Emacs.
Is something else out there?
M-x get-a-life didn't work for me...
Is it because I love Linux that much? No, it's because I can no longer live without Mutt.
You can run Mutt in Cygwin, and it's already included in its distribution. Didja know?
maybe it benefits "someone", to make a fuss out of this. so now they can say "SEE! we told you it was no good!"...
More like:
"I have four words for ya... I -- told -- you -- before -- yeahahauahauhauahuuhu!!!!"
Ok... I guess I really mixed it up :-P
/. posting is an effective way to get any cuter (don't need it, either ;-).
At first I thought you were saying something along the lines of the typical discourse of a cracker/abuser, stating that if a system is vulnerable there's no sin/illegality in breaking into it, and even more, it SHOULD be vandalized in order to have the vulnerability exposed and corrected (I think this is what they call "ethical hacking", provided s/hack/crack/g).
I'd just like to make a point (and I think you'll agree with me): wether or not the admin is lazy and has his machines wide open (think: lazy admins and/or end-users), this doesn't make any more legal to crack them. And by that I mean there's not a lot of difference between 'real estate' and 'computing' property with respect to trespassing; IMHO this is illegal in any of them.
Oh, and no, I don't think a
Its your JOB to make sure that you arent vunerable..
You say that also to victims of rape or other crimes?