I think both are factors. On the one hand TV seems in decline. The variety of material presented is decreasing, the data rate is dropping (dumbing down) and the commercialisation increasing with more ads per content. Meanwhile, the speed of the internet is growing, more content is being added, you can take data at your own rate from as many sources as you like, and you get interactivity on a scale undreamt of on TV. Plus with very little effort you can contribute and add your own material.
TV has to run very fast just to keep up - and it seems to be slowing down instead.
Of course, by this same argument, the odds are against any covert exploit actually working for very long. On the one hand, there are lots and lots of changes going into the kernel that could, and eventualy will stop the exploit from working; either as an unintended side effect, or as a general security enahncement.
On the other hand, it's hard to maintain your exploit as working. I mean you're not going to post to the kernel mailing list complaining that your Boogeyman1.0 backdoor patch has been invalidated by some recent patch submission, are you?
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't be aware of the risk, jsut that it's nowhere near so scary as made out. With decent security and code vetting procedures, the risks from linux should be as low or lower than commercial offerings.
Personally, I don't think it's possible for a company to rip you off. People rip themselves off by placing impractical expectations on products with minimal research.
So, if I undertake to sell you a crate of choclate, for example, take your money and then send you a crate of doggie poo, that is me being a Bad Person.
But if I form a limited company, take your money and send you doggie poo for chocolate, then apparently I have done nothing wrong. Instead you become a victim of your own unreasonable expectations.
I can't decide whether that's corporate propaganda or good old fashioned trolling.
Heh. This, coming from the "teh softwarez must be free-as-in-um-actually-i'm-just-cheap" crowd (which unfortunately makes up the majority of the people who use open source) is absolutely hilarious.
Yep. Guilty as charged. If I wasn't so cheap, I'd not only pay SCO $699 for a runtime licence, I'd post to slashdot telling everyone what a bargain it was.
It makes me wonder: if "greed is good" how come "cheap is bad?" Is frugality only a virtue when practiced by CEOs?
I'm old enough to remember first hand what IBM were like in the days before MS. And you're quite right - they were almost as bad as MS are today, and probably will be again if MS topple. As a community we should be wary of that possibilty, and keep an eye on our friends as well as our enemies.
That said, IBM today do seem to be on our side. I'd hate to suggest they were saints, but maybe we'd to best to fight todays battles today. Sufficent unto each day the evils thereof, or something like that...
which is a fine distraction from the matter at hand.
Given Sun's recent 2 billion deal with MS, it's only natural to wonder at how timely and convenient and this latest co-incidence must be when viewed from Redmond.
It may be that something of this nature was part of the deal. Sun's relationship with FOSS has been inconsistent to say the least. It may not.
Certainly no evidence has surfaced to that effect.
However it's difficult to see how IBM's bully boy tactics of thirty years ago absolve Sun for things like their support of SCO.
I'm a coder. I like to develop. MS doesn't want that, because MS wants to be the only software vendor on the planet. Hell, they don't even want me writing stuff purely for my own benefit, since that means I won't be buying solutions from them.
Consequently, they make developent difficult. They obfiscate. They change the rules to mess up 3rd part software (1st party as well come to that) so that existing software will break.
It's a hostile platform.
Also, of course, there's the expense, the forced upgrades, the DRM, and the corporations staggering absence of anything resembling ethics. But mainly it boils down to one thing:
Speaking of which, this is off topic, but has anyone gone x.org for their own machines and if so, what's the smallest compiled binaries sizes (total X install) you've come up with?
The code mentioned by the NRF is the System V code. Even if Novell does own that, that doesn't confer any rights to Linux - unless they can prove SYS V code has been wrongly included in Linux - something SCO have failed to do.
It's a good idea to keep an eye out for things like this - future owners of Novell may not be a sympathetic to FOSS as the current ones. But let's try and keep from muddying the water
Of course, Microsoft were the first company to buy an SCO licence for a fat wodge of cash. That led a lot of people to assume that SCO are simply acting as catspaws for redmond here and Darl McBride is nothing more that a sock puppet for Bill Gates.
And now Microsoft wishes to supplant Google in the search engine wars. If SCO do decide to sue Google, the timing could be considered interesting.
mmm... I didn't put that as clearly as I might have done. What I meant was that, aside from a certain element of oneupmanship, there is no benefit for the OS community in publicising bugs and plenty of reasons why it might be inadvisable.
It improves the product of a company dedicated to eradicating open-source; it potentially taints the finder of the bug; it might even be illegal under the DMCA if the bug has an exploit. I think revealing such bugs might be ill-advised is the point.
Anyway, they're in no hurry to patch the ones thay already know about - I can't see why they'd give special attention to ones found by the likes of us.
Why would the FOSS community want to improve Little Willy's product?
Aside from previous comments about the danger of being deemed "tainted" in a court of law, he hasn't done us any favours recently, and there is no garuantee the patches will be used or that anyone will benefit. Sounds like a non-starter to me.
Through its relationship with Microsoft, Mainsoft has had access to the source code for Windows to provide a Windows platform for Unix, called MainWin. This is the leading technology infrastructure for Independent Software Vendors (ISV's) and IT professionals to re-host Windows NT-based applications onto the Unix and Linux platforms.
So we're supposed to think this is the source of MainSoft's unix based windows platform? Which microsoft helped them develop by giving them access to their source code - such is the depth of MS' commitment to enabling companies to migrate away from windows...
I suppose MS is some micky-mouse cowboy operation that would write secure software if only they employed grown-ups and professionals.
Or is his point that it never gets any better than MyDoomA and MyDoomB and we better learn to live with it? 'Cause I think we already disproved that one...
What? you mean they'd have to stop peddling bloatware?
Shouldn't be a problem - if C# is as much a java rip-off as people suggest then it can probably be optimised to produce small executables at the expense of a whopping big runtime environment.
Some MS apps already run like this. IE is tiny - most of the code lives in a gazillion dlls as active X controls and other such obfuscations
If the can get their cash by subscription, they don't need to keep forcing people to upgrade the hardware. And if they don't need that they can turn off the bloat directive.
The big problem is finding a non-computer area for which to write your software.
Why not just write software aimed at the software community? It's not that easy. Windows and Linux are awash in IDEs, and smaller scale than that, most developers will roll their own productivity tools. An O/S would have to really be special to compete with MS muscle and linux prices. There are always bleeding edge applications that need code - but these are risky (bleeding edge is prone to fads) and again, you wind up needing someone with indepth knowledge of the development area. Which brings us back to domain experts.
If you're going to write software to ship dogfood (been there, done that) then you need to know the dogfood business. Or the transport business. prefereably both. So either you need an unemployed dogfood shipper who has faith in your skills, or you hire a dogfood expert.
But the real trouble is that you need the expert in order to have the killer idea in the first place. You need someone who's shipped enough dogfood to know what the problems are that need to be solved, you need someone who who has a good enough grasp of tech to see how software can address those needs in a "must-have" manner, and you need dammed good communication skills so oth parties get an accurate understanding of what the other is talking about.
And then, you may find that there really isn't anything that needs doing.
Of course if you're old drinking buddies with the Dogfood King, or if you been working for 15 years writing code for a dogfood warehouse before being laid off then you may already know where you're going. Otherwise...
The thing is, trechnical excellence alone will not usually do the job. About the only way that makes you oney is as a consultant, and the crash and burn of _that_ market is one of the reasons why there are so many techies on the dole in the first place.
It's a dangerous tech to rely upon though. MS remains a hostile platform. No one outside of microsoft is supposed to write software in the world according to willy, and lots of free apps for windows will cut into MS profits.
Anyone think redmond will allow this to gain a significant user base? Or will they do an XBox and nobble it with a bug fix, where the bug is defined as "runs linux"
Actucally, I think you'll find that is called feedback. Many people consider feedback to be useful.
You just encountered a fairly moderate, considered, non-US viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it, but an intelligent response would be to at least consider the points raised.
Instead you respond with anger and insults. Is it your intention to reinforce nascent ill feeling toward America? If so, you are going the right way about it.
America is currenly burning up decades of accumulated good will at a terrifying rate. Have you already decided that this is something you want for the nation in which you live?
Or perhaps you're just trolling. I really rather hope it's the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
I think both are factors. On the one hand TV seems in decline. The variety of material presented is decreasing, the data rate is dropping (dumbing down) and the commercialisation increasing with more ads per content. Meanwhile, the speed of the internet is growing, more content is being added, you can take data at your own rate from as many sources as you like, and you get interactivity on a scale undreamt of on TV. Plus with very little effort you can contribute and add your own material.
TV has to run very fast just to keep up - and it seems to be slowing down instead.
On the other hand, it's hard to maintain your exploit as working. I mean you're not going to post to the kernel mailing list complaining that your Boogeyman1.0 backdoor patch has been invalidated by some recent patch submission, are you?
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't be aware of the risk, jsut that it's nowhere near so scary as made out. With decent security and code vetting procedures, the risks from linux should be as low or lower than commercial offerings.
Break out the rack and thumbscrews, lads! ari_j says it's ok!
But if I form a limited company, take your money and send you doggie poo for chocolate, then apparently I have done nothing wrong. Instead you become a victim of your own unreasonable expectations.
I can't decide whether that's corporate propaganda or good old fashioned trolling.
for the bash case, so why do it (only) for perl?
It looks to me like he got a bunch of people to write the scripts for him. It would explain the stylistic variations, if nothing else
It makes me wonder: if "greed is good" how come "cheap is bad?" Is frugality only a virtue when practiced by CEOs?
That said, IBM today do seem to be on our side. I'd hate to suggest they were saints, but maybe we'd to best to fight todays battles today. Sufficent unto each day the evils thereof, or something like that...
Given Sun's recent 2 billion deal with MS, it's only natural to wonder at how timely and convenient and this latest co-incidence must be when viewed from Redmond.
It may be that something of this nature was part of the deal. Sun's relationship with FOSS has been inconsistent to say the least. It may not. Certainly no evidence has surfaced to that effect.
However it's difficult to see how IBM's bully boy tactics of thirty years ago absolve Sun for things like their support of SCO.
Consequently, they make developent difficult. They obfiscate. They change the rules to mess up 3rd part software (1st party as well come to that) so that existing software will break.
It's a hostile platform.
Also, of course, there's the expense, the forced upgrades, the DRM, and the corporations staggering absence of anything resembling ethics. But mainly it boils down to one thing:
Windows is a hostile platform.
I feel better for that...
Gentoo linux using the standard ebuild:
That's with some USE flags set - I'm not sure how much, (if anything) they add to the binary sizeIt's a good idea to keep an eye out for things like this - future owners of Novell may not be a sympathetic to FOSS as the current ones. But let's try and keep from muddying the water
And now Microsoft wishes to supplant Google in the search engine wars. If SCO do decide to sue Google, the timing could be considered interesting.
Anyway, they're in no hurry to patch the ones thay already know about - I can't see why they'd give special attention to ones found by the likes of us.
Nope - I still ain't betting on it.
Aside from previous comments about the danger of being deemed "tainted" in a court of law, he hasn't done us any favours recently, and there is no garuantee the patches will be used or that anyone will benefit. Sounds like a non-starter to me.
This smells fishier the more we learn about it
Or is his point that it never gets any better than MyDoomA and MyDoomB and we better learn to live with it? 'Cause I think we already disproved that one...
where would I be without cogent arguments such as yours to keep me informed?
Shouldn't be a problem - if C# is as much a java rip-off as people suggest then it can probably be optimised to produce small executables at the expense of a whopping big runtime environment.
Some MS apps already run like this. IE is tiny - most of the code lives in a gazillion dlls as active X controls and other such obfuscations
If the can get their cash by subscription, they don't need to keep forcing people to upgrade the hardware. And if they don't need that they can turn off the bloat directive.
Be interesting to watch this one...
Why not just write software aimed at the software community? It's not that easy. Windows and Linux are awash in IDEs, and smaller scale than that, most developers will roll their own productivity tools. An O/S would have to really be special to compete with MS muscle and linux prices. There are always bleeding edge applications that need code - but these are risky (bleeding edge is prone to fads) and again, you wind up needing someone with indepth knowledge of the development area. Which brings us back to domain experts.
If you're going to write software to ship dogfood (been there, done that) then you need to know the dogfood business. Or the transport business. prefereably both. So either you need an unemployed dogfood shipper who has faith in your skills, or you hire a dogfood expert.
But the real trouble is that you need the expert in order to have the killer idea in the first place. You need someone who's shipped enough dogfood to know what the problems are that need to be solved, you need someone who who has a good enough grasp of tech to see how software can address those needs in a "must-have" manner, and you need dammed good communication skills so oth parties get an accurate understanding of what the other is talking about.
And then, you may find that there really isn't anything that needs doing.
Of course if you're old drinking buddies with the Dogfood King, or if you been working for 15 years writing code for a dogfood warehouse before being laid off then you may already know where you're going. Otherwise...
The thing is, trechnical excellence alone will not usually do the job. About the only way that makes you oney is as a consultant, and the crash and burn of _that_ market is one of the reasons why there are so many techies on the dole in the first place.
I'm not convinced that they intend to keep that as a viable product. "Embrace and exterminate" seems to be the usual methodology.
I'd expect the MS campaign to go:
Not that I'm paranoid or anything...
Anyone think redmond will allow this to gain a significant user base? Or will they do an XBox and nobble it with a bug fix, where the bug is defined as "runs linux"
I know which way I'm betting...
[ Insert text of grandfather post here. Repeat as necessary should replies be needed to subsequent responses of this nature ]
You just encountered a fairly moderate, considered, non-US viewpoint. You don't have to agree with it, but an intelligent response would be to at least consider the points raised.
Instead you respond with anger and insults. Is it your intention to reinforce nascent ill feeling toward America? If so, you are going the right way about it.
America is currenly burning up decades of accumulated good will at a terrifying rate. Have you already decided that this is something you want for the nation in which you live?
Or perhaps you're just trolling. I really rather hope it's the latter.