"This "Moz/FF is so secure it's impervious" attitude is going to get you in trouble."
Having a fine day trolling. I explicitly stated that all browsers were vulnerable. Since I did so it makes your link to a firefox spyware extension that users must very conciously install meaningless. This of course is not a Firefox vulnerability, firefox even has a time delay before you can click to install the extension! This is the idiot vulnerability, the idiot vulernability exists in all applications and is not resolvable.
"It's included in "helpful" programs like Weatherbug"
Glad you read my post where I specifically mentioned the extension that results in not needing weatherbug. Really though, these are uncommon now (or rather there are only two or three common spyware among them) but might become more common since they use vulerabilities elsewhere to install spyware. What does that have to do with Firefox?
Are you saying we might as well just leave the front door (browser) open (use IE) instead of putting a deadbolt (firefox) on it because a burgler (spyware) might come into the house another way? Does the weakness of a window affect the strength of the deadbolt? I tend to think that securing the front door is only one part of securing the whole house (PC). I also tend to think it is a little ridiculous to call the deadbolt weak if the burgler can open it once he is already inside the house (like a local application).
"Your attitude that everyone will love it is downright obnoxious."
Your right, because one guy out of everyone I have ever encountered does not like tabbed browsing, that makes a personal belief that impacts nobody else obnoxious.
Tabbed browsing is not about the user multi-tasking, tabbed browsing is about organization and computer multi-tasking. For instance, using the current site as an example. One would read down the story summaries and open TFA and/comments of interesting stories in tabs and continue to read the headlines down the page. In the meantime the slashdotted article loads in the background and is ready for viewing by the time I get back to it.
For work and research I often have numerous windows AND tabs going at the same time. If I am googling multiple related but distinct subjects I might open a window per google and within that window open candidate results in new tabs (again, letting them load in the background).
You having a pet peev about tabbed browsing does not make it any less useful a feature. It does not make my opinion that it is a useful feature obnoxious. In fact, it really has no relevance at all.
"The reason IE is open to attacks by spyware is because the people who make spyware know that that's what most people use. As soon as people move to another selection, they'll simply target the new browser."
I would disagree with this. There are problems to be found in Firefox and other new browsers to be sure. The way things look it will be Firefox if anything that ends up with significant market share. To date, almost every Firefox vulnerability has still been related to the broken windows zone-based security model (read IE security model). The two big issues are ActiveX and that model. I believe that without ActiveX and that security model to ride on, NO BROWSER would ever carry the sort of spyware overhead we see today again. That includes IE, but I do not see Microsoft dropping their biggest market lockin 'features'.
I think Firefox will always be safe from spyware when compared to any browser with ActiveX. However, spyware was only one thing I mentioned. Everything else mentioned was a feature.
Big features from a user perspective.
-Spyware free weather status(any idea how many weatherbuggers there are?)
-Popup blocking that works (IE popup blocking does not 'work', largely thanks to popups launched by spyware.)
-Flashblocking (flash ads are notoriously annoying)
-Tabbed browsing. After browsing a link heavy site for two days with tabbed browsing, nobody will ever use a browser without this again.
Honestly I believe Favortism is the next biggest problem. The truth is that end users do NOT install functional software on their computers (although they will install cute little holiday related crap that breaks functional setups). Techs install software on their computers. If the local tech shop is still using IE, all of their customers will be using IE.
I once worked for a shop with a Microsoft bias. We were slammed with spyware problems and when doing a spyware cleanup I would routinely install firefox with a standard set of extensions. I showed people how to "open this page in IE" if they needed to and off they went.
If someone else did work for the user after that point I would get a call everytime regardless of the problem. The good ol' boy Microsoft techs would claim they couldn't work on these funky 'firething' setups. This included the boss. Finally I just gave up.
"For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one. There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about."
Not true at all. The crowds you mentioned are annoyed but the big ones, they just do not know how to fix the problem or even where to look to find out.
I have found that the tech illiterate never understand why they get spyware. But they DO understand that after they started using firefox they don't need a tech to speed up their computer every couple days/weeks/months (depending on the sites they browse). They also understand pop-up blocking that works. They even recognize flashblock and tabbed browsing if you deliver it as a second installment later since it requires additional learning.
As techs we all take these fundemental benefits for granted, they have been around for awhile and we are looking at the details. But most of the users who know they exist have already switched to a browser that has them. The ones still using IE are using it because they do not know about these benefits.
"If an offline message takes days to appear when the servers are up and working and I am online, then email is more reliable than IMs for offline communications. I've never had emails take more than 5 minutes to get to the people I email."
Congratulations on having such reliable email in your world. In the real world email messages being lost entirely is a common occurance. In fact it is so common I typically use a more reliable method of contact like IM or telephone to confirm a message was recieved at all.
"Also, with email, I can easily access my email "history" via IMAP across multiple machines. Meanwhile, IM clients tend to require me to manually copy over history files, since I haven't yet seen an IM service that lets you leave old messages and retrieve those old messages online."
Meanwhile what percentage of email setups have IMAP access?.02%? IMAP is nice but I can share IM history files as easily as any other file including mailbox files. There are numerous methods out there to share files. Microsoft has chosen to make non-exchange IMAP a very poor choice from its clients and the result that IMAP is almost never used outside an exchange environment.
Seriously, most people make use of email, including myself. But the only people who use it for a typical mode of communication outside of the office are grandparents and family contacting military personal. Basically the people who are looking for solution that works like the post office.
Ok, so bin laden threats had been coming for 5yrs and for 5yrs he had failed to pull anything like this off in the US. Somehow I think his continued failure for 5yrs caused this threat to be taken LESS seriously, not more.
The MPAA (and I would venture most corps) operates entirely for profit and sees the law only in terms of an obstacle or vehicle toward that end.
If a law stands in the way of profit you lobby or outright bribe congressmen to change it. In some cases you might even be able live with the consequences and ignore the law. Sometimes it's easier to just bribe the cops, and you can't tell me that in a corporation like the MPAA funds large enough to bribe cops get released without a corporate policy.
The mob operates for a profit, it will do what it feels will gain a profit despite the law. The mob bribes senators and cops where it makes sense. The mob will operate legally if there is a profit to be made as well. What is the difference?
"it's reasonable to expect that one or two cops (or even a P.D.) can be corrupt, isn't it?"
Yes but is unreasonable to think that corporations operate on isolated incident scales. Corporations are too big and disorganized to do things like this on a case by case basis. Corporations depend on blanket policies that filter down to smaller management who is only authorized to handle individual cases within the authority granted by those policies. There may only be two cops on the force who are willing to accept free money, but without a doubt if the MPAA is tipping two cops they have a policy to do so.
But hey, it's not like they are accepting money from the mob to look the other way. They are simply getting tipped for doing what they are supposed to do and busting crooks, right? So, maybe there was that one time that Joe was a little behind on the rent and we slipped the dvd in the street pushers pocket. He was just street trash anyway. And, maybe we do tend to lean toward going after pirates instead of other types of crooks, but hey what difference does it make, laws are laws and crooks are crooks, right?
Of course of course. It seems likely to me that of all possible allegations to make that Internal affairs would just pull this whole movie industry bribe thing out of thier asses.
And you are actually going to claim that email is any more reliable than that? This is more visible on an IM service precisely BECAUSE they are more reliable.
E-mail is like snailmail, if you send a letter and it doesn't get there it usually takes weeks to be sure.
No, you're often at risk of someone claiming you are infringing the copyright if you write your own implementation of the algorithm. Even that can be avoided by having someone read and describe the algorithm and then yet another party write the actual code.
We certainly should hold gpl'd compilers at a higher standard. There is no restriction in the GPL preventing MS from using a GCC extension. The restrictions are in the MS license.
The ultimate fact that can not be worked around by any viewpoint on licenses however, is that ANYTHING in GCC is FULLY documented right down to the sourcecode. Microsoft intentionally neglects to fully document their API's and extensions.
The arguement that they have to tell developers does not hold water. Some behaviors are incorrectly documented. Many 'features' and API calls are licensed only to those who are willing to pay a premium to find out about them. Some 'features' are kept entirely secret and only used by Microsoft and those who stumble upon them.
Besides, the ultimate point of standards is not to compile on any compiler, it is to compile on any platform. Compiling on GCC IS compiling on virtually any platform. Compiling on VC++ is compiling on ONE platform.
Since when do IM's only work if the person you are communicating with is online? The only IM I know of that does not allow you to send an offline message is AIM. Everything else delivers the message when they do go online.
That is a very good point. Nobody I know of significant intelligent that I know uses email (outside of work). It is slow and a poor form of digital communication.
"Unfortunately, in the real world, porting that technology isn't free: at the very least, it takes time and resources. And since those extensions aren't standard, it may well not be the best use of whatever limited time and resources other compiler writers have."
It is worth their time if they want those features. Just as the GCC developers considered those features to be worth their time to code to begin with. In all cases the developers of a compiler have to determine if any feature they would implement is worth their time to implement, whether it is in a standard or not.
"Moreover, the fact that GCC is GPL'd makes lifting its algorithms straight out a massive no-no for any commercial compiler vendor I can think of. Without wanting to restart the usual pointless holy war, this is an obvious case where the GPL being free-as-in-FSF and not free-as-in-completely may well be inhibiting reuse of existing code/design work."
Hardly, it is a case of the proprietary licenses being used by the commercial vendors being too restrictive to be compatible with the GPL (the gpl does not require gpl, it merely requires the same rights be granted when distributed). And the GPL does not prevent even commercial vendors from studying the algorithms and writing their own implementation.
The big bomb that applies to proprietary extensions versus open source however is software patents.
Patents for starters. Second sometimes you need to know more about how a feature works than how to use it, particually if it is an algorithm that is applied without interaction. Microsoft does not document these algorithms, it considers them trade secrets or patents them.
Simply because you can not copy the GCC code verbatim does not mean you can not look at the actual code and learn the algorithm from it and then implement it yourself.
"GCC authors "embrace and extend" C and other languages until so much code relies on weird GCC nuggets that programmers (and users) are "locked in" to using just that compiler?"
Not to disagree with your general post but you understand the whole Free Software thing makes it impossible for there to be technology and extensions in GCC that competitors can not adopt right?
If Microsoft extends the problem is not just the extension but rather the fact the extension is proprietary so that competitors can not add it to their products as well.
The only name I called you was wrong. The only attacking I did was to say that you were wrong.
"know you're going to say that the Indian companies will just ignore the suits, but that's not the way it works in global markets where the US and other countries can and will exert economic/political pressure to require India to enforce patents as a condition for receiving aid or IMF loans, etc"
Do not confuse two seperate issues. You are right, Indian companies will simply ignore the suits since US courts have no authority.
The US pressuring india to legalize software patents does not have any impact on companies ignoring damages awarded in US courts for activities that are legal in India. Even if India legalizes software patents tommorow a US ruling against a company today will STILL have no weight.
I do not know enough about BK and SCCS to confirm or dispute that or to know if SCCS used an open format (if not I fail to see how the ancestory of the software is relevant). I DO know that the only thing Tridge did was to netcat a BK.dat file and reverse engineer the data format.
"So by attempting to solve a problem that didn't yet exist, Tridge precipitated that very problem. One might call that self-serving."
That would be true except for a few small but significant points.
1. Tridge is not responsible for McVoy revoking the license, McVoy is responsible for his own actions regardless of motive.
2. The problem was not that McVoy revoked the license, actually he even allowed a grace period.
3. The problem is that a private corporation had the authority to tell the kernel developers they could no longer have access to their own software. Whether or not the authority is abused is beside the point.
4. Neither McVoy nor Tridge is responsible for creating the problem. Linus is.
"Tridge couldn't possibly have reverse engineered the file format after BitKeeper performed some evil source snatching deed"
Not without delaying kernel development, possibly by more than losing access would cost them. After all SOMEONE probably has a tarball the nightly build from any given branch.
"Isn't this theft and/or extortion? It strikes me that a few police complaints and a SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT that would take a trivial amount of time could solve that problem."
They could sue but not in small claims court and just filing would take more time than catching up the lost work. It is not theft, after all Linus and company are free to keep their data files, just not to use the software they need to access them. In order to be theft you have to BOTH take something away from someone AND gain the something taken, in this case he only denies access and takes nothing. Of course you can not be guilty of extortion if you are not extorting anything.
"It was a nice try at justification, but the theory doesn't fly."
What theory is that? There is nothing non-factual about what I said. The problem is that McVoy had the ABILITY to revoke access to the kernel data. Tridge reverse engineering the format would cost McVoy NOTHING other than the loss of that ability.
Botching the BitKeeper donation was hardly a bad thing, and it is what most wanted anyway.
There is a reason why he reverse engineered the file format and not the source control system. BitKeeper stored the code in a proprietary data format, their IP is the only data capable of reading that format. If BitMover ever chose to revoke all licenses to use their IP to read the format it would bar the kernel developers from retrieving the kernel source code stored in the system.
Tridge was not building a source control system to mimic BitKeeper, Tridge simply reversed the file format so that the ability for kernel developers, linus, and the world; to access the kernel source code was not subject to BitMovers good graces.
Many nations have trade agreements through which their patents are enforceable in one another.
You do realize that you've not corrected me, rather you simply restated the exact same thing I said. Except for some nonsense at the end about there being a point where patents need to instated because a lack thereof prohibits growth (patents prohibit growth, not the lack of them).
Slashdot Mirror
"This "Moz/FF is so secure it's impervious" attitude is going to get you in trouble."
Having a fine day trolling. I explicitly stated that all browsers were vulnerable. Since I did so it makes your link to a firefox spyware extension that users must very conciously install meaningless. This of course is not a Firefox vulnerability, firefox even has a time delay before you can click to install the extension! This is the idiot vulnerability, the idiot vulernability exists in all applications and is not resolvable.
"It's included in "helpful" programs like Weatherbug"
Glad you read my post where I specifically mentioned the extension that results in not needing weatherbug. Really though, these are uncommon now (or rather there are only two or three common spyware among them) but might become more common since they use vulerabilities elsewhere to install spyware. What does that have to do with Firefox?
Are you saying we might as well just leave the front door (browser) open (use IE) instead of putting a deadbolt (firefox) on it because a burgler (spyware) might come into the house another way? Does the weakness of a window affect the strength of the deadbolt? I tend to think that securing the front door is only one part of securing the whole house (PC). I also tend to think it is a little ridiculous to call the deadbolt weak if the burgler can open it once he is already inside the house (like a local application).
"Your attitude that everyone will love it is downright obnoxious."
Your right, because one guy out of everyone I have ever encountered does not like tabbed browsing, that makes a personal belief that impacts nobody else obnoxious.
Tabbed browsing is not about the user multi-tasking, tabbed browsing is about organization and computer multi-tasking. For instance, using the current site as an example. One would read down the story summaries and open TFA and/comments of interesting stories in tabs and continue to read the headlines down the page. In the meantime the slashdotted article loads in the background and is ready for viewing by the time I get back to it.
For work and research I often have numerous windows AND tabs going at the same time. If I am googling multiple related but distinct subjects I might open a window per google and within that window open candidate results in new tabs (again, letting them load in the background).
You having a pet peev about tabbed browsing does not make it any less useful a feature. It does not make my opinion that it is a useful feature obnoxious. In fact, it really has no relevance at all.
"The reason IE is open to attacks by spyware is because the people who make spyware know that that's what most people use. As soon as people move to another selection, they'll simply target the new browser."
I would disagree with this. There are problems to be found in Firefox and other new browsers to be sure. The way things look it will be Firefox if anything that ends up with significant market share. To date, almost every Firefox vulnerability has still been related to the broken windows zone-based security model (read IE security model). The two big issues are ActiveX and that model. I believe that without ActiveX and that security model to ride on, NO BROWSER would ever carry the sort of spyware overhead we see today again. That includes IE, but I do not see Microsoft dropping their biggest market lockin 'features'.
I think Firefox will always be safe from spyware when compared to any browser with ActiveX. However, spyware was only one thing I mentioned. Everything else mentioned was a feature.
Big features from a user perspective.
-Spyware free weather status(any idea how many weatherbuggers there are?)
-Popup blocking that works (IE popup blocking does not 'work', largely thanks to popups launched by spyware.)
-Flashblocking (flash ads are notoriously annoying)
-Tabbed browsing. After browsing a link heavy site for two days with tabbed browsing, nobody will ever use a browser without this again.
Honestly I believe Favortism is the next biggest problem. The truth is that end users do NOT install functional software on their computers (although they will install cute little holiday related crap that breaks functional setups). Techs install software on their computers. If the local tech shop is still using IE, all of their customers will be using IE.
I once worked for a shop with a Microsoft bias. We were slammed with spyware problems and when doing a spyware cleanup I would routinely install firefox with a standard set of extensions. I showed people how to "open this page in IE" if they needed to and off they went.
If someone else did work for the user after that point I would get a call everytime regardless of the problem. The good ol' boy Microsoft techs would claim they couldn't work on these funky 'firething' setups. This included the boss. Finally I just gave up.
"For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one. There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about."
Not true at all. The crowds you mentioned are annoyed but the big ones, they just do not know how to fix the problem or even where to look to find out.
I have found that the tech illiterate never understand why they get spyware. But they DO understand that after they started using firefox they don't need a tech to speed up their computer every couple days/weeks/months (depending on the sites they browse). They also understand pop-up blocking that works. They even recognize flashblock and tabbed browsing if you deliver it as a second installment later since it requires additional learning.
As techs we all take these fundemental benefits for granted, they have been around for awhile and we are looking at the details. But most of the users who know they exist have already switched to a browser that has them. The ones still using IE are using it because they do not know about these benefits.
"If an offline message takes days to appear when the servers are up and working and I am online, then email is more reliable than IMs for offline communications. I've never had emails take more than 5 minutes to get to the people I email."
.02%? IMAP is nice but I can share IM history files as easily as any other file including mailbox files. There are numerous methods out there to share files. Microsoft has chosen to make non-exchange IMAP a very poor choice from its clients and the result that IMAP is almost never used outside an exchange environment.
Congratulations on having such reliable email in your world. In the real world email messages being lost entirely is a common occurance. In fact it is so common I typically use a more reliable method of contact like IM or telephone to confirm a message was recieved at all.
"Also, with email, I can easily access my email "history" via IMAP across multiple machines. Meanwhile, IM clients tend to require me to manually copy over history files, since I haven't yet seen an IM service that lets you leave old messages and retrieve those old messages online."
Meanwhile what percentage of email setups have IMAP access?
Seriously, most people make use of email, including myself. But the only people who use it for a typical mode of communication outside of the office are grandparents and family contacting military personal. Basically the people who are looking for solution that works like the post office.
Ok, so bin laden threats had been coming for 5yrs and for 5yrs he had failed to pull anything like this off in the US. Somehow I think his continued failure for 5yrs caused this threat to be taken LESS seriously, not more.
The MPAA (and I would venture most corps) operates entirely for profit and sees the law only in terms of an obstacle or vehicle toward that end.
If a law stands in the way of profit you lobby or outright bribe congressmen to change it. In some cases you might even be able live with the consequences and ignore the law. Sometimes it's easier to just bribe the cops, and you can't tell me that in a corporation like the MPAA funds large enough to bribe cops get released without a corporate policy.
The mob operates for a profit, it will do what it feels will gain a profit despite the law. The mob bribes senators and cops where it makes sense. The mob will operate legally if there is a profit to be made as well. What is the difference?
"it's reasonable to expect that one or two cops (or even a P.D.) can be corrupt, isn't it?"
Yes but is unreasonable to think that corporations operate on isolated incident scales. Corporations are too big and disorganized to do things like this on a case by case basis. Corporations depend on blanket policies that filter down to smaller management who is only authorized to handle individual cases within the authority granted by those policies. There may only be two cops on the force who are willing to accept free money, but without a doubt if the MPAA is tipping two cops they have a policy to do so.
But hey, it's not like they are accepting money from the mob to look the other way. They are simply getting tipped for doing what they are supposed to do and busting crooks, right? So, maybe there was that one time that Joe was a little behind on the rent and we slipped the dvd in the street pushers pocket. He was just street trash anyway. And, maybe we do tend to lean toward going after pirates instead of other types of crooks, but hey what difference does it make, laws are laws and crooks are crooks, right?
How about the parents watching thier own damned children instead of depending on the law, the police, and the tv to raise them?
Of course of course. It seems likely to me that of all possible allegations to make that Internal affairs would just pull this whole movie industry bribe thing out of thier asses.
And you are actually going to claim that email is any more reliable than that? This is more visible on an IM service precisely BECAUSE they are more reliable.
E-mail is like snailmail, if you send a letter and it doesn't get there it usually takes weeks to be sure.
No, you're often at risk of someone claiming you are infringing the copyright if you write your own implementation of the algorithm. Even that can be avoided by having someone read and describe the algorithm and then yet another party write the actual code.
We certainly should hold gpl'd compilers at a higher standard. There is no restriction in the GPL preventing MS from using a GCC extension. The restrictions are in the MS license.
The ultimate fact that can not be worked around by any viewpoint on licenses however, is that ANYTHING in GCC is FULLY documented right down to the sourcecode. Microsoft intentionally neglects to fully document their API's and extensions.
The arguement that they have to tell developers does not hold water. Some behaviors are incorrectly documented. Many 'features' and API calls are licensed only to those who are willing to pay a premium to find out about them. Some 'features' are kept entirely secret and only used by Microsoft and those who stumble upon them.
Besides, the ultimate point of standards is not to compile on any compiler, it is to compile on any platform. Compiling on GCC IS compiling on virtually any platform. Compiling on VC++ is compiling on ONE platform.
Since when do IM's only work if the person you are communicating with is online? The only IM I know of that does not allow you to send an offline message is AIM. Everything else delivers the message when they do go online.
Instant messaging, voice and video chats & conference to name a few.
With Marijuana full IQ is quickly regained in a period of about 30 days after use is discontinued, is the same true for email?
That is a very good point. Nobody I know of significant intelligent that I know uses email (outside of work). It is slow and a poor form of digital communication.
"Unfortunately, in the real world, porting that technology isn't free: at the very least, it takes time and resources. And since those extensions aren't standard, it may well not be the best use of whatever limited time and resources other compiler writers have."
It is worth their time if they want those features. Just as the GCC developers considered those features to be worth their time to code to begin with. In all cases the developers of a compiler have to determine if any feature they would implement is worth their time to implement, whether it is in a standard or not.
"Moreover, the fact that GCC is GPL'd makes lifting its algorithms straight out a massive no-no for any commercial compiler vendor I can think of. Without wanting to restart the usual pointless holy war, this is an obvious case where the GPL being free-as-in-FSF and not free-as-in-completely may well be inhibiting reuse of existing code/design work."
Hardly, it is a case of the proprietary licenses being used by the commercial vendors being too restrictive to be compatible with the GPL (the gpl does not require gpl, it merely requires the same rights be granted when distributed). And the GPL does not prevent even commercial vendors from studying the algorithms and writing their own implementation.
The big bomb that applies to proprietary extensions versus open source however is software patents.
Patents for starters. Second sometimes you need to know more about how a feature works than how to use it, particually if it is an algorithm that is applied without interaction. Microsoft does not document these algorithms, it considers them trade secrets or patents them.
Simply because you can not copy the GCC code verbatim does not mean you can not look at the actual code and learn the algorithm from it and then implement it yourself.
Every build from every 3rd party DOES constitute a fork. A fork is a branch from the primary codebase of ANY size.
"GCC authors "embrace and extend" C and other languages until so much code relies on weird GCC nuggets that programmers (and users) are "locked in" to using just that compiler?"
Not to disagree with your general post but you understand the whole Free Software thing makes it impossible for there to be technology and extensions in GCC that competitors can not adopt right?
If Microsoft extends the problem is not just the extension but rather the fact the extension is proprietary so that competitors can not add it to their products as well.
"You may now attack me and call me names."
The only name I called you was wrong. The only attacking I did was to say that you were wrong.
"know you're going to say that the Indian companies will just ignore the suits, but that's not the way it works in global markets where the US and other countries can and will exert economic/political pressure to require India to enforce patents as a condition for receiving aid or IMF loans, etc"
Do not confuse two seperate issues. You are right, Indian companies will simply ignore the suits since US courts have no authority.
The US pressuring india to legalize software patents does not have any impact on companies ignoring damages awarded in US courts for activities that are legal in India. Even if India legalizes software patents tommorow a US ruling against a company today will STILL have no weight.
I do not know enough about BK and SCCS to confirm or dispute that or to know if SCCS used an open format (if not I fail to see how the ancestory of the software is relevant). I DO know that the only thing Tridge did was to netcat a BK .dat file and reverse engineer the data format.
"So by attempting to solve a problem that didn't yet exist, Tridge precipitated that very problem. One might call that self-serving."
That would be true except for a few small but significant points.
1. Tridge is not responsible for McVoy revoking the license, McVoy is responsible for his own actions regardless of motive.
2. The problem was not that McVoy revoked the license, actually he even allowed a grace period.
3. The problem is that a private corporation had the authority to tell the kernel developers they could no longer have access to their own software. Whether or not the authority is abused is beside the point.
4. Neither McVoy nor Tridge is responsible for creating the problem. Linus is.
"Tridge couldn't possibly have reverse engineered the file format after BitKeeper performed some evil source snatching deed"
Not without delaying kernel development, possibly by more than losing access would cost them. After all SOMEONE probably has a tarball the nightly build from any given branch.
"Isn't this theft and/or extortion? It strikes me that a few police complaints and a SMALL CLAIMS LAWSUIT that would take a trivial amount of time could solve that problem."
They could sue but not in small claims court and just filing would take more time than catching up the lost work. It is not theft, after all Linus and company are free to keep their data files, just not to use the software they need to access them. In order to be theft you have to BOTH take something away from someone AND gain the something taken, in this case he only denies access and takes nothing. Of course you can not be guilty of extortion if you are not extorting anything.
"It was a nice try at justification, but the theory doesn't fly."
What theory is that? There is nothing non-factual about what I said. The problem is that McVoy had the ABILITY to revoke access to the kernel data. Tridge reverse engineering the format would cost McVoy NOTHING other than the loss of that ability.
Botching the BitKeeper donation was hardly a bad thing, and it is what most wanted anyway.
There is a reason why he reverse engineered the file format and not the source control system. BitKeeper stored the code in a proprietary data format, their IP is the only data capable of reading that format. If BitMover ever chose to revoke all licenses to use their IP to read the format it would bar the kernel developers from retrieving the kernel source code stored in the system.
Tridge was not building a source control system to mimic BitKeeper, Tridge simply reversed the file format so that the ability for kernel developers, linus, and the world; to access the kernel source code was not subject to BitMovers good graces.
Many nations have trade agreements through which their patents are enforceable in one another.
You do realize that you've not corrected me, rather you simply restated the exact same thing I said. Except for some nonsense at the end about there being a point where patents need to instated because a lack thereof prohibits growth (patents prohibit growth, not the lack of them).