Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Right, my mistake then.
But OTOH it's hard to argue that for a license to actually be considered a way to ensure absolute freedom it should basically place no restrictions whatsoever... One that overrides even copyright laws.
Basically a license that says "do whatever you want with this".
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Complete freedom means no licenses involved since licenses, by definition, exist to place restrictions in one way or another.
This of course doesn't mean that the GPL or BSD licenses are bad... it only means that the whole = free is just rethorics.
Re:When four corners is too much
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, RMS should definately step back a bit and GPL the GPL.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three discs world wide is a pirate. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of music in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the music industry, from artists, to record companies to stores like my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike CDs, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.
You seem to take for granted that the music industry should always exist as it is now, where people goes to buy music at the music store instead of just subscribing to far more convenient solutions such as the iTunes online store and many others. Do you really think that all of your problems come from piracy?
What I see from your post is simply that you are having a bad time, but instead of trying to get the money from the few customers that do come to buy CDs, you kick them out because you believe them to be pirates. You're playing the judge without a trial. No matter how much you twist it.
By the way, your blacklist law proposal is crap. Who is going to add names to that list... you? Because you think you're right? And what if you are not right and the kid was just trying to sound cool or something?
In truth, no space is empty; and you can compress the data, but then you will not have a perfect simulation; your computer will take longer to process the data than the span of the events which are occuring
Maybe they could use another 25 million megabytes of RAM to fix that... and overclocked CPUs or something.
Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.
...and just when you thought you were helping good Bush end the war and bring peace he will do a dark side lighting on Richard Stallman and throw him out of the window...
I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.
In Argentina we've recently had a similar law proposal. Fortunately there was enough people who cared to at least stop it for a while. One of the many rumours we had flying around at that time was that the Bush administration was behind all that as part of a deal to relieve some of the pressure regarding our current economical problems.
I personally believe that these are just rumors... but I can't stop to notice that we were in exactly the same situation just two months ago.
What the hell is going on with our so called democracies? Do they really deserve that name?
BTW apparently, the advancement in the Sith is only by slaying - first you have to kill a Sith apprentice to become one. Then you have to kill your Sith master to become one yourself. Nice clan, indeed.
You sure? That basically means they can only become less and less with time...
Well, he spoke the truth. If you want to be the most safe and secure, use Firefox and upgrade when security fixes are released. Netscape will always being running behind.
Technically speaking it was the truth indeed. But bashing Netscape as inferior just because it takes a few more hours to put their updates out is really nothing more than spreading FUD. FUD is not only about lies... it is also about making things bigger than they really are.
You mean the young bastards with the laser pointers and cell phones? Or the Tall Guy sitting in front of you? Or the uncomfortable seats? Or the fact that you can't pause the movie?
Yeah. You're right. My computer isn't like that.
Your local theater looks like the wild west. Maybe it's different where you live but I've never seen a laser pointer while watching a movie in the cinema yet (and yes I go pretty often).
It seems like you could a modern cinema, where there is no such thing as uncomfortable seats and a tall guy in front won't even touch your line of sight.
I was tying this strained analogy back to the original thread, where there was a teacher and permission was given.
You might want to point me at the "main thread" you're talking about, and how it is related to this discussion, since neither the article nor the discussion I was participating in mentions a kid asking for permission.
I'm trying to explain to you how the HS kiddy isn't commiting a crime either. Pay attention.
RTFA. It doesn't say the HS kid asked for permission. It was a plain intrusion. Pay attention.
A class in C++ can have different base classes. Once you pick up the one you want to reference you can do the following (from within a member function of the child class):
Wow, it keeps surprising me how you twist what I say. Re-read what I wrote. I didn't even mention a teacher. And I didn't say it was impossible to demonstrate there's a security hole in a system.
We are talking about a case in which you didn't ask for permission first. One guy said something along the lines of "even if you get no permission there's nothing bad in breaking into a system". He also said that victimless crimes are not crimes. Which is of course, a huge misconception.
Now before writing other examples that do not fit at all what the discussion was about re-read the thread (I can't stress that enough to you evidently). You keep posting about situations in which the script kiddie is not committing a crime at all.
Not sure why he would do that, but given his last interview I would dare to say that he didn't like at all how he had to let O'Gara go. It was the "Linux" community that forced him to do so, and maybe he didn't take it lightly. And there are also many possible scenarios that do not involve a DoS attack that could make it look as if one was happening (like the Slashdot effect).
I doubt John Dvorak knows for sure either, which may make it a good idea for him to keep his mouth shut.
In any case, what I can tell you, is that what a few people do does not make us all criminals. I am surely glad that those of us who wanted to pacifically raise their voice actually did so.
When I said "...stealing someone's wallet without him noticing it..." I really meant it. Asking for permission before doing so kind of makes that impossible doesn't it?
By the way, who the fuck is talking about hanging wallets? You might actually want to read my post before replying.
Oh, brother. In the olden days, O'Gara would have been given a medal for generating readership. But in today's world of the so easily offended, she's apparently let go instead, and things calm down as the hissy fit subsides.
In today's world of the so easily offended you sure look like one too, John. Otherwise I fail to see what this troll is all about. Are you protecting bad journalism here?
You should remember who your clients are before talking that much. Do you really fail to see why the kind of visibility that O'Gara received and that you seem to admire so much is actually bad?
Now these lunatics are issuing death threats? I can tell you that my mere mentioning of any of this will result in incredibly hateful attempted postings on this forum and on my moderated blog. What is wrong with these people?
If anything is going to kill Linux and the open-source movement, it's the presence of certifiable lunatics in the ranks representing the users. It may be that this is actually a deep Astroturf PR campaign orchestrated by Microsoft to discredit open source and Linux. It sure seems like something weird is going on.
First of all I would like to know what kind of proof you have that any of this is real. You wrote that Groklaw's claim about O'Gara working for Sco are just words, yet you publish an article saying that the death threats existed, and that they come from this community.
Get your facts straight. The whole effort that you descrive as an act of violence from this community was just a ton of complaints to Sys-Con regarding O'Gara.
Reporters have the freedom to speak up their minds just as much as we do. You should never forget that it works both ways.
Like stealing someone's wallet without him noticing it? Then you can give it back to him to show him you were able to do it and I bet he will thank you with his fist in your nose.
How many viruses in the traditional sense of the word (ie. hide themselves in otherwise benign programs, require no user intervention to execute, attempt to mess around with the user's data) have you seen lately? Spyware - yes, lots. Trojans? More than you can count. Worms, not requiring a host program in order to spread? Hey, someone's got to keep Sophos in business. Viruses spreading through the Internet with the express intent of hooking in somewhere to corrupt data? They're somewhat rarer.
Just looking at a few websites, I see the latest threats are listed as:
W32/Agobot-SJ - a worm. W32/Kelvir-Gen - another worm. Troj/Banker-HC - a trojan. W32/Anzae-A - another worm. W32/Bagz-D - yet another worm.
I was just saying that if a virus really wanted to cripple the system, it would not be a trojan that would do it. Saying that Windows is good because it doesn't die below the weight of a few trojans is kind of misleading as it implies it has some kind of protection that keeps it running.
However I am not sure anymore that that's what you were saying.
I'd be disturbed if any recent operating system allowed a user-land program close enough to hardware to risk damaging it.
My mistake, I was referring to viruses that mess with the bios (which actually causes no damage to hardware).
It took a few years for things to get as bad as they are today with Windows.
I don't have a crystal ball. I would like to believe that Linux will become a serious competitor to Windows on the desktop while retaining its current almost entirely virus/malware free state. The only reason it isn't at that point right now probably has more to do with marketing than technology.
I don't want to say I disagree with you here, but once again in practice it is by far more secure to be running anything that is not Windows right now. And if someone asked me what is more secure I wouldn't doubt when answering that Windows isn't. Theoretically speaking I might be wrong... but given current evidence I see no reason why I should give a different advice.
Having said all that, a good theoretical exploit is only a few lines of code away from being a real one. A lousy theoretical exploit requires more code and a whole plethora of pre-conditions. To argue that suitable pre-conditions can never exist on Unix I would consider dangerous.
Sorry let me clarify something. I agree completely with you in that no system is inmune to attacks. Saying that *nix systems are not prone to viruses or trojans is lying to oneself.
That said I still believe we should take into account what the practical reality is like. If I saw the same situation in Linux or Mac OS X rest assured that I would start recommending people to avoid them.
Which is why all these "crippled" machines are still working well enough to act as part of botnets sending spam all over the world and taking part in DDOS attacks, yes?
There are two replies to that:
1 - Trojans are not meant to cripple a computer, viruses are... and botnets use trojan-like programs.
2 - Most viruses actually don't even try to destroy everything. But once it manages to control your system, you can't argue that it could very well destroy everything (including some hardware).
If you mean "it's much harder for a virus to take over the entire machine such that it's totally screwed beyond all hope of recovery", then I agree - more or less any Unix workalike is secure by that definition.
That doesn't make a system secure per-se. It is just one of the several layers of security that *nix systems offer.
However, if we take a theoretical exploit which runs from email to its logical conclusion, what's to stop it bringing up a window saying "Please enter your root password"?
It is a much better choice to ask for authorization in any case. Obviously at some point it becomes the user fault if the system goed down. And that point is exactly defined by the password request window.
Or taking advantage of a known bug which hasn't been patched by the user (because it's not remotely exploitable, right?) to get root access?
This hypothetical situation can be imagined on any system... if you are saying that merely because there's a chance this may happen all systems are equally secure than I have to disagree with you.
All that aside, there are still all sorts of other potential attack vectors which open up as soon as you can talk a user into double-clicking an icon in their email.
There seems to be a/. attitude that Unix is totally, permanently immune to any form of malware because "it doesn't work like Windows". Malware can still exist, it just can't format your hard disk anymore. At least, not until it can use a locally-exploitable bug to get root access, then all bets are off.
Of course Linux is not inmune to malware. But you are basically implying that since everythin you said is theoretically possible, then using a Windows machine is as secure as using a Linux machine.
Sorry but I have to disagree here. The mere fact of opening a mail with Outlook (to see the mail text) can infect your machine (at least with the version I used to have under XP). And this is not user stupidity. Opening a mail to see it's contents should not launch anything. This is a plain and simple security flaw.
The same applies to loading pages with explorer. If the browser lets weird programs run automatically, no matter how weird the site I am visiting is, then it's a flaw in the browser.
The problem is that given Microsoft's security standards up to today, even moving the mouse close to a suspicious link qualifies as user supidity.
I am not factually wrong. Re-read my post and you will find that:
1 - I never said anything about preprocessors 2 - I was voicing a personal opinion regarding what Obj-C looks like, and not giving an explanation of what it is. 3 - There were no "facts" mentioned in my previous post... so there's no way in which that post can be factually wrong.
Now if you want to disagree with me, then fine... everyone's entitled to an opinion.
There are no virtual functions to worry about when designing a parent class. Constructor methods for child classes are infinitely more graceful than in C++ due to an object being able to call its parent's methods, even if the child has overloaded that method.
Just want to point out that you can use members of a parent class in C++ too (even overloaded ones, by using a cast).
In the end I suppose it's all about personal preference.
You call Objective-C an 'abortion of a language', and then mention C++ as an 'objective language', and you are moded 'Insightful' ?!?! Wow. Words fail me. I guess we all get to have an opinion, but which language has a cleaner, more object-oriented syntax, Objective-C or C++ ? Both are useful, practical, powerful languages, but I'm going to have to humbly disagree with you- it's C++ that's the messier, less OO-centric language. What did Objective-C ever do to you?!? It's a fine, clean, well-designed, practical OO language.
Obj-C looks like someone came up with the idea to just change some words and symbols from C and call it a new language. And if you ignore the features of the Cocoa framework in OS X, there's nothing revolutionary about Obj-C.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, my mistake then.
But OTOH it's hard to argue that for a license to actually be considered a way to ensure absolute freedom it should basically place no restrictions whatsoever... One that overrides even copyright laws.
Basically a license that says "do whatever you want with this".
Complete freedom means no licenses involved since licenses, by definition, exist to place restrictions in one way or another.
This of course doesn't mean that the GPL or BSD licenses are bad... it only means that the whole = free is just rethorics.
Yeah, RMS should definately step back a bit and GPL the GPL.
Now that's what I call iteration.
You seem to take for granted that the music industry should always exist as it is now, where people goes to buy music at the music store instead of just subscribing to far more convenient solutions such as the iTunes online store and many others. Do you really think that all of your problems come from piracy?
What I see from your post is simply that you are having a bad time, but instead of trying to get the money from the few customers that do come to buy CDs, you kick them out because you believe them to be pirates. You're playing the judge without a trial. No matter how much you twist it.
By the way, your blacklist law proposal is crap. Who is going to add names to that list... you? Because you think you're right? And what if you are not right and the kid was just trying to sound cool or something?
Maybe they could use another 25 million megabytes of RAM to fix that... and overclocked CPUs or something.
In Argentina we've recently had a similar law proposal. Fortunately there was enough people who cared to at least stop it for a while. One of the many rumours we had flying around at that time was that the Bush administration was behind all that as part of a deal to relieve some of the pressure regarding our current economical problems.
I personally believe that these are just rumors... but I can't stop to notice that we were in exactly the same situation just two months ago.
What the hell is going on with our so called democracies? Do they really deserve that name?
You sure? That basically means they can only become less and less with time...
Technically speaking it was the truth indeed. But bashing Netscape as inferior just because it takes a few more hours to put their updates out is really nothing more than spreading FUD. FUD is not only about lies... it is also about making things bigger than they really are.
Your local theater looks like the wild west. Maybe it's different where you live but I've never seen a laser pointer while watching a movie in the cinema yet (and yes I go pretty often).
It seems like you could a modern cinema, where there is no such thing as uncomfortable seats and a tall guy in front won't even touch your line of sight.
You might want to point me at the "main thread" you're talking about, and how it is related to this discussion, since neither the article nor the discussion I was participating in mentions a kid asking for permission.
RTFA. It doesn't say the HS kid asked for permission. It was a plain intrusion. Pay attention.
A class in C++ can have different base classes. Once you pick up the one you want to reference you can do the following (from within a member function of the child class):
(BaseClass* this)->SomeMemberFunctionFromBaseClass();
LOL! Whoever modded the parent post down didn't quite get the point... read the title.
That's the kind of thing that makes you proud of being an American.
Wow, it keeps surprising me how you twist what I say. Re-read what I wrote. I didn't even mention a teacher. And I didn't say it was impossible to demonstrate there's a security hole in a system.
We are talking about a case in which you didn't ask for permission first. One guy said something along the lines of "even if you get no permission there's nothing bad in breaking into a system". He also said that victimless crimes are not crimes. Which is of course, a huge misconception.
Now before writing other examples that do not fit at all what the discussion was about re-read the thread (I can't stress that enough to you evidently). You keep posting about situations in which the script kiddie is not committing a crime at all.
Not sure why he would do that, but given his last interview I would dare to say that he didn't like at all how he had to let O'Gara go. It was the "Linux" community that forced him to do so, and maybe he didn't take it lightly. And there are also many possible scenarios that do not involve a DoS attack that could make it look as if one was happening (like the Slashdot effect).
I doubt John Dvorak knows for sure either, which may make it a good idea for him to keep his mouth shut.
In any case, what I can tell you, is that what a few people do does not make us all criminals. I am surely glad that those of us who wanted to pacifically raise their voice actually did so.
When I said "...stealing someone's wallet without him noticing it..." I really meant it. Asking for permission before doing so kind of makes that impossible doesn't it?
By the way, who the fuck is talking about hanging wallets? You might actually want to read my post before replying.
In today's world of the so easily offended you sure look like one too, John. Otherwise I fail to see what this troll is all about. Are you protecting bad journalism here?
You should remember who your clients are before talking that much. Do you really fail to see why the kind of visibility that O'Gara received and that you seem to admire so much is actually bad?
First of all I would like to know what kind of proof you have that any of this is real. You wrote that Groklaw's claim about O'Gara working for Sco are just words, yet you publish an article saying that the death threats existed, and that they come from this community.
Get your facts straight. The whole effort that you descrive as an act of violence from this community was just a ton of complaints to Sys-Con regarding O'Gara.
Reporters have the freedom to speak up their minds just as much as we do. You should never forget that it works both ways.
Like stealing someone's wallet without him noticing it? Then you can give it back to him to show him you were able to do it and I bet he will thank you with his fist in your nose.
I was just saying that if a virus really wanted to cripple the system, it would not be a trojan that would do it. Saying that Windows is good because it doesn't die below the weight of a few trojans is kind of misleading as it implies it has some kind of protection that keeps it running.
However I am not sure anymore that that's what you were saying.
My mistake, I was referring to viruses that mess with the bios (which actually causes no damage to hardware).
I don't want to say I disagree with you here, but once again in practice it is by far more secure to be running anything that is not Windows right now. And if someone asked me what is more secure I wouldn't doubt when answering that Windows isn't. Theoretically speaking I might be wrong... but given current evidence I see no reason why I should give a different advice.
Sorry let me clarify something. I agree completely with you in that no system is inmune to attacks. Saying that *nix systems are not prone to viruses or trojans is lying to oneself.
That said I still believe we should take into account what the practical reality is like. If I saw the same situation in Linux or Mac OS X rest assured that I would start recommending people to avoid them.
There are two replies to that:
1 - Trojans are not meant to cripple a computer, viruses are... and botnets use trojan-like programs.
2 - Most viruses actually don't even try to destroy everything. But once it manages to control your system, you can't argue that it could very well destroy everything (including some hardware).
That doesn't make a system secure per-se. It is just one of the several layers of security that *nix systems offer.
It is a much better choice to ask for authorization in any case. Obviously at some point it becomes the user fault if the system goed down. And that point is exactly defined by the password request window.
This hypothetical situation can be imagined on any system... if you are saying that merely because there's a chance this may happen all systems are equally secure than I have to disagree with you.
Of course Linux is not inmune to malware. But you are basically implying that since everythin you said is theoretically possible, then using a Windows machine is as secure as using a Linux machine.
Proof so far is against that...
Sorry but I have to disagree here. The mere fact of opening a mail with Outlook (to see the mail text) can infect your machine (at least with the version I used to have under XP). And this is not user stupidity. Opening a mail to see it's contents should not launch anything. This is a plain and simple security flaw.
The same applies to loading pages with explorer. If the browser lets weird programs run automatically, no matter how weird the site I am visiting is, then it's a flaw in the browser.
The problem is that given Microsoft's security standards up to today, even moving the mouse close to a suspicious link qualifies as user supidity.
I am not factually wrong. Re-read my post and you will find that:
1 - I never said anything about preprocessors
2 - I was voicing a personal opinion regarding what Obj-C looks like, and not giving an explanation of what it is.
3 - There were no "facts" mentioned in my previous post... so there's no way in which that post can be factually wrong.
Now if you want to disagree with me, then fine... everyone's entitled to an opinion.
Just want to point out that you can use members of a parent class in C++ too (even overloaded ones, by using a cast).
In the end I suppose it's all about personal preference.
Obj-C looks like someone came up with the idea to just change some words and symbols from C and call it a new language. And if you ignore the features of the Cocoa framework in OS X, there's nothing revolutionary about Obj-C.