Stallman has said that he would like to see proprietary software illegal.
Good point. And yet another example of a raving radical looney who believes that taking away choice is the only way to protect freedom to choose. Sheesh...
Is it just me or does it bother anyone else that the same software developers who passionately scream about "freedom of choice", "open source", and "alternatives" are so ready to try to force their users towards a particular choice by removing access to their software? When we look at the "blackouts" that we've seen over the last few months, they amount to wholesale extortion of users.
For example, on the GNU-Darwin site, the developer mentions taking the distro offline as a protest to the war. What purpose did this really server? Do you really think that the leaders of the coalition had any high-level meetings where they said "You know, I really thought this war was a good idea. But the blackout on the GNU-Darwin software site has really made me think twice"? Of course not. What it DID do however was pressure some of the distro's users to get pissed off and write their MP or Congressman and oppose the war because they wanted their distro back damnit! And that was the intention: to force their USERS into taking a specific action.
Yep, there's that freedom they rant about huh? Software blackouts don't mean a thing and the developers/sites that use them should be ashamed of themselves for trying to extort their users in such a way.
It amazes me how people will take ANYTHING Bill Gates says and interpret it in a twisted way just to take a slam at him. This is a really good example of this.
If you are a developer and you believe that code can be perfect or that it even NEEDS to be in order for users to be protected then I would suggest that you've never worked on any projects of any size. If you are a developer who claims to write perfect code then I invite you to send me your resume.
The truth of the matter, and anyone who has done professional software development knows this, is that it is impossible to write perfect code. Yes, even under our beloved Linux. Indeed, EVEN our beloved Linux. The challenge is to implement within that imperfect code solid security procedures that deal with, and protects the end user from that code.
Really folks, I hate Gates as much as the next guy, but he isn't wrong in EVERY single thing he says. Sheesh.
Any wall a man can build can be torn down by another man... Is it really worth all the fuss?
Yeah, after all, we can see how well those super-duper, secret decoder ring needed, anti-piracy technologies have served companies like DirectTV et al. What makes these folks think they'll do any better? Oh, I forgot, the government's involved. That'll solve it.
If we can come up with something that approach the ease of www.windowsupdate.com, perhaps Linux can be used by even more not-so-tech-savvy users.
Ahh, and there lies one of the big problems in Linux that I've been complaining about for years: the attitude of most Linux software developers towards end users. I can't count the number of developers (including major Linux folk) who I've heard say "I'd rather it not be too easy to use Linux as it keeps the riff-raff out." This is one of the things that is contributing to Linux's slow acceptance in the NON-tech marketplace.
By contrast, Microsoft - as horrid as they are - focuses on making EVERYTHING in Windows easy and simple. Including patches. There is really no compelling reason why Linux patching couldn't be as simple and straightforward as Windows (even kernel patches). Why should someone have to understand some principals of software development just to keep their system patched?
Microsoft might have horrible security and all but they certainly have their upgrade and patch systems down. Of course, they need it a lot more too.
Ahh, so now protecting children has become one of those things that only conservatives are interested in huh? Good to know.
*Proud to be a conservative*
Why does the Supreme Court waste its time with such stupid stuff? What's more important than porn sites not being accessible to children (most of which you have to go LOOKING for) is putting a stop to the vulgar emails containing pictures of girls with animals and other farms of stupidity and the sites that hijack legitimate website addresses (yes, I know that's been dealt with already) to send the user of a mistyped URI to a porn site. While I don't agree with porn I think THOSE are the more pressing issues that this ineffective and posturing court needs to address.
Cell companies should be afraid of losing their current customers if portable numbers are introduced. But that has more to do with their crappy customer service, outragous prices, and unreliable services than it does with number portability. Providers have used the fact that you can't take your number with you to lock customers into substandard service because it's a pain to have to switch numbers. Now, they'll actually have to work to keep customers instead of extorting loyalty out of them.
People would go nuts if every port was blocked except 80, for example. Then they'd all drop cable connections and go back to dial up and the Internet would be screwed.
Ummm, just *why* would the Internet be "screwed" if people went back to dialup? It functioned quite nicely when most people had dialup. Looks like broadband is contributing more to the demise of the net than dialup ever did. Last I checked I don't see very many spammers stalking dialup users to exploit their machines for spamming. Sure, it happens, but they aren't the main targets.
verisign needs to stop using its sitefinder because its against the law to do that to the internet users to redirect them to a buy a domain page. that is a monopoly because nobody else can do it. Even if others could, it would be still against the law because its not right.
Well, it's not against the law per sae but it is against their contractual obligations to ICANN. And, according to Verisigns response to ICANN's initial request, there *are* other registrars who do this. Of course, they didn't specify which ones and I've never seen one but they're supposedly out there.
Our group is made up of many people, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indians, Americans, Russians and Israelis. Some of us are Jewish, some Christians, some Hindus and other of us are Muslim. Believe it or not, we all love and respect each other.
Kinda makes you wanna hold hands and sing "This land is my Land" huh?
I have to agree with the parent here. Unfortunately, the OP's experience seems to be more the norm than the exception. Many foreign programmers (not just Indian but Russian, Chinese, etc) are all about banging out code. They don't strive for quality and they find it very hard to "think out of the box".
got tired of being told what to think by the major news outlets with all their spin and faxes read from major party machinery. I get all my news from the web
Do you really believe that the news sites on the web have no political bias? In most cases they don't even write their own news -- they simply grab it from a newsfeed. And those "real-time" sites are even worse. Look at the FUD on places like Slashdot. Don't be so naive. It's not any better just because it's on the web.
What you say is very true. While I love Linux and Open Source and don't particularly care for Bill Gates or Microsoft (although I do believe he's an incredibly intelligent man and a VERY savvy businessperson) I am hesitant to demonize him like others here do. Mr. Gates and his company have contributed BILLIONS of dollars to various charities around the world and the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation is changing lives every day through their donations of money to charities. Regardless of their business practices, they are doing their part to help humanity. On the flip side, I can find very few (if any) instances where an Open Source company has done anything even near what the Gates Foundation has done. And it's not because they can't. Companies like RedHat have the resources to contribute to social causes (maybe not as much as MS but at least some). I think people need to learn that, in the end, it's not just about great software but about the social legacy you leave as well. Maybe it's time the OSS movement caught on to that.
This brings up an interesting question and a challenge to the OSS community: Why NOT create an open source service that would mimic DRM but allow anything to run?
Yes, Linus said that he saw nothing wrong with DRM and that he didn't think that implementing DRM within Linux would violate the GPL. But I really doubt the DRM will become mainstream in Linux anytime soon (though I have heard that RH is considering implementing it by default and Debian is doing it in a new release).
I see a lot of post here saying that this is just another reason to move away from Microsoft software to Linux or some other more open alternative. But moving away from their software isn't the only thing we should be doing. IMHO, each and every person or company that migrates away from MS needs to send a non-antagonistic, non-accusatory letter to both Chairman Bill, Steve Ballmer, and each member of the MS Board of Directors stating exactly WHY you switched. We assume that Microsoft knows why we switch but, the truth is, that they simply can't justify it to either themselves or their board when there are thousands of letters coming in.
I worked as IT manager for a small credit union for about a year. During that time I got a chance to see the customer side, the bank side, and the matianance side of our ATM's. I also had a lot of "geek to geek" conversations with our helpful ATM company tech (I'm not naming the company) and he was pretty open about their stuff. Basically, they were unmodded 486 PC's running OS/2 with 32 megs of memory, internal floppy (which they left the master floppy in all the time) and CD drives, and an internal reciept printer, with a comm link to our network and a phone connection back to the company so they could do remote servicing if our network wasn't accessible (otherwise they would come in over our network via a dedicated line and box). These machines had almost zero security and I could name at least 12 ways to get around what little they had. And these were newer ATM's (about 6 months old). Pretty scary when you think about what adding Windows to this mix will do...
The only reason the current net is as unchecked as it is is because the original developers (DARPA) never envisioned it becoming what it is and didn't integrate checks and balances into it. Developing a "secondary internet" that would be less or non commercialized wouldn't be difficult. It would just require some planning and monitoring.
Actually, this isn't as far fetched as you think it is. This line of thinking is exactly what drove the development of Internet2 and there is NOTHING stopping a bunch of creative technical people from getting together and developing it all from the ground up.
Tux
One of the things I think people need to understand is that just because something is illegal doesn't always mean it's wrong. Less than 75 years ago a racially mixed marriage was illegal in many parts of the United States but that didn't make it wrong. The "law abiding citizens" said that doing such a thing was "morally reprehensible" and that people who mixed races should be sternely punished for the "preservation of the race". Fast forward 75 years and place the word "network" in place of race and you basically have the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are many many legal questions associated with the blind security auditing of a company without their permission. But I think Mr. Lamo has proven by his prior actions what his intentions in this instance were. For the federal government to criminalize his actions is simply wrong. Obviously, the NYT had some security holes. And while we don't know how long the holes had been there we can probably safely assume that they weren't on the crux of hiring an independent auditing firm to come in and audit their systems. So the NYT was endangering their "super duper top secret" information already. Mr. Lamo actually HELPED them in protecting that information. I guess I fail to see why that is prosecutable. I'd like to think any right thinking judge would feel the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. And yet another example of a raving radical looney who believes that taking away choice is the only way to protect freedom to choose. Sheesh...
For example, on the GNU-Darwin site, the developer mentions taking the distro offline as a protest to the war. What purpose did this really server? Do you really think that the leaders of the coalition had any high-level meetings where they said "You know, I really thought this war was a good idea. But the blackout on the GNU-Darwin software site has really made me think twice"? Of course not. What it DID do however was pressure some of the distro's users to get pissed off and write their MP or Congressman and oppose the war because they wanted their distro back damnit! And that was the intention: to force their USERS into taking a specific action.
Yep, there's that freedom they rant about huh? Software blackouts don't mean a thing and the developers/sites that use them should be ashamed of themselves for trying to extort their users in such a way.
Since when does being defined as a geek mean that you hold any stance at all or war?
If you are a developer and you believe that code can be perfect or that it even NEEDS to be in order for users to be protected then I would suggest that you've never worked on any projects of any size. If you are a developer who claims to write perfect code then I invite you to send me your resume.
The truth of the matter, and anyone who has done professional software development knows this, is that it is impossible to write perfect code. Yes, even under our beloved Linux. Indeed, EVEN our beloved Linux. The challenge is to implement within that imperfect code solid security procedures that deal with, and protects the end user from that code.
Really folks, I hate Gates as much as the next guy, but he isn't wrong in EVERY single thing he says. Sheesh.
Yeah, after all, we can see how well those super-duper, secret decoder ring needed, anti-piracy technologies have served companies like DirectTV et al. What makes these folks think they'll do any better? Oh, I forgot, the government's involved. That'll solve it.
Ahh, and there lies one of the big problems in Linux that I've been complaining about for years: the attitude of most Linux software developers towards end users. I can't count the number of developers (including major Linux folk) who I've heard say "I'd rather it not be too easy to use Linux as it keeps the riff-raff out." This is one of the things that is contributing to Linux's slow acceptance in the NON-tech marketplace.
By contrast, Microsoft - as horrid as they are - focuses on making EVERYTHING in Windows easy and simple. Including patches. There is really no compelling reason why Linux patching couldn't be as simple and straightforward as Windows (even kernel patches). Why should someone have to understand some principals of software development just to keep their system patched?
Microsoft might have horrible security and all but they certainly have their upgrade and patch systems down. Of course, they need it a lot more too.
In fact, wasn't this one of the reasons the BSD license was created? To address the issue of code ownership in a community project?
Ahh, so now protecting children has become one of those things that only conservatives are interested in huh? Good to know. *Proud to be a conservative*
Why does the Supreme Court waste its time with such stupid stuff? What's more important than porn sites not being accessible to children (most of which you have to go LOOKING for) is putting a stop to the vulgar emails containing pictures of girls with animals and other farms of stupidity and the sites that hijack legitimate website addresses (yes, I know that's been dealt with already) to send the user of a mistyped URI to a porn site. While I don't agree with porn I think THOSE are the more pressing issues that this ineffective and posturing court needs to address.
Cell companies should be afraid of losing their current customers if portable numbers are introduced. But that has more to do with their crappy customer service, outragous prices, and unreliable services than it does with number portability. Providers have used the fact that you can't take your number with you to lock customers into substandard service because it's a pain to have to switch numbers. Now, they'll actually have to work to keep customers instead of extorting loyalty out of them.
Ummm, just *why* would the Internet be "screwed" if people went back to dialup? It functioned quite nicely when most people had dialup. Looks like broadband is contributing more to the demise of the net than dialup ever did. Last I checked I don't see very many spammers stalking dialup users to exploit their machines for spamming. Sure, it happens, but they aren't the main targets.
Well, it's not against the law per sae but it is against their contractual obligations to ICANN. And, according to Verisigns response to ICANN's initial request, there *are* other registrars who do this. Of course, they didn't specify which ones and I've never seen one but they're supposedly out there.
Kinda makes you wanna hold hands and sing "This land is my Land" huh?
I have to agree with the parent here. Unfortunately, the OP's experience seems to be more the norm than the exception. Many foreign programmers (not just Indian but Russian, Chinese, etc) are all about banging out code. They don't strive for quality and they find it very hard to "think out of the box".
Next? I thought this had been done when AOL was trying to get a patent for IM...
Do you really believe that the news sites on the web have no political bias? In most cases they don't even write their own news -- they simply grab it from a newsfeed. And those "real-time" sites are even worse. Look at the FUD on places like Slashdot. Don't be so naive. It's not any better just because it's on the web.
Or even more important issues like outsourcing and the general crash of the tech industry.
What you say is very true. While I love Linux and Open Source and don't particularly care for Bill Gates or Microsoft (although I do believe he's an incredibly intelligent man and a VERY savvy businessperson) I am hesitant to demonize him like others here do. Mr. Gates and his company have contributed BILLIONS of dollars to various charities around the world and the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation is changing lives every day through their donations of money to charities. Regardless of their business practices, they are doing their part to help humanity. On the flip side, I can find very few (if any) instances where an Open Source company has done anything even near what the Gates Foundation has done. And it's not because they can't. Companies like RedHat have the resources to contribute to social causes (maybe not as much as MS but at least some). I think people need to learn that, in the end, it's not just about great software but about the social legacy you leave as well. Maybe it's time the OSS movement caught on to that.
This brings up an interesting question and a challenge to the OSS community: Why NOT create an open source service that would mimic DRM but allow anything to run?
Yes, Linus said that he saw nothing wrong with DRM and that he didn't think that implementing DRM within Linux would violate the GPL. But I really doubt the DRM will become mainstream in Linux anytime soon (though I have heard that RH is considering implementing it by default and Debian is doing it in a new release).
I see a lot of post here saying that this is just another reason to move away from Microsoft software to Linux or some other more open alternative. But moving away from their software isn't the only thing we should be doing. IMHO, each and every person or company that migrates away from MS needs to send a non-antagonistic, non-accusatory letter to both Chairman Bill, Steve Ballmer, and each member of the MS Board of Directors stating exactly WHY you switched. We assume that Microsoft knows why we switch but, the truth is, that they simply can't justify it to either themselves or their board when there are thousands of letters coming in.
I worked as IT manager for a small credit union for about a year. During that time I got a chance to see the customer side, the bank side, and the matianance side of our ATM's. I also had a lot of "geek to geek" conversations with our helpful ATM company tech (I'm not naming the company) and he was pretty open about their stuff. Basically, they were unmodded 486 PC's running OS/2 with 32 megs of memory, internal floppy (which they left the master floppy in all the time) and CD drives, and an internal reciept printer, with a comm link to our network and a phone connection back to the company so they could do remote servicing if our network wasn't accessible (otherwise they would come in over our network via a dedicated line and box). These machines had almost zero security and I could name at least 12 ways to get around what little they had. And these were newer ATM's (about 6 months old). Pretty scary when you think about what adding Windows to this mix will do...
The only reason the current net is as unchecked as it is is because the original developers (DARPA) never envisioned it becoming what it is and didn't integrate checks and balances into it. Developing a "secondary internet" that would be less or non commercialized wouldn't be difficult. It would just require some planning and monitoring.
Actually, this isn't as far fetched as you think it is. This line of thinking is exactly what drove the development of Internet2 and there is NOTHING stopping a bunch of creative technical people from getting together and developing it all from the ground up. Tux
One of the things I think people need to understand is that just because something is illegal doesn't always mean it's wrong. Less than 75 years ago a racially mixed marriage was illegal in many parts of the United States but that didn't make it wrong. The "law abiding citizens" said that doing such a thing was "morally reprehensible" and that people who mixed races should be sternely punished for the "preservation of the race". Fast forward 75 years and place the word "network" in place of race and you basically have the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think there are many many legal questions associated with the blind security auditing of a company without their permission. But I think Mr. Lamo has proven by his prior actions what his intentions in this instance were. For the federal government to criminalize his actions is simply wrong. Obviously, the NYT had some security holes. And while we don't know how long the holes had been there we can probably safely assume that they weren't on the crux of hiring an independent auditing firm to come in and audit their systems. So the NYT was endangering their "super duper top secret" information already. Mr. Lamo actually HELPED them in protecting that information. I guess I fail to see why that is prosecutable. I'd like to think any right thinking judge would feel the same way.
Tux