>If there's a problem with that fix, another one will be along very quickly.
Rather unfortunate for the victims of the bad patch though...
>It depends what you find preferable... leave your system open with a known vulnerability, or fix the known vulnerability with the possibility of opening a new one that no one knows about just yet.
I would say that it's more a matter of evaluating the situation rather than mere preference. On a mission critical system, the former is often preferable (with appropriate measures taken to prevent the exploit from being used) rather than risking loss of data or instability from an untested patch, however remote that might be.
>That said, it does seem to be true that a Linux patch will appear a lot more quickly than an MS patch, and that seems to be a result of the fact that it's open source.
Really? I thought it was because most open source patches don't go through much of a QA process. (A *real* QA process, involving weeks of regression test passes and shedloads of machines.)
Yeah, sure, it's just a one line fix, there couldn't possibly be any problems...
Anecdotes I've seen also indicate that they're the highest quality CD-Rs available and of the three dyes used on CD-Rs, their pthalocyanine dye is claimed to have the longest life. Anybody use Mitsui's gold CD-Rs and have problems?
No, the thing holding back more widespread adoption of open source is that nearly no one currently would want it shipped already-installed on new computers.
Make it good enough that ordinary users demand it, and adoption will come automatically.
"...or allowed critics to claim the superiority of some other system that supposedly doesn't need patches."
He's right though. Just because certain closed source vendors aren't doing so well with bugs, doesn't mean that the open source movement can sit back and laugh at them. There needs to be as much participation as possible to maintain OSS's reputation for quality.
Windows is not open source, nor (and here's the biggie) is its architecture nicely laid out with evolution of it easily available.
Um, what? The "Inside Windows *" series that discuss the architecture of the various Windows versions have existed since Win95. For example, here's the one for Win2k.
You do realize that there are closed-source applications provided by individuals without corporate backing out there, don't you?
But of course. However, by attempting to sell their closed source software, even without a team of lawyers, they are implicitly providing an "implied warranty of merchantability". That's enough to satisfy the lawyers of the buyer.
An open source program where the author says "Use at your own risk" and there is no vendor to assume the liability of such a warranty will make said lawyers recommend against its use. (The same can be said of closed source programs that say "Use at your own risk", but there are many open source programs that are extremely popular that say this.)
You do realize that there are open source applications provided by individuals without "800lb gorillas for lawyers", don't you?
(For the benefit of less-informed moderators, Japanese (and some other Asian languages, but it's worst for Japanese, IMO) don't use spaces between words, making it hellaciously difficult to read for West^H^H^H^H this Westerner at least.)
The answer is the same for, "what of software that no vendor chooses to adopt".../I>
Uh, I have no idea what your point was. For non-open source software, there is no vendor; the corporation that authored it is intrinsically responsible/liable to ensure that it has the right to sell its software. For open source software, the author may not have the desire or funds to legally confirm that his/her software complies with the licensing agreements of its constituent parts; a vendor must step up to take that responsibility/liability. Again, what of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt? Such software might end up untouchable because no corporation would want to risk being sued for license violations.
He cites "confusion about the various open source licensing schemes", which again requires the simple answer: talk to your vendor. Your vendor is responsible for making sure they have the right to sell you the software you're using. If SCO or anyone else sues you (including authors of the software you are running) you point firmly and your vendor and say "I dunno, ask them." I recommend picking a vendor with 800lb low-primates for lawyers for this very reason.
That's rather a glib dismissal of the problem. What of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt?
Not because they cannot be made to run, but because their programmers are incompetent, and deliberately limits to one distribution.
Kid, if you ever work on and release any software intended for the general public of significant size (60+ man team, multi-MLOC) and can still say that without choking, then maybe I'll consider listening to your theories about who's incompetent with a straight face.
>>[open sourcing java] would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
>Wouldn't the same logic apply to Linux? If not, why not?
Think of all the closed source apps that are only supported on specific version of Red Hat Linux and not any other distribution.
That's not insightful; that's just letting your emotions override your common sense. Here's a few counter questions: Given control of the entire US budget, would you spend a trillion dollars to save one child's life? A billion? A paltry million? How do you explain to the X people deprived of care by that amount that this single person's life was worth more than their suffering?
Death happens, often to those who deserve it least. The smart answer is to accept that and focus on solutions that benefit everyone (e.g. research to prevent medical problems) instead of heroic efforts for individual cases that are ultimately wasted.
Darwin was all about survival of a species, not indivduals.
From a coldly logical perspective, the money used to help her could potentially have been spread out to help a lot more other indivduals who are just as deserving.
Let us compare the top spoken language statistics. Comparing the nearly 3 billion speakers of the top 11 languages to the 500k users of Icelandic, I'd have to say that's one of the weirdest, to put it politely, reason to slag "M$" ever. (Not that there aren't plenty of others.)
You consider strategically allocating funds for translations to languages that have the largest userbase to maximise their returns to be shameful? Remind me not to hire you as CEO.
Localization costs money and at some point a line has to be drawn. At least this move gives someone with the open source spirit to step in to fill the gap.
Are you seriously saying that it was mean or destructive for Ford to make cheaper cars? It worked out OK for him. Did you seriously expect him to stop, just because it might give some competitors some trouble?
Nothing of the sort. However, for the hypothetical car experts to rush out to Ford and help put themselves out of a job would be fantastically noble-minded of them, don't you think? That seems to be what Vasters is saying.
I am anxious to keep developing skills that are not commoditized.
As am I. However, implict in that is "...and if I'm not smart enough or otherwise unable to do so, tough luck, loser. Find another profession." That's the sort of unintended consequence I'm worried about.
In any case, it is futile to try to prevent things being commoditized. "There is no security, only opportunity."
<snip> I won't pretend capitalist destructive innovation is always for the best, but it is almost inevitable.
Agreed. I'm merely pointing out that few people seem to be really contemplating whether the consequences of an open source future will be as rosy as what RMS proclaims it will be and also asking them to give it some thought. Although it's not likely to be as bad as Clemens Vaster suggests, none of the replies I've seen proves what he's saying is impossible.
When that commoditization comes, will we be asking ourselves "What have we done?"
Slashdot Mirror
>If there's a problem with that fix, another one will be along very quickly.
Rather unfortunate for the victims of the bad patch though...
>It depends what you find preferable... leave your system open with a known vulnerability, or fix the known vulnerability with the possibility of opening a new one that no one knows about just yet.
I would say that it's more a matter of evaluating the situation rather than mere preference. On a mission critical system, the former is often preferable (with appropriate measures taken to prevent the exploit from being used) rather than risking loss of data or instability from an untested patch, however remote that might be.
>That said, it does seem to be true that a Linux patch will appear a lot more quickly than an MS patch, and that seems to be a result of the fact that it's open source.
Really? I thought it was because most open source patches don't go through much of a QA process. (A *real* QA process, involving weeks of regression test passes and shedloads of machines.)
Yeah, sure, it's just a one line fix, there couldn't possibly be any problems...
Anecdotes I've seen also indicate that they're the highest quality CD-Rs available and of the three dyes used on CD-Rs, their pthalocyanine dye is claimed to have the longest life. Anybody use Mitsui's gold CD-Rs and have problems?
You must be new here; welcome to Slashdot!
Having read all too many comments that border on the freakish or threatening, I'd say that open source seems to be a religion to a lot of people here.
No, the thing holding back more widespread adoption of open source is that nearly no one currently would want it shipped already-installed on new computers.
Make it good enough that ordinary users demand it, and adoption will come automatically.
I'm sorry, but no, you're wrong. It is totally possible to release code without serious bugs.
Sure it is, with proper planning, scheduling, and a skilled programming and QA team familiar with the problem domain.
While I'm in fantasy-land, I'd like a unicorn too.
Nice ding against Linux and open source:
"...or allowed critics to claim the superiority of some other system that supposedly doesn't need patches."
He's right though. Just because certain closed source vendors aren't doing so well with bugs, doesn't mean that the open source movement can sit back and laugh at them. There needs to be as much participation as possible to maintain OSS's reputation for quality.
Windows is not open source, nor (and here's the biggie) is its architecture nicely laid out with evolution of it easily available.
Um, what? The "Inside Windows *" series that discuss the architecture of the various Windows versions have existed since Win95. For example, here's the one for Win2k.
You do realize that there are closed-source applications provided by individuals without corporate backing out there, don't you?
But of course. However, by attempting to sell their closed source software, even without a team of lawyers, they are implicitly providing an "implied warranty of merchantability". That's enough to satisfy the lawyers of the buyer.
An open source program where the author says "Use at your own risk" and there is no vendor to assume the liability of such a warranty will make said lawyers recommend against its use. (The same can be said of closed source programs that say "Use at your own risk", but there are many open source programs that are extremely popular that say this.)
You do realize that there are open source applications provided by individuals without "800lb gorillas for lawyers", don't you?
htmlisoverrated.thereisnoneedforformatting
You're Japanese, aren't you?
(For the benefit of less-informed moderators, Japanese (and some other Asian languages, but it's worst for Japanese, IMO) don't use spaces between words, making it hellaciously difficult to read for West^H^H^H^H this Westerner at least.)
Yeah I was amazed that Zero Wing wasn't in that list. Then again maybe the story made perfect sense before it was translated.
Actually, it does make sense when the original Japanese is translated.
The answer is the same for, "what of software that no vendor chooses to adopt".../I>
Uh, I have no idea what your point was. For non-open source software, there is no vendor; the corporation that authored it is intrinsically responsible/liable to ensure that it has the right to sell its software. For open source software, the author may not have the desire or funds to legally confirm that his/her software complies with the licensing agreements of its constituent parts; a vendor must step up to take that responsibility/liability. Again, what of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt? Such software might end up untouchable because no corporation would want to risk being sued for license violations.
Interesting, the buy icon at the bottom has only a 5-licence pack for $200. The previous version is $29 for a single user licence.
(I must say the site isn't very professional. It lists DPMI/DPMS in two bullet points and multi-tasking in three.)
5) Licensing caveats
He cites "confusion about the various open source licensing schemes", which again requires the simple answer: talk to your vendor. Your vendor is responsible for making sure they have the right to sell you the software you're using. If SCO or anyone else sues you (including authors of the software you are running) you point firmly and your vendor and say "I dunno, ask them." I recommend picking a vendor with 800lb low-primates for lawyers for this very reason.
That's rather a glib dismissal of the problem. What of open source software that no vendor chooses to adopt?
Proving that closed source is the problem.
Not because they cannot be made to run, but because their programmers are incompetent, and deliberately limits to one distribution.
Kid, if you ever work on and release any software intended for the general public of significant size (60+ man team, multi-MLOC) and can still say that without choking, then maybe I'll consider listening to your theories about who's incompetent with a straight face.
>>[open sourcing java] would only make it worse - Opensource it and you will have serious issues with version control and compatibility.
>Wouldn't the same logic apply to Linux? If not, why not?
Think of all the closed source apps that are only supported on specific version of Red Hat Linux and not any other distribution.
Microsoft's very existence is dependent on copyright law: it is a creature of government regulation.
As does the GPL. What's your point?
That's not insightful; that's just letting your emotions override your common sense. Here's a few counter questions: Given control of the entire US budget, would you spend a trillion dollars to save one child's life? A billion? A paltry million? How do you explain to the X people deprived of care by that amount that this single person's life was worth more than their suffering?
Death happens, often to those who deserve it least. The smart answer is to accept that and focus on solutions that benefit everyone (e.g. research to prevent medical problems) instead of heroic efforts for individual cases that are ultimately wasted.
Darwin was all about survival of a species, not indivduals.
From a coldly logical perspective, the money used to help her could potentially have been spread out to help a lot more other indivduals who are just as deserving.
If we are governed by emotions instead of rational though about what is best for our society, would we be considered a sane society?
Heh. Ever notice that most of the big names in open source (and computer science for that matter) don't seem to particularly hate Microsoft?
That kind of stuff is reserved for tools who feel some need to prove that they "belong" to the open source community.
I think you're referring to this.
Let us compare the top spoken language statistics. Comparing the nearly 3 billion speakers of the top 11 languages to the 500k users of Icelandic, I'd have to say that's one of the weirdest, to put it politely, reason to slag "M$" ever. (Not that there aren't plenty of others.)
(Do you even speak Icelandic?)
You consider strategically allocating funds for translations to languages that have the largest userbase to maximise their returns to be shameful? Remind me not to hire you as CEO.
Localization costs money and at some point a line has to be drawn. At least this move gives someone with the open source spirit to step in to fill the gap.
I'd think that the answer is obvious: Rollins will be Linux-friendly if he thinks it will make Dell more money and he won't if he doesn't.
Nothing of the sort. However, for the hypothetical car experts to rush out to Ford and help put themselves out of a job would be fantastically noble-minded of them, don't you think? That seems to be what Vasters is saying.
I am anxious to keep developing skills that are not commoditized.
As am I. However, implict in that is "...and if I'm not smart enough or otherwise unable to do so, tough luck, loser. Find another profession." That's the sort of unintended consequence I'm worried about.
In any case, it is futile to try to prevent things being commoditized. "There is no security, only opportunity."
<snip>
I won't pretend capitalist destructive innovation is always for the best, but it is almost inevitable.
Agreed. I'm merely pointing out that few people seem to be really contemplating whether the consequences of an open source future will be as rosy as what RMS proclaims it will be and also asking them to give it some thought. Although it's not likely to be as bad as Clemens Vaster suggests, none of the replies I've seen proves what he's saying is impossible.
When that commoditization comes, will we be asking ourselves "What have we done?"