I, and the "totality" of the free software community am very disappointed with the standard of journalism displayed by Stephen Evans with his article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" posted on 05/02/04.
Forgetting the obvious failure to show a proper understanding of the difference between a computer virus and in the case of MyDoom, a worm, the opinions and conclusions drawn in regards to the free and open source software communities are unforgivably errorenous. The mere assertion that a movement which for the last 20 years has strived-to and has successfully improved the socio-political and philosophical implications of computer software within our society would resort to the immature mentality shown with the recent attacks on SCO and Microsoft is deceptive and highly ambiguous to say the least. It is the standard of journalism which displays little or no knowledge of the topic in question.
I wonder if Stephen Evans has even researched the eccentric claims put forth by SCO, and if so, why he overlooked the rational and indisputable responses from those who lead our movement.
However implausible and at times humorous the claims from SCO may be, I have never met a single credible user or developer that is prepared to defend the actions taken by the author of the MyDoom worm. It's preposterous and embarrassing to publish that association -- especially on a site dependant on the software created by the so-called "Internet zealots" (see http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=ne ws.bbc.co.uk).
In conclusion, I would appreciate it if my comments were passed onto Stephan, along with the following collection of URLs written by and in defense of the free software community, and the Linux kernel. I would hope that in the future, those who write articles commenting on legal battles within the free and open source communities will consider the use of objective, rather than unfounded subjective arguments.
Ah, thanks.
It's a little vein to be referred to as Dr. with an honorary doctorate, don't you think? I guess that's why he doesn't. I wonder why the journalist chose too?
DRMS... hmm.
Since when has Stallman been a PhD? If he is, I must have never noticed. I was under the impression he had a BA in Physics.
Also, you'd think in an article about RMS, they'd get it right, and refer to Free Software, rather than open source.
KDE does have a political policy; that is, to create a desktop environment for UNIX platforms which shall remain free software not open source and therefore provide the end-user will a constitution of freedom.
That seems pretty political to me.
Your view is amplified in society, "cut the politics, if i'm happy and it works, it's ok". That my friend, is called ignorance, and will loose you _everything_.
It makes me really sad to wake up in the morning and read about another defiant CEO in the face of a GPL violation. It shows ignorance to your own product when you fail to reconise quite blatent similaraties in your own firmware. I don't think I'll be buying KISS anytime soon...
What I would like to know is if there is _any_ connection -- perhaps through donatations, or investment between SCO or Microsoft and KISS. That wouldn't surprise me.
If they fancy challenging this in court, then I'll donate to MPlayer and I hope you all do the same too.
As the GPL grows in popularity, this will happen, it's invertable. It's the same _capitalist_ exploitation that the western world has shown towards our eastern and developing counterparts. That is; "if we can get it cheaper, do it, and we'll sort out the moral stuff later.".
Let us not forget it was the American government who put him in power -- they orginally trained him as an asassin to overthrow the current leader, but he missed the shot and the US Army helped him out the country. Oh, an Osama. Don't forget who he used to work for (CIA...). What about the current dictators the US supports? Ubsbekistan ring a bell? I sometimes wonder if you Americans read, listen or watch any kind of history as you grow up. I advise try it.
Oh, and this total BS about "freedom" X: "freedom" fries, "freedom" tower, STFU! Who gave you the Statue of Liberty!?! Which countrys' leader was the first to visit New York after 9/11 to offer his support. Which one (of many) languages does your native-language (that is, American-English) decend from? ARGHH! FRANCE, FRANCE, FRANCE!!
To me it's perfectly obvious your president, Al Gore is ignored. That imposter however, Bush, mentions freedom so often purely so the American people are brainwashed into believing they have it - it's a simple propoganda technique, just as the North Koreans practise on their people in order to make them think that the rest of the world is in the same [desperate] state as them.
When you have freedom, you don't have to tell people twenty times a day -- you _just_ know.
A real patriotic American would be ashamed of the current unpresident. America stands for freedom, for civil liberties and for unity -- all that is being taken away from you and you don't even realise. It troubles me, it really does.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (1759-1806)
I think it's safe to say that this is the closest a commerical company will come to Debians' social contract. It's fine by me -- they seem committed to our community, understand that they dependant on the karma of the community and subsequently release all of their source until the GPL, thus promoting the use of free software and allowing the community as a whole to evolve.
However, I would have liked to see a company so committed to the community, the GPL, and the movement in general to get it right with it's terminology and realise the importantance of upholding "free software" (as in freedom) over Open Source. We must strive to keep the spotlight on freedom -- we gave Mandrake the freedom to sell our work -- I'd like to see them ensure that freedom remains.
What strikes me as very unconvincing about McBride is the following:
Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software.
Is he so nieve to think that all commerical software is proprietary? And why must proprietary mean secure? By nature if the software is closed then it's only obsure, not secure. The history of the desktop computer teaches us that.
That in itself shows a certain lack-of understanding for the software model he is attacking.
hacker:
If you had taken the time to read an essay by RMS himself or the general philosophy of free software, you'd know the very slight differences between the two movements - a difference which is made ever more important with software designed to protect freedom of speech by use of cryptography. I beg you to take the time to read the essay linked in mine and Stradenko's comments.
The argument with cryptography extends further than just: "is free software more secure than proprietry software?". I'm going to use an example from "Applied Cryptography" (Bruce Schneier):
If I built a safe and kept the blueprints top-secret I can quite easily tell people that it is secure. However, that security relies on trust. You are trusting me that the blueprints I'm keeping secret are infact secure because I say so. I argue that isn't secure, it's obsecure. If on the other hand I were to build a safe, publish the blueprints to the most talented safe-builders in the world and then they say it is secure, then by most standards that really is secure.
It's exactly the same with cryptographic implementations, and free software in general.
Security by obsecurity isn't security at all.
PS: GnuPG is free software, not open source software.
I was actually talking to an employee of SUN at a recent GNU/Linux Expo, and discussing the changes in StarOffice 6.0 - as I understand it they have created an entire department (about 1000 workers or so) who's ONLY job is to work on the MS import filters. Aparently, in StarOffice 6.0 it's near perfect. However, the changes NEED to find their way back to OOo under the GPL.
The other issue of cost isn't really an issue. SUN seem to be a believer in free beer as well as free speech, and rely on generating revenue other ways. The only reason for charging for StarOffice, as I was told, was because the management of companies refused to use software that cost no money as if it all went wrong, nobody was accountable. Sun therefore offer the complete suite to companies and individuals at crazy prices like $5, or $1, just so there is a price and it's not free (as in free beer). This is, of course, on top of giving it away for to educational institutions for no cost.
My question was, and always will be why they have opted to continue a proprietry fork of OOo, and sell it to business when they could just dedicate their employees to work on the GPL version and sell the support of OOo to companies. I'm troubled to understand why they haven't done that.
Re:Looks too much like XP
on
Aethera 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Well, that has never been the goal of Open Source software. Open Source never implies any freedom, that is the Free Software movement. They're two very seperate camps of a smiliar movements fighting against a common enemy - proprietary software.
If you are going to do a socialized medicare system, the better way to do it rather pay for everybody's healthcare is to evaluate every citizen's income and give it only to those whose income couldn't buy private insurance. Many in the lower class could afford insurance, if they stopped buying luxury items like controlled substances, IP, cable tv and internet access. It's a matter of priority.
The problem I have with this is that the line between what is considered a priority and what should be considered a basic human right is somewhat blurred. For instance, if you have a situation where the less wealthy in society are paying for health access INSTEAD of paying for access to the Internet, buying books etc. you end up with the cirucular, detrimental situation that the wealthy become the more educated and the oppurtunities available to lower-middle class disappear. I personally believe that the immeadiate (in ones home) access to books, and the Internet should be provided by the state and shouldn't be a matter of personal finance so to sustain equal educational oppurtunities.
Protect the social programs. How about you stop competing with private charities?
I also strongly believe that when there is a need for a private charity it strongly signifies a failiure of the state to provide for all it's citizens and subsequently acts yet another tax on the poor to support themselves, rather than the more fortunate supporting them.
Excusing European kids of people the less intellegent compared with the "average" American counterpart is somewhat rich, especially when you're basing it on what? The light relief that some enjoy watching (just watching, no aspiring) young rich-kid American subcultures?
And, incase you failed to realise, we do infact have our own movie industry which creates far more films based on fact (rather than rictional breasts and guns) which are not only a success in Europe but occasionaly make headway in the US (in cases when the humor is not too complicated). For an example, U571, it was the Americans who recovered the Enigma machine? Of course it was!....... I wonder how many Americans take that as a history lesson.
Slashdot Mirror
I, and the "totality" of the free software community am very disappointed with
e ws.bbc .co.uk).
...
. fsf.org/press/2004-01-14-record-straigh t.html- fizzle.h tml
the standard of journalism displayed by Stephen Evans with his article "Linux
cyber-battle turns nasty" posted on 05/02/04.
Forgetting the obvious failure to show a proper understanding of the difference
between a computer virus and in the case of MyDoom, a worm, the opinions and
conclusions drawn in regards to the free and open source software communities
are unforgivably errorenous. The mere assertion that a movement which for the
last 20 years has strived-to and has successfully improved the socio-political and
philosophical implications of computer software within our society would resort
to the immature mentality shown with the recent attacks on SCO and Microsoft is
deceptive and highly ambiguous to say the least. It is the standard of
journalism which displays little or no knowledge of the topic in question.
I wonder if Stephen Evans has even researched the eccentric claims put forth by
SCO, and if so, why he overlooked the rational and indisputable responses from
those who lead our movement.
However implausible and at times humorous the claims from SCO may be, I have
never met a single credible user or developer that is prepared to defend the
actions taken by the author of the MyDoom worm. It's preposterous and
embarrassing to publish that association -- especially on a site dependant on
the software created by the so-called "Internet zealots" (see
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=n
In conclusion, I would appreciate it if my comments were passed onto Stephan,
along with the following collection of URLs written by and in defense of
the free software community, and the Linux kernel. I would hope that in the
future, those who write articles commenting on legal battles within the free
and open source communities will consider the use of objective, rather than
unfounded subjective arguments.
Regards,
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/DOS/
http://www
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/smoking
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1879
Ah, thanks. It's a little vein to be referred to as Dr. with an honorary doctorate, don't you think? I guess that's why he doesn't. I wonder why the journalist chose too? DRMS... hmm.
Since when has Stallman been a PhD? If he is, I must have never noticed. I was under the impression he had a BA in Physics. Also, you'd think in an article about RMS, they'd get it right, and refer to Free Software, rather than open source.
KDE does have a political policy; that is, to create a desktop environment for UNIX platforms which shall remain free software not open source and therefore provide the end-user will a constitution of freedom.
That seems pretty political to me.
Your view is amplified in society, "cut the politics, if i'm happy and it works, it's ok". That my friend, is called ignorance, and will loose you _everything_.
It makes me really sad to wake up in the morning and read about another defiant CEO in the face of a GPL violation. It shows ignorance to your own product when you fail to reconise quite blatent similaraties in your own firmware. I don't think I'll be buying KISS anytime soon...
What I would like to know is if there is _any_ connection -- perhaps through donatations, or investment between SCO or Microsoft and KISS. That wouldn't surprise me.
If they fancy challenging this in court, then I'll donate to MPlayer and I hope you all do the same too.
As the GPL grows in popularity, this will happen, it's invertable. It's the same _capitalist_ exploitation that the western world has shown towards our eastern and developing counterparts. That is; "if we can get it cheaper, do it, and we'll sort out the moral stuff later.".
Right-on!
Let us not forget it was the American government who put him in power -- they orginally trained him as an asassin to overthrow the current leader, but he missed the shot and the US Army helped him out the country. Oh, an Osama. Don't forget who he used to work for (CIA...). What about the current dictators the US supports? Ubsbekistan ring a bell? I sometimes wonder if you Americans read, listen or watch any kind of history as you grow up. I advise try it.
Oh, and this total BS about "freedom" X: "freedom" fries, "freedom" tower, STFU! Who gave you the Statue of Liberty!?! Which countrys' leader was the first to visit New York after 9/11 to offer his support. Which one (of many) languages does your native-language (that is, American-English) decend from? ARGHH! FRANCE, FRANCE, FRANCE!!
To me it's perfectly obvious your president, Al Gore is ignored. That imposter however, Bush, mentions freedom so often purely so the American people are brainwashed into believing they have it - it's a simple propoganda technique, just as the North Koreans practise on their people in order to make them think that the rest of the world is in the same [desperate] state as them.
When you have freedom, you don't have to tell people twenty times a day -- you _just_ know.
A real patriotic American would be ashamed of the current unpresident. America stands for freedom, for civil liberties and for unity -- all that is being taken away from you and you don't even realise. It troubles me, it really does.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (1759-1806)
I think it's safe to say that this is the closest a commerical company will come to Debians' social contract. It's fine by me -- they seem committed to our community, understand that they dependant on the karma of the community and subsequently release all of their source until the GPL, thus promoting the use of free software and allowing the community as a whole to evolve.
However, I would have liked to see a company so committed to the community, the GPL, and the movement in general to get it right with it's terminology and realise the importantance of upholding "free software" (as in freedom) over Open Source. We must strive to keep the spotlight on freedom -- we gave Mandrake the freedom to sell our work -- I'd like to see them ensure that freedom remains.
Perhaps an open letter from RMS is in order?
Chances are that those "GPL nuts" would squirm at event the thought of running a peice of proprietry software.
I apoligise.
What strikes me as very unconvincing about McBride is the following:
Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software.
Is he so nieve to think that all commerical software is proprietary? And why must proprietary mean secure? By nature if the software is closed then it's only obsure, not secure. The history of the desktop computer teaches us that. That in itself shows a certain lack-of understanding for the software model he is attacking.
Thank you, Strandenko (I will echo your link).
hacker:
If you had taken the time to read an essay by RMS himself or the general philosophy of free software, you'd know the very slight differences between the two movements - a difference which is made ever more important with software designed to protect freedom of speech by use of cryptography. I beg you to take the time to read the essay linked in mine and Stradenko's comments.
The argument with cryptography extends further than just: "is free software more secure than proprietry software?". I'm going to use an example from "Applied Cryptography" (Bruce Schneier):
If I built a safe and kept the blueprints top-secret I can quite easily tell people that it is secure. However, that security relies on trust. You are trusting me that the blueprints I'm keeping secret are infact secure because I say so. I argue that isn't secure, it's obsecure. If on the other hand I were to build a safe, publish the blueprints to the most talented safe-builders in the world and then they say it is secure, then by most standards that really is secure .
It's exactly the same with cryptographic implementations, and free software in general. Security by obsecurity isn't security at all.
PS: GnuPG is free software, not open source software.
I was actually talking to an employee of SUN at a recent GNU/Linux Expo, and discussing the changes in StarOffice 6.0 - as I understand it they have created an entire department (about 1000 workers or so) who's ONLY job is to work on the MS import filters. Aparently, in StarOffice 6.0 it's near perfect. However, the changes NEED to find their way back to OOo under the GPL. The other issue of cost isn't really an issue. SUN seem to be a believer in free beer as well as free speech, and rely on generating revenue other ways. The only reason for charging for StarOffice, as I was told, was because the management of companies refused to use software that cost no money as if it all went wrong, nobody was accountable. Sun therefore offer the complete suite to companies and individuals at crazy prices like $5, or $1, just so there is a price and it's not free (as in free beer). This is, of course, on top of giving it away for to educational institutions for no cost. My question was, and always will be why they have opted to continue a proprietry fork of OOo, and sell it to business when they could just dedicate their employees to work on the GPL version and sell the support of OOo to companies. I'm troubled to understand why they haven't done that.
Well, that has never been the goal of Open Source software. Open Source never implies any freedom, that is the Free Software movement. They're two very seperate camps of a smiliar movements fighting against a common enemy - proprietary software.
If you are going to do a socialized medicare system, the better way to do it rather pay for everybody's healthcare is to evaluate every citizen's income and give it only to those whose income couldn't buy private insurance. Many in the lower class could afford insurance, if they stopped buying luxury items like controlled substances, IP, cable tv and internet access. It's a matter of priority.
The problem I have with this is that the line between what is considered a priority and what should be considered a basic human right is somewhat blurred. For instance, if you have a situation where the less wealthy in society are paying for health access INSTEAD of paying for access to the Internet, buying books etc. you end up with the cirucular, detrimental situation that the wealthy become the more educated and the oppurtunities available to lower-middle class disappear. I personally believe that the immeadiate (in ones home) access to books, and the Internet should be provided by the state and shouldn't be a matter of personal finance so to sustain equal educational oppurtunities.
Protect the social programs. How about you stop competing with private charities?
I also strongly believe that when there is a need for a private charity it strongly signifies a failiure of the state to provide for all it's citizens and subsequently acts yet another tax on the poor to support themselves, rather than the more fortunate supporting them.
Excusing European kids of people the less intellegent compared with the "average" American counterpart is somewhat rich, especially when you're basing it on what? The light relief that some enjoy watching (just watching, no aspiring) young rich-kid American subcultures? And, incase you failed to realise, we do infact have our own movie industry which creates far more films based on fact (rather than rictional breasts and guns) which are not only a success in Europe but occasionaly make headway in the US (in cases when the humor is not too complicated). For an example, U571, it was the Americans who recovered the Enigma machine? Of course it was!....... I wonder how many Americans take that as a history lesson.
No, wrong brother. That's Jeb, your future president. Must have been a leaked family photo...