That is the typical and only sense of the work hacker. The "breaking into computers" definition has been invented by the media, and has nothing to do with the hacker comunity.
In the past, there were lots of services that were public, in public spaces, and you had to interact with people in order to access them. With new developments, more things are changing to a more private/personal fashion. People just don't go to a phone boot, they use a cellphone. The same happends with Internet/Computer access, shopping, etc. People prefer to use the service from the privacy of their own homes. It seems that people hates people even more as time passes, and they try to interact with others as little as possible. Society has changes, and the market will have to adapt to this changes.
If you just decide not to use windows again, like i did back in 2000, and just not look behind, you can do it. I don't require windows for anything, I try not to use proprietary software, and when extremly needed, there is wine...
This is a GAME. The Internet is an online world, and if you commit crimes in this online world, you are punished (or should be, ie: Spamming, Phising, etc.) But MMORPG are GAMES in the online world, not the actual online world, So, it's a private game, the company behind it can just ban the players if they want to, but getting arrested is just plain wrong. The game allows the player to trade items and to kill another player to get their items. Many people later sells those items, so, what is wrong about this?, if he had used tons of boxes to create multiple instances of the game, ok, that would be a kind of DOS, but this is just part of the game. If someone doesn't like what he's doing, ban him, but being arrested is stupid. This guy has definetely got a case against the people that got him arrested for just playing, they are going way down....
The problem here is that both parts defend a suposedly ethical position, but nobody respects it's own position. People downloading music says "Copyright is wrong", and then procede to use copyrighted software, to download copyrighted music. The RIAA says "The author's rights must be defended", and then proceed to pay the 4% of the sales to the musicians. Here are a few points of view that, wether you agree with them or not, are correct:
For the public> I'm against copyright, and i don't use copyrighted material. I use Free Software, read Free Books, if i want to listen music, i listen to the radio. I try to not give money to the people that defends copyright, and only use copyrigthed material when there is no other choice, and in that case, i pay for it like i should. For the RIAA> We want to defend the musician's rights. You must pay for the music you buy. We give the musicians 75% of the sales, we take the rest to cover operative costs.
But both parts are talking about ethics, without any moral ground. The filesharers are against copyright, but most of them use copyrighted software. They are against the RIAA making money out of the authors efforts, but they, themselves, sell illegal CDs for a profit, or start torrent sites that have ads and paypal donation links. Many of them, when they get the chance to create something, whether music, software, a book, they copyright it (Isn't it ironic the fact that Kazaa and eDonkey are proprietary?).
If you are going to talk about ethics, first of all, you have got to set rules and respect them. When RMS decided to code GNU, he had to live his position, and to stop using many software he used. And until he could code / find Free replacements to most parts of Unix, he used Unix software, that was LEGAL.
That's 3.65m, when is the USA going to leave the the IX century and use the metric system?, it's specially strange that/. doesn't correct quotes to use the metric system, it's called 'editing', that's what editors are suposed to do.
Off course it's ok for your home, or for some small setups, but if you are, as i said in my post, a _real_ sysadmin, and you administrate a _real_ network, you need a real Unix, and currently, that means Slackware, OpenBSD or FreeBSD.
I agree that a sysadmin has to write it's own tools, I am a sysadmin for a Local telco, i administrate the gk and pbx (gnuGK and Asterisk running on slackware boxes), previously, i was the sysadmin of a hosting company for about 2 years, so i know what it is, and i tend to script _everything_, what bothers me is tools that are built into the distro, and that are part of the design, and so, aren't just easy to not-use. Mandrake has lots of those tools, and it ain't easy to get ride of them. Also, like i said in another post today, a sysadmin needs a Unix system. Currently Slackware and *BSD are the only distros that does it the Unix way, not only they don't come with tools to automate configuration, they also use the standard Unix file system hierarchy, and the standard location for packages, plus,/etc/* have been writed manually, for you to edit manually. Many distros, like deadrat or mandrake, are designed to be edited with tools, and you can see that easily, by looking at the way some config files are written.
Mandrake is a distro with tools that tries to do many tasks automatically, it's init scripts are a mess, and really a pain in the ass to modify manually, there are many parts of the system that can only be modified trough a GUI, since, if you modify them manually, when you reboot the system will ignore your changes and rewrite the file (based on it's own database), also, it's a distro designed so you have to use the provided packages, when you start compiling things on top of the distro, and replace existing parts with new versions not coming from madrake, problems start, since original parts weren't compiled with standard options, for instance, the kernel (that requires an initial ramdisk). It's way to complex and way to automated to be suitable for a server, maybe for your desktop, if you like it, you can put whatever you want on your desktop, but for a server you need something simple, you have to know exactly all the parts of your system, you have to be able to compile certain critical parts from sources easily, you have to make sure that the only one in control is the sysadmin, and not some deamon in the bg that likes to rewrite/etc/* daily. The rules to decide which system is good for the task are easy
1 - must be free as in speech. 2 - must be free as in speech. 3 - must be free as in speech. 4 - if it's a server, Slackware or *BSD.
Really, it's nice to have some things automagically done, but in the long run, that creates security troubles, and makes automatization created by you hard to implement. A sysadmin needs scripting badly, and mandrake is really not suitable for that kind of thing... Actually, this is against ALL GNU/Linux distributions, they all have the same problem, they try to automate, and they alter the standard Unix structure. BSDs do the right thing. There are certain GNU/Linux distros that acts like BSDs, for example, Slackware (And I have used it for over 8 years both at home and in servers, 0 troubles)
A real server needs a real sysadmin, and a real sysadmin doesn't want fancy tools that automate tasks. More automatization means less control for the sysadmin, and less control for the sysadmin means more problems. That's the problem with windows, and that's the problem with mandrake.
BTW: Linux is Linux is Linux is Just the kernel, please use the word GNU instead.
You say that you won't use a windows machine for a webserver, i can see why and i agree. But you break your own argument when you say that you use a mandrake GNU/Linux box as a webserver, that is, if you talk about ethical issues, a mandrake box is ok, but technically, it has most of the major flaws in windows. For a webserver, i would definately run a GNU box, but not one that tries to emulate windows, and in the process gains all it's issues.
Be an ethical human being, and release the source code for your app under a suitable license. Lot's of people will be more than happy to port it to GNU/Linux and *BSD for free. The problem is that you are looking to benefit from GNU (Using it's libs, and selling to it's userbase), without giving your sources. That's unfair and unethical.
Hey McCarthy, nice hearing from you again. I Think this sentences that you have just wrotten define what you are, and why i won't reply to you again:
- "ideology and other things that are irrelevant" If you think ideology is not important to you, are you sure you are a human being?
- "people who are pragmatic (like me)" I Didn't wanted to insult you, but you just insulted yourself.
The GNU Project defends FREEDOM. The OSS movement, and it's main development, this kernel, Linux, doesn't really care about freedom, they are happy to introduce proprietary software into the system, they just want it to be popular and technically good. In fact, when Torvalds started working on Linux, he didn't wanted to make it Free Software, he was forced to put it under the GNU GPL since most developers helping him, (and without those developers this kernel woudln't exist today), where people participating in the GNU Project. If you read some of the release notes and posts from Torvalds for the first alpha kernels, you can see that he says specifically that the system is "mostly GNU". Here is how the GNU System works, and you can see this by reading the funding papers of our movement. The FSF created a basic system, that included both proprietary Unix software and free replacements for many software in that system, that was the GNU system. Developers arround the world were welcome to take the parts in the system that were still proprietary, and write free replacements for them, making the GNU OS bigger and bigger, until one they it would be completely free of any proprietary piece of software. The FSF provided the GPL to help this hackers protect their work. Many people wrote free replacementes for unix software, some of them, pretty important ones, like, for example, the glibc, gcc, gdb, emacs, gnome, plus most of the more important unix utilitys needed to put the system together, for example, a shell, grep, sed, tar, gzip, etc,etc. One of the persons writting free replacemetns to existing pieces of software was Torvalds, he choosed to write a kernel. Now again, why should the system be called by the name of his replacement, if no of the other developers asked such a thing?, he knew he was writing a part of GNU, and he knew how things worked.
Many people understands this situation (Debian, for example), many others just don't care.
As i told you, this is not a matter of recognition, i really don't care about that, and neither does RMS, it's about what GNU means and what Linux means. GNU means Freedom for all the users of the Software. Linux means cheap software that is good enough to be used in your company. I Think that the goal of all the effort made for so many developers for 20 years weren't to provide companys with cheap alternatives to their systems, it was Freedom, and the world Linux doesn't reflect that. I'm looking to have an interesting conversation about this issue, i'm not a zealot, i just have my ideas, you have yours, and i respect them, please respect my ideas and try to be able to reply to me in respectfull terms, trying to express your ideas, and showing me in what do you think my reasoning fails, instead of just flaming me. I'm not interested in flamewars. Sincerely,
ALMAFUERTE.
Feel Free to answer me to almafuerte at gmail dot com.
For example, in the Lindows case, why don't you take the same actitude towards the name of our system, and call it GNU or GNU/Linux, which is it's correct name, instead of Linux, which is a disrispect of all the work the GNU comunity has done?, If i called your system "Kernel32.dll" instead of Windows, you would get mad at me. The same happends to me when you call my system Linux instead of GNU.
I Shoudln't reply to trolls, but here it goes anyway, please try to READ what i way, it seems you are replying to a different post. You are telling me ALSA is not portable, first, that's not true, many drivers from alsa has been ported, second, i said that BESIDES alsa, xmms can use MANY other output systems, that they are plugins to XMMS, alsa is just one more plugin, it supports others that HAS BEEN ported, and you can write a new plugin to use the windows sound api. FYI I have written code under GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, IBM-DOS, OS/2... Linus just written the kernel, most of the other important parts of the system are GNU (the compiler, the C Library, the shell, and 90% of Unix cli tools are far more important than just the kernel). Linus worked half-time on the kernel for about 3 years, and then the GNU comunity written most of what this kernel is today, RMS coded full-time for more than 15 years, and payed other cothers to code fulltime for the GNU OS and he could write the kernel because of the existance of a big comunity of hackers that helped him, that comunity was the product of years of rms's work.
Really, i don't know what are you talking about. 1 - Proprietary means the source for the software is not freely available, and that the use, distribution, study and modification of the software is restricted by it's author. Portability doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. 2 - Who says XMMS is not portable?, all the librarys that XMMS uses are FREE, and are portable, including it's widget, GTK. it's not tied down to the GNU/Linux sound system, since it supports arts, oss, alsa, etc. via different plugins. Both Input and output are plugins, shared librarys XMMS uses, so, you can just download the code of XMMS and port it, most of the librarys it uses are allready ported. Noone has ported XMMS to windows since windows is a proprietary plataform, and the puropose of xmms is to provide a free alternative to winamp, what good would it make to replace winamp if you are still using a proprietary plataform?.
Instead of complaining, port it, you are free to do so.
TV Channels, who cares about TV anyway besides the illiterate masses?
Mapquest?, there is google maps. AOL, the worst ISP ever? nullsoft, a proprietary solution, when you have got XMMS? Netscape, when it's based on Mozilla?...
hehe, pretty interesting story, it's funny how some people reacts when you tell them such obvious things as "I Have the right to learn", things that they can't just deny, and so, in a moment, all their stupid capitalism, their stupid restrictive laws, are worth nothing...
Slashdot Mirror
That is the typical and only sense of the work hacker. The "breaking into computers" definition has been invented by the media, and has nothing to do with the hacker comunity.
In the past, there were lots of services that were public, in public spaces, and you had to interact with people in order to access them. With new developments, more things are changing to a more private/personal fashion. People just don't go to a phone boot, they use a cellphone. The same happends with Internet/Computer access, shopping, etc. People prefer to use the service from the privacy of their own homes. It seems that people hates people even more as time passes, and they try to interact with others as little as possible. Society has changes, and the market will have to adapt to this changes.
Just another reason to call the system by it's proper name, GNU.
If you just decide not to use windows again, like i did back in 2000, and just not look behind, you can do it. I don't require windows for anything, I try not to use proprietary software, and when extremly needed, there is wine ...
This is a GAME. The Internet is an online world, and if you commit crimes in this online world, you are punished (or should be, ie: Spamming, Phising, etc.) ....
But MMORPG are GAMES in the online world, not the actual online world, So, it's a private game, the company behind it can just ban the players if they want to, but getting arrested is just plain wrong. The game allows the player to trade items and to kill another player to get their items. Many people later sells those items, so, what is wrong about this?, if he had used tons of boxes to create multiple instances of the game, ok, that would be a kind of DOS, but this is just part of the game. If someone doesn't like what he's doing, ban him, but being arrested is stupid. This guy has definetely got a case against the people that got him arrested for just playing, they are going way down
The problem here is that both parts defend a suposedly ethical position, but nobody respects it's own position. People downloading music says "Copyright is wrong", and then procede to use copyrighted software, to download copyrighted music.
The RIAA says "The author's rights must be defended", and then proceed to pay the 4% of the sales to the musicians. Here are a few points of view that, wether you agree with them or not, are correct:
For the public> I'm against copyright, and i don't use copyrighted material. I use Free Software, read Free Books, if i want to listen music, i listen to the radio. I try to not give money to the people that defends copyright, and only use copyrigthed material when there is no other choice, and in that case, i pay for it like i should.
For the RIAA> We want to defend the musician's rights. You must pay for the music you buy. We give the musicians 75% of the sales, we take the rest to cover operative costs.
But both parts are talking about ethics, without any moral ground. The filesharers are against copyright, but most of them use copyrighted software. They are against the RIAA making money out of the authors efforts, but they, themselves, sell illegal CDs for a profit, or start torrent sites that have ads and paypal donation links. Many of them, when they get the chance to create something, whether music, software, a book, they copyright it (Isn't it ironic the fact that Kazaa and eDonkey are proprietary?).
If you are going to talk about ethics, first of all, you have got to set rules and respect them. When RMS decided to code GNU, he had to live his position, and to stop using many software he used. And until he could code / find Free replacements to most parts of Unix, he used Unix software, that was LEGAL.
I have a better way>
/dev/hda /dev/hda1 && mount /dev/hda1 /mnt /dev/hda2 && swapon /dev/hda2 /cdrom && mount /dev/cdrom /cdrom /mnt /cdrom/slackware/*/*.tgz
/dev/cdrom /cdrom /cdrom/slackware
% fdisk
% mke2fs
% mkswap
% mkdir
% installpkg -root
% liloconfig
% reboot
And it'll work forever.
Twice a year, you download the new version and do something like>
% mount
% cd
% upgradepkg --install-new */*.tgz
Now, tell me again how is windows easier than GNU?
That's 3.65m, when is the USA going to leave the the IX century and use the metric system?, it's specially strange that /. doesn't correct quotes to use the metric system, it's called 'editing', that's what editors are suposed to do.
Off course it's ok for your home, or for some small setups, but if you are, as i said in my post, a _real_ sysadmin, and you administrate a _real_ network, you need a real Unix, and currently, that means Slackware, OpenBSD or FreeBSD.
Your armed forces?, you mean those that get paid to go shot kids in Irak?, Yes, really brave.
I agree that a sysadmin has to write it's own tools, I am a sysadmin for a Local telco, i administrate the gk and pbx (gnuGK and Asterisk running on slackware boxes), previously, i was the sysadmin of a hosting company for about 2 years, so i know what it is, and i tend to script _everything_, what bothers me is tools that are built into the distro, and that are part of the design, and so, aren't just easy to not-use. Mandrake has lots of those tools, and it ain't easy to get ride of them. Also, like i said in another post today, a sysadmin needs a Unix system. Currently Slackware and *BSD are the only distros that does it the Unix way, not only they don't come with tools to automate configuration, they also use the standard Unix file system hierarchy, and the standard location for packages, plus, /etc/* have been writed manually, for you to edit manually. Many distros, like deadrat or mandrake, are designed to be edited with tools, and you can see that easily, by looking at the way some config files are written.
Mandrake is a distro with tools that tries to do many tasks automatically, it's init scripts are a mess, and really a pain in the ass to modify manually, there are many parts of the system that can only be modified trough a GUI, since, if you modify them manually, when you reboot the system will ignore your changes and rewrite the file (based on it's own database), also, it's a distro designed so you have to use the provided packages, when you start compiling things on top of the distro, and replace existing parts with new versions not coming from madrake, problems start, since original parts weren't compiled with standard options, for instance, the kernel (that requires an initial ramdisk). It's way to complex and way to automated to be suitable for a server, maybe for your desktop, if you like it, you can put whatever you want on your desktop, but for a server you need something simple, you have to know exactly all the parts of your system, you have to be able to compile certain critical parts from sources easily, you have to make sure that the only one in control is the sysadmin, and not some deamon in the bg that likes to rewrite /etc/* daily.
...
The rules to decide which system is good for the task are easy
1 - must be free as in speech.
2 - must be free as in speech.
3 - must be free as in speech.
4 - if it's a server, Slackware or *BSD.
Really, it's nice to have some things automagically done, but in the long run, that creates security troubles, and makes automatization created by you hard to implement. A sysadmin needs scripting badly, and mandrake is really not suitable for that kind of thing
Actually, this is against ALL GNU/Linux distributions, they all have the same problem, they try to automate, and they alter the standard Unix structure. BSDs do the right thing. There are certain GNU/Linux distros that acts like BSDs, for example, Slackware (And I have used it for over 8 years both at home and in servers, 0 troubles)
A real server needs a real sysadmin, and a real sysadmin doesn't want fancy tools that automate tasks. More automatization means less control for the sysadmin, and less control for the sysadmin means more problems. That's the problem with windows, and that's the problem with mandrake.
BTW: Linux is Linux is Linux is Just the kernel, please use the word GNU instead.
I should be pissed, but your ignorance is just plain funny.
You say that you won't use a windows machine for a webserver, i can see why and i agree. But you break your own argument when you say that you use a mandrake GNU/Linux box as a webserver, that is, if you talk about ethical issues, a mandrake box is ok, but technically, it has most of the major flaws in windows. For a webserver, i would definately run a GNU box, but not one that tries to emulate windows, and in the process gains all it's issues.
hahaha, Sir, you definetaly made my day ....
But what's terrifying is that there are lots of people out there saying similar things, and they are _not_ joking.
Be an ethical human being, and release the source code for your app under a suitable license. Lot's of people will be more than happy to port it to GNU/Linux and *BSD for free. The problem is that you are looking to benefit from GNU (Using it's libs, and selling to it's userbase), without giving your sources. That's unfair and unethical.
Hey McCarthy, nice hearing from you again.
I Think this sentences that you have just wrotten define what you are, and why i won't reply to you again:
- "ideology and other things that are irrelevant" If you think ideology is not important to you, are you sure you are a human being?
- "people who are pragmatic (like me)" I Didn't wanted to insult you, but you just insulted yourself.
Have a nice life,
ALMAFUERTE
The GNU Project defends FREEDOM. The OSS movement, and it's main development, this kernel, Linux, doesn't really care about freedom, they are happy to introduce proprietary software into the system, they just want it to be popular and technically good. In fact, when Torvalds started working on Linux, he didn't wanted to make it Free Software, he was forced to put it under the GNU GPL since most developers helping him, (and without those developers this kernel woudln't exist today), where people participating in the GNU Project. If you read some of the release notes and posts from Torvalds for the first alpha kernels, you can see that he says specifically that the system is "mostly GNU".
Here is how the GNU System works, and you can see this by reading the funding papers of our movement. The FSF created a basic system, that included both proprietary Unix software and free replacements for many software in that system, that was the GNU system. Developers arround the world were welcome to take the parts in the system that were still proprietary, and write free replacements for them, making the GNU OS bigger and bigger, until one they it would be completely free of any proprietary piece of software. The FSF provided the GPL to help this hackers protect their work. Many people wrote free replacementes for unix software, some of them, pretty important ones, like, for example, the glibc, gcc, gdb, emacs, gnome, plus most of the more important unix utilitys needed to put the system together, for example, a shell, grep, sed, tar, gzip, etc,etc. One of the persons writting free replacemetns to existing pieces of software was Torvalds, he choosed to write a kernel.
Now again, why should the system be called by the name of his replacement, if no of the other developers asked such a thing?, he knew he was writing a part of GNU, and he knew how things worked.
Many people understands this situation (Debian, for example), many others just don't care.
As i told you, this is not a matter of recognition, i really don't care about that, and neither does RMS, it's about what GNU means and what Linux means. GNU means Freedom for all the users of the Software. Linux means cheap software that is good enough to be used in your company.
I Think that the goal of all the effort made for so many developers for 20 years weren't to provide companys with cheap alternatives to their systems, it was Freedom, and the world Linux doesn't reflect that.
I'm looking to have an interesting conversation about this issue, i'm not a zealot, i just have my ideas, you have yours, and i respect them, please respect my ideas and try to be able to reply to me in respectfull terms, trying to express your ideas, and showing me in what do you think my reasoning fails, instead of just flaming me. I'm not interested in flamewars.
Sincerely,
ALMAFUERTE.
Feel Free to answer me to almafuerte at gmail dot com.
For example, in the Lindows case, why don't you take the same actitude towards the name of our system, and call it GNU or GNU/Linux, which is it's correct name, instead of Linux, which is a disrispect of all the work the GNU comunity has done?, If i called your system "Kernel32.dll" instead of Windows, you would get mad at me. The same happends to me when you call my system Linux instead of GNU.
I Shoudln't reply to trolls, but here it goes anyway, please try to READ what i way, it seems you are replying to a different post. ...
t tp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Propri etarySoftware
You are telling me ALSA is not portable, first, that's not true, many drivers from alsa has been ported, second, i said that BESIDES alsa, xmms can use MANY other output systems, that they are plugins to XMMS, alsa is just one more plugin, it supports others that HAS BEEN ported, and you can write a new plugin to use the windows sound api.
FYI I have written code under GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, IBM-DOS, OS/2
Linus just written the kernel, most of the other important parts of the system are GNU (the compiler, the C Library, the shell, and 90% of Unix cli tools are far more important than just the kernel). Linus worked half-time on the kernel for about 3 years, and then the GNU comunity written most of what this kernel is today, RMS coded full-time for more than 15 years, and payed other cothers to code fulltime for the GNU OS and he could write the kernel because of the existance of a big comunity of hackers that helped him, that comunity was the product of years of rms's work.
Here are some definitions of proprietary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/p/proprietary.htmlh
The term "Proprietary Software" was first used by RMS, and he has defined it as seen on the last link.
And maybe some mezcaline?
Really, i don't know what are you talking about.
1 - Proprietary means the source for the software is not freely available, and that the use, distribution, study and modification of the software is restricted by it's author. Portability doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
2 - Who says XMMS is not portable?, all the librarys that XMMS uses are FREE, and are portable, including it's widget, GTK. it's not tied down to the GNU/Linux sound system, since it supports arts, oss, alsa, etc. via different plugins. Both Input and output are plugins, shared librarys XMMS uses, so, you can just download the code of XMMS and port it, most of the librarys it uses are allready ported. Noone has ported XMMS to windows since windows is a proprietary plataform, and the puropose of xmms is to provide a free alternative to winamp, what good would it make to replace winamp if you are still using a proprietary plataform?.
Instead of complaining, port it, you are free to do so.
TV Channels, who cares about TV anyway besides the illiterate masses?
...
Mapquest?, there is google maps.
AOL, the worst ISP ever?
nullsoft, a proprietary solution, when you have got XMMS?
Netscape, when it's based on Mozilla?
Off course, this would be absolutely safe!!!
;-)
Even more, get 400 people naked and make them smoke some grass, and you won't even need the fkn plane to make them fly!!!
hehe, pretty interesting story, it's funny how some people reacts when you tell them such obvious things as "I Have the right to learn", things that they can't just deny, and so, in a moment, all their stupid capitalism, their stupid restrictive laws, are worth nothing ...