how is this news for nerds? Yes they probably used computers to do the research - but this is the type of news that goes into a health journal not/. - arguably a website for people who like to talk about technology related issues.
While all your points are valid in their own respect - it still does not answer the fundamental notion that who are we to crack someone elses code? What gives us the right to go into an MS product and trying to figure out the code? Unfortunately, if you want your product to be 100% (with a grain of salt) compatable with MS you gotta pay them a license fee to get some insight - but that is their choice. Your choice as a consumer is to not buy MS. Use Open Office where it is Open Source. We do not have a fundamental right to crack the code of someone elses product without their explicit permission no matter what we would like to justify.
As I have always said, if the system is broken - then fix it within the system - not by circumventing it which (as in our case) is illegal and can get you in a load of legal battles that you won't win.
Yes broke the code - as in reverse engineering. If you do not like "breaking code" because you are trying to avoid the questions - feel free to substitute reverse engineering you obtuse idiot.
As for my citation - as I said before, read my sig it is a lawyer who apparantly works in the field with regards to EULAs.
Maybe you should stop speaking as you have offered nothing - except to ignore contentions.
Says who? You? Who the fuck are you to tell people it's not fine anyway. It's legal, closed source companies do it all time. Reverse engineering is a perfectly good tool to implement technologies when you don't have access to the internals.
You should ask that of yourself. Who the fuck are you to break a lock the authoring company put on their software. It is not me saying you shouldn't break the lock, it is the company who owns the code. How about this, if you believe you should be allowed to break someone's code, do you also agree that the gov't should be able to break into your house to snoop around? Do you believe that a burgler should be allowed to break into your house to copy your hard drive?
Tridge didn't sign anything with anybody, there is no TOS here.
A signature is not a requirement of agreements. Clicking "I accept" or "yes" or some other compliance button is just as acceptable. Also, just in case you plan to say it, immediately trying to reverse the code so you never see the EULA is also not acceptable. That is like saying "I didn't see the law about speeding, so breaking the speed limit is ok for me." If you don't but it, read my sig, it was an article posted here on/. a couple months back. Or google it.
Nope. Sorry you are wrong. Reverse engineering is legal right and neither you nor linus can take that right away from anybody. MS can put anything in their EULA they want but like most of it it's pure bullshit. It won't stand up court.
Since EULA's have been and are presently accepted in court - reverse engineering of a product that specifically states in its EULA that you may not do so is not allowed and as such could result in a person being sued.
Again, as for your belief that EULA's won't hold up - you are wrong, they have and do hold up.
Only an idiot voluntarity gives up rights guaranteed to them by law.
Where is this guaranteed right of yours that states someone is allowed to reverse engineer closed source without permission from the owners?
I forget which site it was, but I sent them a tech support request. Which got me a crappy tech support response (i ended up figuring it out on my own)...a day later I got spam from them. So now even tech support opts a person in.
Words like that will get you modded down, flamebaited, trolled, stalked, lynched, bilged, and other nasty things. Didn't you know that no form of advertising is OK on the Internet according to most people here on/.
I clicked on the article and got a white page with "Joe was Here". For a moment I thought one of you hacked into doubleclick, then I realized it was my boss who modified my localhost default.htm file for fun one day:)
Uhm no, get of your supposed high perch. If you do not agree with Closed Source that is fine. If you do not want to use Closed Source products feel free. If you do not want to make Closed Source products that is even better, but reverse engineering Close Source code is NOT fine.
By utilizing someone (anyone's) program you are agreeing to any TOS they might have - and in cases like MS' programs they have clear language about not wanting anyone to reverse engineer. It is completely responsible of anyone in the Open Source industry (or any industry) to say that reverse engineering of closed source products is wrong (unless you have permission to do so).
Just because you do not agree with closed source does not give you a moral or legal right to try and reverse engineer it - none what-so-ever.
either means you left it out on purpose, which is deceitful, or you left it out unintentionally, which means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
Kind of saying I am either dumb or a politician? Not really fair there. Maybe option 3) I assumed the people are on/. are smart enough to know that I didn't imply either. Not everything has to be spelled out - otherwise our posts would be the size of legal dictionaries:D
When I go to places like pricewatch.com and most of the stores there are operated by Asian speaking folks and they all seem to have "for an extra four dollars we will test your memory." I always thought it was a hoax, now I realize they are buying from really really shoddy companies. Shame.
I understand your argument clearly; you don't need to restate it again. However, your argument still has the assumption that Firefox and IE have about the same number of flaws to be found. That is the only reasonable way for the the number of discovered flaws to exchange between the two if the market share was also exchanged. That assumption is not necessarily true.
It is also not necessarily false. And while everyone has their assumptions as to the correct answer - only time will tell. Actually that may not even happen as both of these programs are currently evolving - and until both of them die out for other programs the numbers will always change.
The discovery of more flaws is increased because there are more "testers" [users]. THe presence of more flaws has nothing to do with the increased amount of "testers" [users].
What this means: It doesn't matter if there is one user or one million users - FireFox has X number of flaws sitting there waiting to be found.
But where the numbers do make a difference - because there are more users, there are more hackers out there trying to find and exploit these holes so you will see an increase. I am sure that if the market share were reversed (I.E. having 8% or whatever the number is, and the rest going to FireFox) so would the numbers for flaws. Security through obscurity - the door swings both ways.
The only reason I could reasonably say that it is OK that IE has more known flaws then FireFox (not that I am saying it is OK to have flaws, but it is what it is) relates to the fact that there is a lot more people using IE then Firefox so it just means there is more people finding these problems. A nice test would be is how many total flaws have been found in IE and how many total flaws found in FireFox. Does IE have more then FireFox (or vice versa)? I don't know. Windows v. Linux - I don't know. We can all take guesses, some of us will be wrong some of us will be right - but I doubt any of us can give an exact number.
The slimier ones with super-natural powers of double-speak will get to eat the others up. So basically this will be a world of lawyers and politicians.
As NASA speaks to Congress:
NASA: How many of you plan on living for the next six years.
Congress: 95% of us do
NASA: Well you won't
Congress: ***UPROAR***
NASA: Unless!!!! You give us money to divert this huge asteroid that is heading to our planet and will hit us in less then six years. So can we count on your twenty billion dollar donation
Just put a Liv Tyler type girl on the trip and you will have the smartest - geekiest minds of our time volunteering for that trip - tax free or no tax free
Similar advice to the stock market. Maybe if we present it to the gov't as a stock market plan.
"Would all of you invest in ONE single company, given an unknown risk ratio - or at least knowing that it is a high risk plan where it is either a total win or a total loss?"
And most of them would say "No we are not stupid."
Then you smack them in the face "well lets find another Menshara class planet you pleebs!!!"
Fact 1: Firefox hasn't shown that many security flaws in the past
Fact 2: it had fewer (95%?) using it then IE
Fact 3: those people using it were (mostly) more advanced then the typical IE/AOL user
You make it sound like I am saying More users = more flaws. That would be stupid. What I am trying to say (and sorry if I didnt bring it out correctly) is: More users = more amount of people finding flaws that already existed. Why is there such a recent rise in the amount of flaws found in FireFox? Is it because FireFox authors are making worse and worse code? The codemakers are the same - the amount of hackers looking at FireFox are increasing and looking for these bugs.
Um, you added into my quote Linux - while we could substitute Linux we were actually talking about FireFox.
I fail to see what the point of the "new kid on the block" has to do with anything? First Windows has been around long enough that it no longer deserves the term "new kid on the block" - it is established - well established. Second - someone could come out with an OS today, that is brand spanking new and kicks the butt of all pre-existing OS'. So the amount of time they are around is really not that much of an issue for our conversation.
Oh and for whoever listed the GGP as Troll - what constitutes a troll around here? Not agreeing with someone?
While many of oyu disagree with this guy - I actually agree with him!:D Firefox hasn't shown that many security flaws in the past because it had fewer (95%?) using it then IE and those people using it were (mostly) more advanced then the typical IE/AOL user. So we will (i have said this before many times) see more flaws in firefox. We will see more flaws in Linux and other open software...why? Because it is not a divine gift from god made into a perfect form... it is a piece of software created by people (no more smarter or dumber then those who work for MS, and probably some people who work for MS helped out too) so it will have its share of problems...the more people that use it, the more problems will come to light.
As said before by many other/.'ers ---- security through obscurity. FireFox was relatively unknown (obscure) so had few known security holes - as it is becoming more wellknown and attacked - it will have more security holes revealed.
So for you nay-sayers who think the article writer is wrong - he is not - just because you do not like what he has to say does not invalidate the message.
While this is useful, please note that it will also disable features a person might use (like the text tools). So make sure you copy over the plugin tools that you use (i.e. the text tool). Other then that, it is a useful trick for the person who wants only the most basic of features.
Slashdot Mirror
You will disappear in 5.4.3.2. Damn spies.
Move along people nothing to see here, we will give you an extra Gigabyte of google space. Aren't we cool? Now go Google something.
No no no it was a typo, not "gluon" but "glu on" Space was a decal and it had to have "glu on" it so it would stick. Sheesh - you people never rtfa's.
how is this news for nerds? Yes they probably used computers to do the research - but this is the type of news that goes into a health journal not /. - arguably a website for people who like to talk about technology related issues.
While all your points are valid in their own respect - it still does not answer the fundamental notion that who are we to crack someone elses code? What gives us the right to go into an MS product and trying to figure out the code? Unfortunately, if you want your product to be 100% (with a grain of salt) compatable with MS you gotta pay them a license fee to get some insight - but that is their choice. Your choice as a consumer is to not buy MS. Use Open Office where it is Open Source. We do not have a fundamental right to crack the code of someone elses product without their explicit permission no matter what we would like to justify.
As I have always said, if the system is broken - then fix it within the system - not by circumventing it which (as in our case) is illegal and can get you in a load of legal battles that you won't win.
Yes broke the code - as in reverse engineering. If you do not like "breaking code" because you are trying to avoid the questions - feel free to substitute reverse engineering you obtuse idiot.
As for my citation - as I said before, read my sig it is a lawyer who apparantly works in the field with regards to EULAs.
Maybe you should stop speaking as you have offered nothing - except to ignore contentions.
Says who? You? Who the fuck are you to tell people it's not fine anyway. It's legal, closed source companies do it all time. Reverse engineering is a perfectly good tool to implement technologies when you don't have access to the internals.
/. a couple months back. Or google it.
You should ask that of yourself. Who the fuck are you to break a lock the authoring company put on their software. It is not me saying you shouldn't break the lock, it is the company who owns the code. How about this, if you believe you should be allowed to break someone's code, do you also agree that the gov't should be able to break into your house to snoop around? Do you believe that a burgler should be allowed to break into your house to copy your hard drive?
Tridge didn't sign anything with anybody, there is no TOS here.
A signature is not a requirement of agreements. Clicking "I accept" or "yes" or some other compliance button is just as acceptable. Also, just in case you plan to say it, immediately trying to reverse the code so you never see the EULA is also not acceptable. That is like saying "I didn't see the law about speeding, so breaking the speed limit is ok for me." If you don't but it, read my sig, it was an article posted here on
Nope. Sorry you are wrong. Reverse engineering is legal right and neither you nor linus can take that right away from anybody. MS can put anything in their EULA they want but like most of it it's pure bullshit. It won't stand up court.
Since EULA's have been and are presently accepted in court - reverse engineering of a product that specifically states in its EULA that you may not do so is not allowed and as such could result in a person being sued.
Again, as for your belief that EULA's won't hold up - you are wrong, they have and do hold up.
Only an idiot voluntarity gives up rights guaranteed to them by law.
Where is this guaranteed right of yours that states someone is allowed to reverse engineer closed source without permission from the owners?
I wonder why Google has decided, against their own interests, to go after fraudsters like this.
I wonder, why would Google want to go against fraudsters who are costing innocent people money.
I forget which site it was, but I sent them a tech support request. Which got me a crappy tech support response (i ended up figuring it out on my own)...a day later I got spam from them. So now even tech support opts a person in.
Words like that will get you modded down, flamebaited, trolled, stalked, lynched, bilged, and other nasty things. Didn't you know that no form of advertising is OK on the Internet according to most people here on /.
I clicked on the article and got a white page with "Joe was Here". For a moment I thought one of you hacked into doubleclick, then I realized it was my boss who modified my localhost default.htm file for fun one day :)
Hmm a virus that performs a DOS to doubleclick - I might let that one slide on my computer :)
Uhm no, get of your supposed high perch. If you do not agree with Closed Source that is fine. If you do not want to use Closed Source products feel free. If you do not want to make Closed Source products that is even better, but reverse engineering Close Source code is NOT fine.
By utilizing someone (anyone's) program you are agreeing to any TOS they might have - and in cases like MS' programs they have clear language about not wanting anyone to reverse engineer. It is completely responsible of anyone in the Open Source industry (or any industry) to say that reverse engineering of closed source products is wrong (unless you have permission to do so).
Just because you do not agree with closed source does not give you a moral or legal right to try and reverse engineer it - none what-so-ever.
either means you left it out on purpose, which is deceitful, or you left it out unintentionally, which means you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
/. are smart enough to know that I didn't imply either. Not everything has to be spelled out - otherwise our posts would be the size of legal dictionaries :D
Kind of saying I am either dumb or a politician? Not really fair there. Maybe option 3) I assumed the people are on
When I go to places like pricewatch.com and most of the stores there are operated by Asian speaking folks and they all seem to have "for an extra four dollars we will test your memory." I always thought it was a hoax, now I realize they are buying from really really shoddy companies. Shame.
I understand your argument clearly; you don't need to restate it again. However, your argument still has the assumption that Firefox and IE have about the same number of flaws to be found. That is the only reasonable way for the the number of discovered flaws to exchange between the two if the market share was also exchanged. That assumption is not necessarily true.
It is also not necessarily false. And while everyone has their assumptions as to the correct answer - only time will tell. Actually that may not even happen as both of these programs are currently evolving - and until both of them die out for other programs the numbers will always change.
The discovery of more flaws is increased because there are more "testers" [users]. THe presence of more flaws has nothing to do with the increased amount of "testers" [users].
What this means: It doesn't matter if there is one user or one million users - FireFox has X number of flaws sitting there waiting to be found.
But where the numbers do make a difference - because there are more users, there are more hackers out there trying to find and exploit these holes so you will see an increase. I am sure that if the market share were reversed (I.E. having 8% or whatever the number is, and the rest going to FireFox) so would the numbers for flaws. Security through obscurity - the door swings both ways.
The only reason I could reasonably say that it is OK that IE has more known flaws then FireFox (not that I am saying it is OK to have flaws, but it is what it is) relates to the fact that there is a lot more people using IE then Firefox so it just means there is more people finding these problems. A nice test would be is how many total flaws have been found in IE and how many total flaws found in FireFox. Does IE have more then FireFox (or vice versa)? I don't know. Windows v. Linux - I don't know. We can all take guesses, some of us will be wrong some of us will be right - but I doubt any of us can give an exact number.
The slimier ones with super-natural powers of double-speak will get to eat the others up. So basically this will be a world of lawyers and politicians.
As NASA speaks to Congress:
NASA: How many of you plan on living for the next six years.
Congress: 95% of us do
NASA: Well you won't
Congress: ***UPROAR***
NASA: Unless!!!! You give us money to divert this huge asteroid that is heading to our planet and will hit us in less then six years. So can we count on your twenty billion dollar donation
Congress: Uhm yea.
Just put a Liv Tyler type girl on the trip and you will have the smartest - geekiest minds of our time volunteering for that trip - tax free or no tax free
Similar advice to the stock market. Maybe if we present it to the gov't as a stock market plan.
"Would all of you invest in ONE single company, given an unknown risk ratio - or at least knowing that it is a high risk plan where it is either a total win or a total loss?"
And most of them would say "No we are not stupid."
Then you smack them in the face "well lets find another Menshara class planet you pleebs!!!"
Fact 1: Firefox hasn't shown that many security flaws in the past
Fact 2: it had fewer (95%?) using it then IE
Fact 3: those people using it were (mostly) more advanced then the typical IE/AOL user
You make it sound like I am saying More users = more flaws. That would be stupid. What I am trying to say (and sorry if I didnt bring it out correctly) is: More users = more amount of people finding flaws that already existed. Why is there such a recent rise in the amount of flaws found in FireFox? Is it because FireFox authors are making worse and worse code? The codemakers are the same - the amount of hackers looking at FireFox are increasing and looking for these bugs.
Um, you added into my quote Linux - while we could substitute Linux we were actually talking about FireFox.
I fail to see what the point of the "new kid on the block" has to do with anything? First Windows has been around long enough that it no longer deserves the term "new kid on the block" - it is established - well established. Second - someone could come out with an OS today, that is brand spanking new and kicks the butt of all pre-existing OS'. So the amount of time they are around is really not that much of an issue for our conversation.
Oh and for whoever listed the GGP as Troll - what constitutes a troll around here? Not agreeing with someone?
While many of oyu disagree with this guy - I actually agree with him! :D Firefox hasn't shown that many security flaws in the past because it had fewer (95%?) using it then IE and those people using it were (mostly) more advanced then the typical IE/AOL user. So we will (i have said this before many times) see more flaws in firefox. We will see more flaws in Linux and other open software...why? Because it is not a divine gift from god made into a perfect form... it is a piece of software created by people (no more smarter or dumber then those who work for MS, and probably some people who work for MS helped out too) so it will have its share of problems...the more people that use it, the more problems will come to light.
/.'ers ---- security through obscurity. FireFox was relatively unknown (obscure) so had few known security holes - as it is becoming more wellknown and attacked - it will have more security holes revealed.
As said before by many other
So for you nay-sayers who think the article writer is wrong - he is not - just because you do not like what he has to say does not invalidate the message.
Please note, while useful, removing plug-ins will remove functionality (i.e. in this example I lost text tool functionality.
While this is useful, please note that it will also disable features a person might use (like the text tools). So make sure you copy over the plugin tools that you use (i.e. the text tool). Other then that, it is a useful trick for the person who wants only the most basic of features.
Ok, I will admit I am fairly clueless, someone prove to us that we have access to surface-to-air missile systems from the web.