...too be replacd by the even better James Webb Space Telescope. Critics of NASA's decision to let the Hubble fall seem to forget this in their attempts to manufacture public outcry. The Hubble is out-dated (it was designed in the 70s) and has lived out its intended lifespan (15 years). Whats more, with the advances made since the Hubble was made, ground based telescopes such as the VLT have nearly the same resolution as the Hubble and is much easier to service, so there is much less of a need for a space telescope (assuming you consider looking at distant planets a need worthy of billions of dollars).
Consider all the facts before you push Congress to throw away billions of taxdollars at the project.
I'll try keep this short (posting these posts that appear to defend MS is hurting my karma because of the mod-Nazis who -1 Troll anything they disagree with), I still feel that without an operating system that is built around an easy to use consistent graphical interface, the personal computer would not have been able to make the leap from complex tool used in offices and by geeks to common household appliance used by everyone and everyone's grandma. Yes, it would have been possible for someone else (such as Apple) to take MS's place (and I said "...without MS or someone else rising and taking MS's place") but then we would be complaining about Apple's monopoly or IBM's monopoly or HP's monopoly.
The thing this lawsuit all boils down to is MS integrating IE into Windows. Yes, that does give IE a bit of an advantage over other browsers as it is easier for grandma to use (she doesn't have to go download Mozilla or Opera). But does that mean we should force MS to make IE harder to use so that Mozilla or Opera can compete? Force grandma to download and install her own browser so the other guys are on equal footing? Does that really benefit the consumer? Thats like forcing Honda to not sell any cars with built-in stereos and instead force their customers to buy and install their car stereo seperately.
I hate MS as much as the next guy, I use Linux as my primary operating system and Firefox and my primary browser, but I'm not about to force that on every computer user in the world. I understand MS has a place, even if it is not for me.
Hmm, looks like I failed with the "try to keep this short" part.
"That was what the first case against MS was about."
But the case we were talking about, that the Justice department just settled on, involved MS bundling IE with windows.
"No one. Linux is only able to challenge at all because it's supported by a community, not a company."
Don't forget Apple and a variety of companies that produce Unix operating systems.
" As for "making PCs popular with the public"; that was initially Apple, later IBM. "
They made computers available to the public, not popular. MS made an operating system that was designed with an eye to those who have never touched a computer before, something I can't say about Linux. Don't get me wrong, I love the OS and use it 99.9% of the time, but I would put my mom on a computer running Fedora Core 2.
"I rather doubt that we wouldn't have at least as good software without MS."
"At least as good sofware"? Yes, we probably could have gotten "good" software without MS or someone else rising and taking MS's place. But I contend without MS software wouldn't have become as accessible and popular in the home.
No, the fall of the dot-com economy and the recent recession was the real reason why VC has fallen. Not because of a sudden increase of so-called abuses of MS's 'monopoly'.
"Most obvious is the reduced innovation from their predatory application of their monopoly status. "
I disagree. MS, like them or not, played a big part in making PCs popular with the general public, most of whom are not knowledgeable enough to run an OS like Linux. Whats more, by having such a huge competitor, rival companies are forced to increase innovation, not decrease it.
"And the instability of the Internet, due to the vast hordes of compromised M$ computers around the globe is a daily nuisance, as well as an actual severe security threat where essential systems run on their SW."
Thats a product quality issue, not an anti-trust issue. Its not a crime to make a crappy piece of software.
"The case showed that M$ not only held an effective monopoly on computer software, but that M$ abused it to compete with everyone in sight."
Uh, "abusing" power to compete with other companies is not a crime. In fact, that is what they are expected to do.
"Based on the copious evidence that M$ violated its 1990s consent decree from the US Dept' of Justice, by illeglly bundling Internet Explorer on Windows 95 desktops (to the exclusion of Netscape), the court's monopoly decision was legal support for what everyone who's paying attention finds obvious"
Blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine, I've heard this all before. By your logic, was Pepsi guilty of violating anti-trust laws when it only sold Pepsi drinks at Taco Bell and KFC? Fact of the matter is, IE included in Windows makes it easier for many people to use. Saying they have to intentionally make their product difficult to use so others can compete with it is just plain dumb. If you don't like it, hey I just finished burning some Slackware 10.0 ISOs, I can make you a copy if you wish.
"Since you can't offer any evidence to the contrary, the question is merely why you defend them? Getting checks from trading M$ stock? On the payroll? Or just a dupe who prefers official fantasies to a world in which our computers work for us, rather than us for them, or against us?"
First of all, its not my job to offer evidence to the contrary, I'm not a MS lawyer.
Second, the fact that I didn't offer any evidence in my last post is far different from me not being able to offer any evidence.
Third, you haven't offered any evidence that MS's including IE in Windows hurts customers, so why should I offer my evidence first?
Fourth, ad-hominem attacks? How mature. I won't stoop to your level, except for the following sentence fragment: Dumb-ass.
Yet another insane anti-Bush attack from someone with no knowledge of how the law actually works.
"Reno won her antitrust case against M$."
Only because of a biased judge, which ended up costing them on the appeal. Or is that how you think our justice system should act?
"Ashcroft ignored the monopoly, cutting a cheap deal that keeps M$ in control of the sick state of disrepair from which we all suffer."
He would have needed to show a lot more than MS is the most popular software provider in the U.S. to break them apart. Fact is, an objective judge would have likely thrown the whole thing out. He was lucky to get what he got.
BTW, I take issue with the "from which we all suffer" part of your rant. I don't suffer from MS. I've found a way out, by using a non-MS operating system. If you hate MS you are free to do the same thing.
How dare you suggest, on slashdot, that something is not the fault of the Bush administration. The MS settlement, 9-11, the fall of the dot-com economy, the rising popularity of reality TV shows, the blame all stops with the Bush administration according to slashdotters. You will be receiving numerous -1 Troll mods in the next few hours.
Bail bondsmen are employed to track down and apprehend fugitives. Thats different from having an open reward for anyone who calls in a tip that may lead to an arrest. For every one legitimate tip you get, you will also get hundreds from people who don't know anything but want some of the reward. You will just end up wasting more time chasing bad leads.
Add to that, what help is information on the identity of a known spammer? If he is a known spammer, doesn't that mean we already know his identity?
I'm sorry, I hate spammers as much as the next guy, but comparing them to fugitives or the FBI's most wanted list is just ludicrous.
Can CAN-SPAM. That law just threw out stricter state laws and denied private citizens the right to sue over unsolicited email in exchange for a toothless federal law that is full of loopholes.
Implementing a bounty system is just a dumb idea. Do cops offer rewards to help them catch common criminals? No, because a system that does so would just flood the phone lines with false leads. Same here. As Steve Linford (who probably knows a lot more about the subject than Lawrence Lessig) said in the article, the problem isn't that the FTC doesn't have enough information on spammers. I think keeping your inbox clean is enough of a motivation for most people to report spam.
I read a book by Lessig once. Internet visionary my ass. The man clearly had no clue what he was talking about.
BTW, just a nitpick, the article refers several times to the "CAN-Spam" law. Such a law does not exist. The "CAN-SPAM" law, on the other hand does. The entire thing is the acronym (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003), not just the CAN.
I'm not an expert on cars, but I'm sure there are numerous factors that influence fuel economy. How well maintained the car is, the style of driving, the road conditions (there is more to it than just "highway" and "city"), etc. There is no way the manufacturer could accurately predict the fuel economy. While they may be useful when comparing cars (a car with a MPG of 35 will most likely get better mileage than one with a MPG of 15), I would take those numbers with a grain or two of salt.
It seems there it is the hardware aspect (the dedicated label printer) that is valuable, not the software application.
I still can't see a software application that makes labels one of the "most commonly used" Linux applications out there, even if it fills a niche which is part of someone's job.
I believe the intended meaning was that it is a proof of concept of high quality streaming using Ogg Theora, which is a fully free format. Not a proof of concept of free formats vs patented formats.
"It is a common chant among thieves to say that common law is unnecessarily restrictive."
Hey, I said very, not unnecessary. Its one thing to put your ignorance concerning licensing schemes on display for the entire world to laugh at, its quite another to put words in my mouth.
"The GPL simply makes it clear that you cannot take someone else's code, add three lines, and call it your own to 4) PROFIT!"
I'm sorry, thats not the correct answer. What consolation prize do we have for our brave little contestant? Why its a copy of the GPL license so he can read it himself! Thanks for playing.
The GPL says a lot more than you can't sell code that was licensed by it (interestingly enough, it actually says you can sell the code, more proof of your ignorance concerning issues surrounding licensing code). Say you want to use some library or module in your program to perform some common function that you don't want to have to code yourself. Guess what? In order to do that, your entire project must itself be licensed under the GPL. If you are planning to license it under something else (even another open source license that is not compatible with the GPL), you are barred from using that code. That is again a major restriction. Compare that to other less restrictive licenses such as public domain software, the CPL, AFL (not the football league), or even the LGPL. Maybe there are good reasons for that restriction. Just as the Pentagon has good reasons for restricting access to nuclear missile silos or I have good reason to restrict access to certain files on my computer so that only root can play with them. But to say that the GPL is an unrestricted license is an outright lie. I quote now from the Preamble from the GPL itself:
To protect your rights, we need to
make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
If you have personal issues surrounding the word "restricted", thats between you and your shrink. Most of the world recognizes that there are often benefits to putting restrictions on things in certain situations. But I'm not going to ignore the facts concerning the GPL license just so I won't hurt your feelings.
Yes, licenses are by definition restrictions. But that does not change the fact that the GPL is one of the most restrictive licenses out there. I don't really give a fuck whether or not you personally think the term "Restriction" has netative intonations or if you think stating the GPL is a restrictive license is putting a "negative spin" on it, the fact of the matter remains the GPL is very restritive. Turning a blind eye to that fact just because you have personal issues with a word doesn't help anyone make informed choices over which license to use.
Besides, don't blame me for bring up GPL's restrictive nature. This whole thing came up after someone else suggested we change the term for GPLed software from "Open Source" to "Unrestricted" which would be an outright lie.
"Bush and his incoming team po-po'd Clintons anti-terror experts when the warned him about Al-Quaida."
No, thats not a fact, that is a claim by a man of questionable credibility who has a grudge against Rice. You can't claim an allegation is a fact, that is just dishonest. Add to that, you can't just blame Bush for "po-poing" it for 8 months, you must also blame Clinton for "po-poing" it for 8 years.
"Bush spent months on vacation after taking office. During the crisis he was MIA. "
Being president is not a 24-7 job. Do you believe [insert name of your favorite president here] was sitting in the Oval Office 24-7?
"His televised speech that night was a joke. "
Again, not a fact but an opinion (add to that an opinion that is all but meaningless as most of the population were in agreement that it was a good speech).
"The previous poster hit the nail on the head regarding leadership: it can overcome systemic defficiancies."
Well the previous poster was naively and dangerously incorrect. Nothing can overcome systemic deficiencies.
"I've seen this argument many times. It often translates roughly as: "Linux's only strong point is that it's used by very few people. The moment it becomes mainstream it will be attacked just as hard and there will be just as many flaws discovered"."
If you learn nothing else today, learn this: the phrase "It often translates roughly" is a red flag for a straw man fallacy. Yes, what I said roughly translates to "Linux's only strong point is that it's used by very few people". However, a more appropriate argument would instead address what it strictly translates to, namely "One of Linux's strong points is its relative lack of popularity". Your argument, as it currently stands, is thus based upon a logical fallacy and can thus be effectively discarded without any waste. However, after a quick glance over the rest of your post it quickly becomes apparent that there are other, more dangerous flaws in your reasoning. Thus, for your benefit, I will address those flaws as well.
"I'd like to counter this argument with only one example: Apache vs IIS."
Irrelevant. Apache is different from Linux, thus Apache's security has nothing to do with Linux's security, and bringing it up is a waste of space.
If you are trying to prove that popular systems are always more secure, one example will not be enough. One example merely proves the existence of a more secure popular systems; it does nothing to prove all popular systems are more secure. There are in fact clear counter-examples, MS Windows being one.
If you are trying to prove that popular systems are not always less secure than obscure systems, then you are guilty of yet another straw man. No one argued that popular systems are always less secure, thus you are refuting a fictional argument that you just made up.
If you are asserting that Apache's security does have a lot to do with Linux's security policy because the two systems are both open source, then you are once again wrong. You will again need a lot than one example to prove that open source necessarily means more secure. While open source systems may have some pluses with regard to security, they also have several minuses, such as the fact that no one is accountable for errors, often there is little control over the competence of those working on the project, those working on the project are often more interested in functionality than security, etc. I have personally seen major security holes in open source projects.
"I'm fairly sure that we'll never see problems amassing to reach the magnitude Windows security problems have reached."
Once again, another straw man. No one argued that Linux will become as problematic as Windows should it become as popular as Windows, merely that it will most likely suffer problems.
"And even if particularly nasty problems will appear, I can count that fixes will be available hours later."
Do you have any actual data to back up this questionable assertion? Studies have shown that Windows actually gets patched quicker than Linux (makes sense, after all they have more practice).
"Even more: increasing popularity and the subsequent increasing number of attacks will only serve to increase security for Linux applications overall, because it will ultimately translate to free bug testing."
By that logic, living in a dangerous neighborhood increases my security because the thugs that break in to rape and murder my family are ultimately translating to free bug testing. Did you read this argument before hitting the "Submit" button? That "bug testing" you write about certainly is not free if, after your OS is compromised, hackers break in and steal data, deploy viruses, or take down your entire system. It is in reality quite expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually advances in adaptive optics make the atmosphere less of a concern that it was when the Hubble was designed.
John Kerry made a speech promising to thwart "Benedict Arnold" CEOs threatening to outsource good jobs to these new planets.
So is your interest is worth a $500,000,000 potentially risky shuttle flight to save the telescope for a few more years?
Consider all the facts before you push Congress to throw away billions of taxdollars at the project.
The thing this lawsuit all boils down to is MS integrating IE into Windows. Yes, that does give IE a bit of an advantage over other browsers as it is easier for grandma to use (she doesn't have to go download Mozilla or Opera). But does that mean we should force MS to make IE harder to use so that Mozilla or Opera can compete? Force grandma to download and install her own browser so the other guys are on equal footing? Does that really benefit the consumer? Thats like forcing Honda to not sell any cars with built-in stereos and instead force their customers to buy and install their car stereo seperately.
I hate MS as much as the next guy, I use Linux as my primary operating system and Firefox and my primary browser, but I'm not about to force that on every computer user in the world. I understand MS has a place, even if it is not for me.
Hmm, looks like I failed with the "try to keep this short" part.
But the case we were talking about, that the Justice department just settled on, involved MS bundling IE with windows.
"No one. Linux is only able to challenge at all because it's supported by a community, not a company."
Don't forget Apple and a variety of companies that produce Unix operating systems.
" As for "making PCs popular with the public"; that was initially Apple, later IBM. "
They made computers available to the public, not popular. MS made an operating system that was designed with an eye to those who have never touched a computer before, something I can't say about Linux. Don't get me wrong, I love the OS and use it 99.9% of the time, but I would put my mom on a computer running Fedora Core 2.
"I rather doubt that we wouldn't have at least as good software without MS."
"At least as good sofware"? Yes, we probably could have gotten "good" software without MS or someone else rising and taking MS's place. But I contend without MS software wouldn't have become as accessible and popular in the home.
No, the fall of the dot-com economy and the recent recession was the real reason why VC has fallen. Not because of a sudden increase of so-called abuses of MS's 'monopoly'.
Either the mods don't have a sense of humor or enjoy proving my point.
So you are blaming MS for the fall of the dot-com economy?
I disagree. MS, like them or not, played a big part in making PCs popular with the general public, most of whom are not knowledgeable enough to run an OS like Linux. Whats more, by having such a huge competitor, rival companies are forced to increase innovation, not decrease it.
"And the instability of the Internet, due to the vast hordes of compromised M$ computers around the globe is a daily nuisance, as well as an actual severe security threat where essential systems run on their SW."
Thats a product quality issue, not an anti-trust issue. Its not a crime to make a crappy piece of software.
"The case showed that M$ not only held an effective monopoly on computer software, but that M$ abused it to compete with everyone in sight."
Uh, "abusing" power to compete with other companies is not a crime. In fact, that is what they are expected to do.
"Based on the copious evidence that M$ violated its 1990s consent decree from the US Dept' of Justice, by illeglly bundling Internet Explorer on Windows 95 desktops (to the exclusion of Netscape), the court's monopoly decision was legal support for what everyone who's paying attention finds obvious"
Blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine, I've heard this all before. By your logic, was Pepsi guilty of violating anti-trust laws when it only sold Pepsi drinks at Taco Bell and KFC? Fact of the matter is, IE included in Windows makes it easier for many people to use. Saying they have to intentionally make their product difficult to use so others can compete with it is just plain dumb. If you don't like it, hey I just finished burning some Slackware 10.0 ISOs, I can make you a copy if you wish.
"Since you can't offer any evidence to the contrary, the question is merely why you defend them? Getting checks from trading M$ stock? On the payroll? Or just a dupe who prefers official fantasies to a world in which our computers work for us, rather than us for them, or against us?"
First of all, its not my job to offer evidence to the contrary, I'm not a MS lawyer.
Second, the fact that I didn't offer any evidence in my last post is far different from me not being able to offer any evidence.
Third, you haven't offered any evidence that MS's including IE in Windows hurts customers, so why should I offer my evidence first?
Fourth, ad-hominem attacks? How mature. I won't stoop to your level, except for the following sentence fragment: Dumb-ass.
"Reno won her antitrust case against M$."
Only because of a biased judge, which ended up costing them on the appeal. Or is that how you think our justice system should act?
"Ashcroft ignored the monopoly, cutting a cheap deal that keeps M$ in control of the sick state of disrepair from which we all suffer."
He would have needed to show a lot more than MS is the most popular software provider in the U.S. to break them apart. Fact is, an objective judge would have likely thrown the whole thing out. He was lucky to get what he got.
BTW, I take issue with the "from which we all suffer" part of your rant. I don't suffer from MS. I've found a way out, by using a non-MS operating system. If you hate MS you are free to do the same thing.
MS Windows isn't the dominate operating system today because they go around stabbing other developers.
Maybe we can concentrate on developing and using better alternative operating systems instead of having the courts make all our decisions for us.
How dare you suggest, on slashdot, that something is not the fault of the Bush administration. The MS settlement, 9-11, the fall of the dot-com economy, the rising popularity of reality TV shows, the blame all stops with the Bush administration according to slashdotters. You will be receiving numerous -1 Troll mods in the next few hours.
That probably should read "Bail enforcement agents are employed to track down and apprehend fugitives." Not exactly the same thing as bondsmen.
Add to that, what help is information on the identity of a known spammer? If he is a known spammer, doesn't that mean we already know his identity?
I'm sorry, I hate spammers as much as the next guy, but comparing them to fugitives or the FBI's most wanted list is just ludicrous.
Implementing a bounty system is just a dumb idea. Do cops offer rewards to help them catch common criminals? No, because a system that does so would just flood the phone lines with false leads. Same here. As Steve Linford (who probably knows a lot more about the subject than Lawrence Lessig) said in the article, the problem isn't that the FTC doesn't have enough information on spammers. I think keeping your inbox clean is enough of a motivation for most people to report spam.
I read a book by Lessig once. Internet visionary my ass. The man clearly had no clue what he was talking about.
BTW, just a nitpick, the article refers several times to the "CAN-Spam" law. Such a law does not exist. The "CAN-SPAM" law, on the other hand does. The entire thing is the acronym (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003), not just the CAN.
I'm not an expert on cars, but I'm sure there are numerous factors that influence fuel economy. How well maintained the car is, the style of driving, the road conditions (there is more to it than just "highway" and "city"), etc. There is no way the manufacturer could accurately predict the fuel economy. While they may be useful when comparing cars (a car with a MPG of 35 will most likely get better mileage than one with a MPG of 15), I would take those numbers with a grain or two of salt.
I still can't see a software application that makes labels one of the "most commonly used" Linux applications out there, even if it fills a niche which is part of someone's job.
Or at least that is how I interpreted it.
Hey, I said very, not unnecessary. Its one thing to put your ignorance concerning licensing schemes on display for the entire world to laugh at, its quite another to put words in my mouth.
"The GPL simply makes it clear that you cannot take someone else's code, add three lines, and call it your own to 4) PROFIT!"
I'm sorry, thats not the correct answer. What consolation prize do we have for our brave little contestant? Why its a copy of the GPL license so he can read it himself! Thanks for playing.
The GPL says a lot more than you can't sell code that was licensed by it (interestingly enough, it actually says you can sell the code, more proof of your ignorance concerning issues surrounding licensing code). Say you want to use some library or module in your program to perform some common function that you don't want to have to code yourself. Guess what? In order to do that, your entire project must itself be licensed under the GPL. If you are planning to license it under something else (even another open source license that is not compatible with the GPL), you are barred from using that code. That is again a major restriction. Compare that to other less restrictive licenses such as public domain software, the CPL, AFL (not the football league), or even the LGPL. Maybe there are good reasons for that restriction. Just as the Pentagon has good reasons for restricting access to nuclear missile silos or I have good reason to restrict access to certain files on my computer so that only root can play with them. But to say that the GPL is an unrestricted license is an outright lie. I quote now from the Preamble from the GPL itself:
If you have personal issues surrounding the word "restricted", thats between you and your shrink. Most of the world recognizes that there are often benefits to putting restrictions on things in certain situations. But I'm not going to ignore the facts concerning the GPL license just so I won't hurt your feelings.
Besides, don't blame me for bring up GPL's restrictive nature. This whole thing came up after someone else suggested we change the term for GPLed software from "Open Source" to "Unrestricted" which would be an outright lie.
...but $5 says /.ers will still line up to take shots at MS for this move.
No, thats not a fact, that is a claim by a man of questionable credibility who has a grudge against Rice. You can't claim an allegation is a fact, that is just dishonest. Add to that, you can't just blame Bush for "po-poing" it for 8 months, you must also blame Clinton for "po-poing" it for 8 years.
"Bush spent months on vacation after taking office. During the crisis he was MIA. "
Being president is not a 24-7 job. Do you believe [insert name of your favorite president here] was sitting in the Oval Office 24-7?
"His televised speech that night was a joke. "
Again, not a fact but an opinion (add to that an opinion that is all but meaningless as most of the population were in agreement that it was a good speech).
"The previous poster hit the nail on the head regarding leadership: it can overcome systemic defficiancies."
Well the previous poster was naively and dangerously incorrect. Nothing can overcome systemic deficiencies.
If you learn nothing else today, learn this: the phrase "It often translates roughly" is a red flag for a straw man fallacy. Yes, what I said roughly translates to "Linux's only strong point is that it's used by very few people". However, a more appropriate argument would instead address what it strictly translates to, namely "One of Linux's strong points is its relative lack of popularity". Your argument, as it currently stands, is thus based upon a logical fallacy and can thus be effectively discarded without any waste. However, after a quick glance over the rest of your post it quickly becomes apparent that there are other, more dangerous flaws in your reasoning. Thus, for your benefit, I will address those flaws as well.
"I'd like to counter this argument with only one example: Apache vs IIS."
Irrelevant. Apache is different from Linux, thus Apache's security has nothing to do with Linux's security, and bringing it up is a waste of space.
If you are trying to prove that popular systems are always more secure, one example will not be enough. One example merely proves the existence of a more secure popular systems; it does nothing to prove all popular systems are more secure. There are in fact clear counter-examples, MS Windows being one.
If you are trying to prove that popular systems are not always less secure than obscure systems, then you are guilty of yet another straw man. No one argued that popular systems are always less secure, thus you are refuting a fictional argument that you just made up.
If you are asserting that Apache's security does have a lot to do with Linux's security policy because the two systems are both open source, then you are once again wrong. You will again need a lot than one example to prove that open source necessarily means more secure. While open source systems may have some pluses with regard to security, they also have several minuses, such as the fact that no one is accountable for errors, often there is little control over the competence of those working on the project, those working on the project are often more interested in functionality than security, etc. I have personally seen major security holes in open source projects.
"I'm fairly sure that we'll never see problems amassing to reach the magnitude Windows security problems have reached."
Once again, another straw man. No one argued that Linux will become as problematic as Windows should it become as popular as Windows, merely that it will most likely suffer problems.
"And even if particularly nasty problems will appear, I can count that fixes will be available hours later."
Do you have any actual data to back up this questionable assertion? Studies have shown that Windows actually gets patched quicker than Linux (makes sense, after all they have more practice).
"Even more: increasing popularity and the subsequent increasing number of attacks will only serve to increase security for Linux applications overall, because it will ultimately translate to free bug testing."
By that logic, living in a dangerous neighborhood increases my security because the thugs that break in to rape and murder my family are ultimately translating to free bug testing. Did you read this argument before hitting the "Submit" button? That "bug testing" you write about certainly is not free if, after your OS is compromised, hackers break in and steal data, deploy viruses, or take down your entire system. It is in reality quite expensive.