> Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble but this COULD > happen in Open Source software like Linux. Just > because it is open source doesn't mean that > something can't be hidden within it.
I agree that it could, but I think it is much less likely. While everyone might not take the time to look at those three lines of code, we don't need everyone to. All we really need is one person to notice and point it out to people. (this happened recently if I recall, a popular mirror was cracked and code trojaned, but it only took a short while to get things sorted out)
There is also a difference in trust that exists today, though it might not be that way forever. Because of the nature of the people doing the open source work, I have much greater trust in say linus, alan, etc doing what's best for me, than I do in MS or the US gov.
There is a great sci-fi book, who's name completely escapes me at the moment, which deals with this idea. Basically the whole world is run by machines that can repair themselves and all of societies deens are met without work. It is several hundred (thousand?) years later, and no one knows anything about how the machines work, they are all magic to them, since it has been so long since they needed to know. Of course then things break, but I won't ruin the story, mostly since I can't remember how it ends.
>The problem is that most people don't know it's >available for free. Most of those that do >wouldn't know how to get it anyway.
This is true, talked to my younger brother the other day (he is still in school). He was talking to a group of guys who were trying to get enough money to go in on a store copy of Red Hat 6.0. They were amazed to learn that he already had a copy (I burned it for him right after it was released), and that we would make copies for them. He has now taken to selling copies of it for $5 to these people. (wish I had made money that way in school)
I don't like things like this 'cause they try and evaluate your "time online" just like they do your TV watching. What does it mean to be "online"? With a T-1 at work, and DSL at home I am always "online". I almost always have a web browser open to some page and some telnet window open, irc window, aim window, etc. Does that make me "online"? I tend to use a ton of online documentation, does that make me "addicted".
Of course I can't suggest anything better, but it just doesn't seem liek a very good way to measure stuff.
>Do you think you will remain "not in it for the >money" when there starts to be serious money >thrown towards linux?
Perhaps not, I'd like to think so, but like I said, only time can tell for sure.
>If various Linux distrubutions start weeding out >the less-used, less-funded ones they become just >like Micro$haft we've all grown to hate Perhaps the other commerical ones, but I don't see how for instance Red Hat could ever "weed out" someone like Debian. What can Red Hat do to make Debian go away?
>Let's not forget FoxPro 2.0 which was well >destroyed by the awful product Access. Again, this is assuming two commerical products which need money to survive. Even if the only people using Debian are the people who build it, if they want to keep building it they can. There is no budget or sales to worry about.
I believe what scares MS the most about Linux is they don't know how to attack it. A lot of people like developing it, like using it. Even if it has very little market share, even if it has lots of bugs, etc. All of these things were true in the past, and people still continued to use it.
They can't make their product cheap or free in order to put the other product out of business (a favorite strategy) because the other product _does not depend on money to be developed_. Sure lots of people are being paid now to do Linux development, and I think that is great, but I bet many of these people would continue to do so even if they had to go back to other jobs.
Thanks to the various FS/OSS licenses you can't buy it out, sure you can buy off the primary developers and the latest code, but people can always just go right on developing for the last public branch.
This, I think, is the real power and threat of Linux. Sure you can scare most of the world away with FUD, but those who know better are just going to keep at it, and it will eventually poke its head back up again. Short of wiping out every Linux developer and eraseing every trace of its existance, I don't see how they can ever make it totally go away, nor do I see how any commericalization of it can ever truely destroy the community. Damage it sure, shrink it definetly, but make it go away, I doubt it. And so long as that community exists I'll be happy.
>You may not want to be a millionare, but >understand some developers would like to be one
well actually I do, thats just not my primary motivation.:) but even if it is the primary motivation for some (even most), so long as there are some for whom it is not, the community will survive.
Wow that was a lot longer and rambling than I intended.
Do I think all these happenings will effect Linux? Sure, but I develop FS/OSS stuff, and I personally am not in it for the money and plan on continuing as I am. Just like liars assume everyone else is lying, people obsessed with money assume everyone else is too.
Sure it would be nice to be a millionaire, but I didn't start coding for the money and don't see that changing anytime soon. I am not gonna get rich at my day job, but I am plenty comfortable and happy.
Rather than jumping up and down and calling each other names, lets see what the developers do, I'm willing to bet that there are a lot like me, but only time will show for sure.
Ok, so I am responding to a troll, it is hard to resist.
>So you're saying that these Linux window >managers can't even add newly installed programs >to their menus can they?
what, you think any other OS can? I am not sure about Mac's but I know Window's doesn't, it is up to the person building the distribution to add the icons on the start bar, just like it is in Linux. (And yes I have developed and distributed apps in both)
Slashdot Mirror
> Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble but this COULD
> happen in Open Source software like Linux. Just
> because it is open source doesn't mean that
> something can't be hidden within it.
I agree that it could, but I think it is much less likely. While everyone might not take the time to look at those three lines of code, we don't need everyone to. All we really need is one person to notice and point it out to people.
(this happened recently if I recall, a popular mirror was cracked and code trojaned, but it only took a short while to get things sorted out)
There is also a difference in trust that exists today, though it might not be that way forever. Because of the nature of the people doing the open source work, I have much greater trust in say linus, alan, etc doing what's best for me, than I do in MS or the US gov.
There is a great sci-fi book, who's name completely escapes me at the moment, which deals with this idea. Basically the whole world is run by machines that can repair themselves and all of societies deens are met without work. It is several hundred (thousand?) years later, and no one knows anything about how the machines work, they are all magic to them, since it has been so long since they needed to know. Of course then things break, but I won't ruin the story, mostly since I can't remember how it ends.
>The problem is that most people don't know it's
>available for free. Most of those that do
>wouldn't know how to get it anyway.
This is true, talked to my younger brother the other day (he is still in school). He was talking to a group of guys who were trying to get enough money to go in on a store copy of Red Hat 6.0. They were amazed to learn that he already had a copy (I burned it for him right after it was released), and that we would make copies for them. He has now taken to selling copies of it for $5 to these people. (wish I had made money that way in school)
I don't like things like this 'cause they try and evaluate your "time online" just like they do your TV watching. What does it mean to be "online"? With a T-1 at work, and DSL at home I am always "online". I almost always have a web browser open to some page and some telnet window open, irc window, aim window, etc. Does that make me "online"? I tend to use a ton of online documentation, does that make me "addicted".
Of course I can't suggest anything better, but it just doesn't seem liek a very good way to measure stuff.
>Do you think you will remain "not in it for the
:) but even if it is the primary motivation for some (even most), so long as there are some for whom it is not, the community will survive.
>money" when there starts to be serious money
>thrown towards linux?
Perhaps not, I'd like to think so, but like I said, only time can tell for sure.
>If various Linux distrubutions start weeding out
>the less-used, less-funded ones they become just
>like Micro$haft we've all grown to hate
Perhaps the other commerical ones, but I don't see how for instance Red Hat could ever "weed out" someone like Debian. What can Red Hat do to make Debian go away?
>Let's not forget FoxPro 2.0 which was well
>destroyed by the awful product Access.
Again, this is assuming two commerical products which need money to survive. Even if the only people using Debian are the people who build it, if they want to keep building it they can. There is no budget or sales to worry about.
I believe what scares MS the most about Linux is they don't know how to attack it. A lot of people like developing it, like using it. Even if it has very little market share, even if it has lots of bugs, etc. All of these things were true in the past, and people still continued to use it.
They can't make their product cheap or free in order to put the other product out of business (a favorite strategy) because the other product _does not depend on money to be developed_. Sure lots of people are being paid now to do Linux development, and I think that is great, but I bet many of these people would continue to do so even if they had to go back to other jobs.
Thanks to the various FS/OSS licenses you can't buy it out, sure you can buy off the primary developers and the latest code, but people can always just go right on developing for the last public branch.
This, I think, is the real power and threat of Linux. Sure you can scare most of the world away with FUD, but those who know better are just going to keep at it, and it will eventually poke its head back up again. Short of wiping out every Linux developer and eraseing every trace of its existance, I don't see how they can ever make it totally go away, nor do I see how any commericalization of it can ever truely destroy the community. Damage it sure, shrink it definetly, but make it go away, I doubt it. And so long as that community exists I'll be happy.
>You may not want to be a millionare, but
>understand some developers would like to be one
well actually I do, thats just not my primary motivation.
Wow that was a lot longer and rambling than I intended.
anyways,
Do I think all these happenings will effect Linux? Sure, but I develop FS/OSS stuff, and I personally am not in it for the money and plan on continuing as I am. Just like liars assume everyone else is lying, people obsessed with money assume everyone else is too.
Sure it would be nice to be a millionaire, but I didn't start coding for the money and don't see that changing anytime soon. I am not gonna get rich at my day job, but I am plenty comfortable and happy.
Rather than jumping up and down and calling each other names, lets see what the developers do, I'm willing to bet that there are a lot like me, but only time will show for sure.
>So you're saying that these Linux window
>managers can't even add newly installed programs
>to their menus can they?
what, you think any other OS can? I am not sure about Mac's but I know Window's doesn't, it is up to the person building the distribution to add the icons on the start bar, just like it is in Linux. (And yes I have developed and distributed apps in both)