Your response is a prime example that you have no concept of what security is. 1. Linux and FreeBSD are absolutely obscure. They just aren't obscure to the people you know who know about them. The average owner of a zombied machine has no idea what any of those words are. Also Macintosh is not an OS.
First: Linux and FreeBSD are not "obscure" they may be "arcane" but they are not obscure, there isn't a single competent IT professional that does not know of the existence of Linux, FreeBSD, or Macintosh.
Second: Using "Macintosh" as a canonical term for a computer running OS/X is a reasonable and unambiguous short hand.
Third: We have not been addressing risk in this conversation nor have we been addressing impact, we have been addressing "security," which, by the way, if done correctly mitigates the risks and impact of a popular platform.
Your response is a prime example of why security is such a joke. Where to begin?
Your little home "insecure" OS is not a proper analogy as Linux, FreeBSD, and Macintosh are not obscure or unknown. Thus security through obscurity does not apply.
The fact that Windows is a "big" target has NOTHING to do with vulnerability. Nothing. Vulnerability and security measures are technical issues which apply to everything from ATMs to servers. Trying to link a technical deficiency to an apparent popularity is a logical fallacy.
If you do a proper break down of the attacks against Windows, and eliminate those which would not work against Linux or Mac, then you can have a proper understanding of the relative security of the systems.
Any defense of the "Big Target" argument falls directly into the hands Microsoft marketbots.
Linux is an inherently more secure OS than, say, Windows XP. It makes much smarter choices about what's enabled by default. It doesn't leave a bunch of ports open for no reason.
This is, possibly, a reason but not a main one. It's also true that there's much, much more incentive to try to find a security hole in Windows XP because it's the most popular desktop choice and is thus most likely to have the highest density of ignorant users with credit card information.
So, you have fallen hook, line, and sinker into Microsofts disinformation campaign.
It never has, and never will, have anything to do with popularity or "incentive." That is a red herring put out there. The *real* incentive for crackers is to crack the "uncrackable." Windows is so easy, even script kiddies can do it.
Slashdot is not a good place for this debate because it is a complex issue that has to do with well researched facts and has nothing to do with "conventional wisdom" which is bought and paid for by advertising dollars.
Windows is still a disaster, and I think I know why people don't care. It is the "Big target" rational nonsense.
Microsoft has been successful in seeding in people's minds that "all computers are insecure and the only reason why Windows *LOOKS* so bad is that they are so many of them, and if [apple][linux][foo] were as popular, there would be just as many security holes."
It is a plausible argument when one is ignorant, as most are, of the basics of security. Unfortunately, the argument is getting traction and letting them off the hook.
The iPod is *the* portable media player. period. Zune has made no traction in the market. NBC's affiliation with Microsoft is now being used to forward the Microsoft monopoly machine.
Microsoft says shut off apple and ipods and only serve Windows machines. You know the shoe will drop when the Zune becomes the *only* portable media player that will work. Just you watch.
Big companies like Windows with its DRM because it allows them to manage your pesky "fair use" rights for you to their benefit.
In the 60's the national guard fired bullets into a crowd of demonstrators. In this century they beat you up and taser you.
Make no mistakes, the police are the jack booted thugs protecting the father^^^^^^homeland.
Anyone who says the police are in anyway justified in abusing this person deserves to live in fucking 1930's Nazi Germany. I apologize for the godwin-esque reference, but these are extreme times and the extreme descriptions fit.
Political rallies *ARE* emotionally charged. 6 guys in riot gear and tasers are not a civilized response to passionate speeches and hogging a microphone in a college political rally.
If we are not careful, our "free speech zones" will be the basements and closets that were necessary under Hitler and Stalin, if we have not reached that point already.
If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.
There are many different perspectives and goals in the combined "open source" and "free software" environment. It is worrisome.
I think that most of the truly sincere individuals have basically the same goal, but see it differently.
I think the danger comes from the people who are not sincere and seek only to exploit the work of others, and to the extreme exclude the very authors from benefiting from their work.
Admit it or not, it is possible for a corporation like Microsoft to take free software, change it enough to make it incompatible with the original source, push it out to their monopoly platform, and create an environment in which the original source is almost useless.
Also, it is more than possible to create FUD and legal problems around "open source" and "free" software with patent claims and litigation.
These are very real problems for both BSD licensed projects as well as GPL licensed projects. The BSD licensed code, IMHO, is far more in danger than is GPL code. The GPL v3 seeks to protect the code and user better.
Is there a combined "open source" and "free software" community? If so, we need to figure out how to join forces. If not, we need to understand where any (if any) overlap exists and work there.
Personally, I don't like the BSD license because it allows a Microsoft to take code and hide it away. Sure, I can see the benefits of BSD, because I could take a PostgreSQL and make Joe's SQLDB and never pay a dime or give a line of code back, but I don't feel that is right, and I know that when someone else does it, it would bother me.
So, it is a conundrum. We need to come up with an agreed "basic" set of goals.
Hi, while this may be "flame bait" and I have no doubt that some may see it as such, but we have to get some scientific perspective.
Anyone who believes in "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" is a fool. It is absolutely no different than the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Thor, Oden, Zeus, Apollo, Rama, etc. It is all foolish nonsense that falls under fantasy and superstition. Any one who disagrees has to have accepted an irrational concept with no supporting evidence.
Is "science" right? Always, are the generally accepted scientific theories always right? No, but there is a fundamental rational for why we accept them as true. When the facts no longer fit the rational, we change our minds. We do not continue to believe despite the facts.
Evolution is a fact. It has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Has the exact process by which our species evolved been discovered? Hell no! We continue to learn more an interesting things about evolution each year. Evolution is the single greatest leap of human understanding over superstition.
"science" is often wrong when we use conjecture as theory, and theory as fact. Alchemy is an example of this. SCIENCE is typically unassailable when facts are documented and experiments confirm the facts.
As a self proclaimed "creationist" you are automatically kicked off the island of rational thinkers. Why even bother asking "why?" Obviously you have failed to exercise any critical thinking skills.
There is *no* rational argument that requires an acceptance of "You have to have faith." Religion, ID and/or creationism is a form of brain cancer akin to the neutron bomb. While it doesn't produce physical destruction, it breaks down the rational ability to evaluate facts and reason.
Do not accept without fact. Do not believe without reason.
I am an atheist. When you figure out why you DON'T believe in Thor, Oden, Zeus, et. al you will understand why we don't believe in yours. Run along little boy and worship the easter bunny, santa clause, or what ever little nonsense you want, but keep it to yourself.
The idea behind the quote: "Progress is never made by reasonable people" is that reasonable people do not challenge the establishment. So few people these days care to recognize RMS for the absolutely unreasonably driven visionary he was.
A fair number of people can write software. Some of those even do it well. It takes a great individual to establish and outline a socio-economic model for collaborative software development.
So I might ask, "What the fuck are you talking about?"
Sorry, but after the RMS rants of yesterday, I find myself laughing at the BSD guys.
"BSD is more free, you can do what ever you want with it!!" "Anyone can take BSD code and do anything they want, it is more free than GPL!!" "Companies can take BSD code and make what ever they want, close it off if they like. We don't care, that's why we release it as BSD!!"
Now, the GPL guys take them at their word and the BSD guys get pissed off that they are making the code GPL.
Now the irony, for those ironically challenged, the BSD guys say their license is better because it is more free. The GPL guys say their license is better because it protects the intentions of the original authors and the "freedom of the code." The BSD guys are upset that their original intentions are not being honored by the GPL guys. Now, the BSD guys should fully understand the motivation of the GPL guys, to make sure what we want gets propagated on. The GPL versions and any changes to it will remain "free."
The BSD guys have "Made their big gay bed, and they must sleep gaily in it." (apologies to "Three to Tango")
One of the things you'll have to learn in life is that people who disagree with you sometimes do it for reasons other than stupidity, ignorance, or inferiority.
Being middle aged as I am, I'm pretty sure I've got it right. Carefully considered opinions are the bedrock of wisdom.
As Rehnquist had pointed out w/r to pornography, "I know it when I see it." Justice and Liberty are not so much subjective as they are in need of balance.
I consider drug testing and credit reporting a violation of implied rights and privacy under the fourth amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
"Code" as some abstract universal entity does not exist to be owned. There are only instantiations of it, copies of it, and only those can be owned. There is no such thing as intellectual property.
That may be true in a complete abstract notion, but it is not true in a legal sense. Patents, copyrights, trade secrets are intellectual property by definition.
Someone else making "unauthorized" copies of their copy does not at all restrict what you can do with your copy.
This is only true in a vacuum, If I write code that runs on Windows and Linux and t is designed to make interoperability possible within an application sphere, and microsoft takes my code, changes it (and keeps the changes private) so that it no longer functions with my original code, and then using their monopoly position and forces vendors to remove old APIs I used. Microsoft has effectively removed my ability to use my code. This happens all the time and GPL is a good protection of my freedom and the freedom of users to use my code.
You don't have to give them a copy in the first place, and you're free to require something from them in exchange for a copy (say, some other code from them); but once they have a copy of it, it is theirs to do with as they please, and once they've given *you* what *you* demanded in exchange for it, they don't have to give anyone anything they don't want to.
This is almost accurate, and what I demand in return for access to my code is a simple and clean share and share alike. If you don't like it, don't use my code.
"extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
And talk about a zealous, uninformed statement. Yes, extremism in the defense of liberty can be and often is a problem.
Sorry, but if you can't recognize the origin and inherent value of the phrase (hint, I didn't write it), you are not educated enough on the foundations of liberty to actually comment on it.
When will otherwise intelligent people give up their ignorance and READ about their history!!!
You are making a strawman argument. I simply asked if you resent "HAVING" to use a piece of software with an implied instead of choosing it.
Companies, you are right, are very pragmatic, but you can be sure it is not in your best interest to let their pragmatic deliberations choose your fate. You need to make sure you protect yourself.
Compromise is an interesting thing, I wonder how much Adobe compromises? Isn't it in your best interest to make sure you have an alternate?
Well, there are no absolutes in life. If you must pay a toll to accomplish something, then you must, but as a citizen you must work on removing the toll if it is not beneficial to society.
I have quit jobs because they wanted random drug testing, lie detector (bogus name, polygraph) tests, credit checks, etc. I am a member of the ACLU and believe in the Bill of Rights.
I think DRM and the nature of commercial software are serious dangers to freedom. (Amongst other things.)
You do what you want, but defense of freedom is IMPORTANT in its own right, and haven't you ever asked yourself *WHY* you *NEED* Photoshop, Acrobat, etc? Don't you feel your freedom harmed by the REQUIREMENT?
I think you miss the point. The Parent poster does not want to be forced to live by the 'share and share alike' rule that you were brainwashed with in kindergarten
Then that is simple, he should use someone else' code.
Slashdot Mirror
Your response is a prime example that you have no concept of what security is. 1. Linux and FreeBSD are absolutely obscure. They just aren't obscure to the people you know who know about them. The average owner of a zombied machine has no idea what any of those words are. Also Macintosh is not an OS.
First: Linux and FreeBSD are not "obscure" they may be "arcane" but they are not obscure, there isn't a single competent IT professional that does not know of the existence of Linux, FreeBSD, or Macintosh.
Second: Using "Macintosh" as a canonical term for a computer running OS/X is a reasonable and unambiguous short hand.
Third: We have not been addressing risk in this conversation nor have we been addressing impact, we have been addressing "security," which, by the way, if done correctly mitigates the risks and impact of a popular platform.
Your response is a prime example of why security is such a joke. Where to begin?
Your little home "insecure" OS is not a proper analogy as Linux, FreeBSD, and Macintosh are not obscure or unknown. Thus security through obscurity does not apply.
The fact that Windows is a "big" target has NOTHING to do with vulnerability. Nothing. Vulnerability and security measures are technical issues which apply to everything from ATMs to servers. Trying to link a technical deficiency to an apparent popularity is a logical fallacy.
If you do a proper break down of the attacks against Windows, and eliminate those which would not work against Linux or Mac, then you can have a proper understanding of the relative security of the systems.
Any defense of the "Big Target" argument falls directly into the hands Microsoft marketbots.
Linux is an inherently more secure OS than, say, Windows XP. It makes much smarter choices about what's enabled by default. It doesn't leave a bunch of ports open for no reason.
This is, possibly, a reason but not a main one.
It's also true that there's much, much more incentive to try to find a security hole in Windows XP because it's the most popular desktop choice and is thus most likely to have the highest density of ignorant users with credit card information.
So, you have fallen hook, line, and sinker into Microsofts disinformation campaign.
It never has, and never will, have anything to do with popularity or "incentive." That is a red herring put out there. The *real* incentive for crackers is to crack the "uncrackable." Windows is so easy, even script kiddies can do it.
Slashdot is not a good place for this debate because it is a complex issue that has to do with well researched facts and has nothing to do with "conventional wisdom" which is bought and paid for by advertising dollars.
Windows is still a disaster, and I think I know why people don't care. It is the "Big target" rational nonsense.
Microsoft has been successful in seeding in people's minds that "all computers are insecure and the only reason why Windows *LOOKS* so bad is that they are so many of them, and if [apple][linux][foo] were as popular, there would be just as many security holes."
It is a plausible argument when one is ignorant, as most are, of the basics of security. Unfortunately, the argument is getting traction and letting them off the hook.
Let's be honest guys and see this for what it is.
The iPod is *the* portable media player. period. Zune has made no traction in the market. NBC's affiliation with Microsoft is now being used to forward the Microsoft monopoly machine.
Microsoft says shut off apple and ipods and only serve Windows machines. You know the shoe will drop when the Zune becomes the *only* portable media player that will work. Just you watch.
Big companies like Windows with its DRM because it allows them to manage your pesky "fair use" rights for you to their benefit.
In the 60's the national guard fired bullets into a crowd of demonstrators.
In this century they beat you up and taser you.
Make no mistakes, the police are the jack booted thugs protecting the father^^^^^^homeland.
Anyone who says the police are in anyway justified in abusing this person deserves to live in fucking 1930's Nazi Germany. I apologize for the godwin-esque reference, but these are extreme times and the extreme descriptions fit.
Political rallies *ARE* emotionally charged. 6 guys in riot gear and tasers are not a civilized response to passionate speeches and hogging a microphone in a college political rally.
If we are not careful, our "free speech zones" will be the basements and closets that were necessary under Hitler and Stalin, if we have not reached that point already.
If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention.
There are many different perspectives and goals in the combined "open source" and "free software" environment. It is worrisome.
I think that most of the truly sincere individuals have basically the same goal, but see it differently.
I think the danger comes from the people who are not sincere and seek only to exploit the work of others, and to the extreme exclude the very authors from benefiting from their work.
Admit it or not, it is possible for a corporation like Microsoft to take free software, change it enough to make it incompatible with the original source, push it out to their monopoly platform, and create an environment in which the original source is almost useless.
Also, it is more than possible to create FUD and legal problems around "open source" and "free" software with patent claims and litigation.
These are very real problems for both BSD licensed projects as well as GPL licensed projects. The BSD licensed code, IMHO, is far more in danger than is GPL code. The GPL v3 seeks to protect the code and user better.
Is there a combined "open source" and "free software" community? If so, we need to figure out how to join forces. If not, we need to understand where any (if any) overlap exists and work there.
Personally, I don't like the BSD license because it allows a Microsoft to take code and hide it away. Sure, I can see the benefits of BSD, because I could take a PostgreSQL and make Joe's SQLDB and never pay a dime or give a line of code back, but I don't feel that is right, and I know that when someone else does it, it would bother me.
So, it is a conundrum. We need to come up with an agreed "basic" set of goals.
Hi, while this may be "flame bait" and I have no doubt that some may see it as such, but we have to get some scientific perspective.
Anyone who believes in "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" is a fool. It is absolutely no different than the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Thor, Oden, Zeus, Apollo, Rama, etc. It is all foolish nonsense that falls under fantasy and superstition. Any one who disagrees has to have accepted an irrational concept with no supporting evidence.
Is "science" right? Always, are the generally accepted scientific theories always right? No, but there is a fundamental rational for why we accept them as true. When the facts no longer fit the rational, we change our minds. We do not continue to believe despite the facts.
Evolution is a fact. It has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Has the exact process by which our species evolved been discovered? Hell no! We continue to learn more an interesting things about evolution each year. Evolution is the single greatest leap of human understanding over superstition.
"science" is often wrong when we use conjecture as theory, and theory as fact. Alchemy is an example of this. SCIENCE is typically unassailable when facts are documented and experiments confirm the facts.
Actually, good old Isaac was pretty irrational. Great at math, but kind of a dick.
As a self proclaimed "creationist" you are automatically kicked off the island of rational thinkers. Why even bother asking "why?" Obviously you have failed to exercise any critical thinking skills.
There is *no* rational argument that requires an acceptance of "You have to have faith." Religion, ID and/or creationism is a form of brain cancer akin to the neutron bomb. While it doesn't produce physical destruction, it breaks down the rational ability to evaluate facts and reason.
Do not accept without fact.
Do not believe without reason.
I am an atheist. When you figure out why you DON'T believe in Thor, Oden, Zeus, et. al you will understand why we don't believe in yours. Run along little boy and worship the easter bunny, santa clause, or what ever little nonsense you want, but keep it to yourself.
Small point, no one invented electricity, it's nature was discovered, and not by Benjamin Franklin.
Google does not use Microsoft internally to run their servers.
Microsoft was one of the *LAST* platforms to adopt TCP/IP. (Even counting Trumpet WinSock)
There were web browsers WAY BEFORE IE.
What, exactly, did Microsoft for for Google?
First of all you start with a personal attack, so I guess you are a moron.
Do you know anything about RMS and the history of GNU?
It *isn't* *just* a license.
Someone would have come along? Maybe, maybe not, but RMS did.
Linus, on the other hand, merely wrote his kernel so that he could run the GNU tools on minix.
RMS' GNU project is why Linus wrote the original Linux kernel.
Will the ignorant people in the world take a couple days off once and a while and READ!!!!
The idea behind the quote: "Progress is never made by reasonable people" is that reasonable people do not challenge the establishment. So few people these days care to recognize RMS for the absolutely unreasonably driven visionary he was.
A fair number of people can write software. Some of those even do it well. It takes a great individual to establish and outline a socio-economic model for collaborative software development.
So I might ask, "What the fuck are you talking about?"
Sorry, but after the RMS rants of yesterday, I find myself laughing at the BSD guys.
"BSD is more free, you can do what ever you want with it!!"
"Anyone can take BSD code and do anything they want, it is more free than GPL!!"
"Companies can take BSD code and make what ever they want, close it off if they like. We don't care, that's why we release it as BSD!!"
Now, the GPL guys take them at their word and the BSD guys get pissed off that they are making the code GPL.
Now the irony, for those ironically challenged, the BSD guys say their license is better because it is more free. The GPL guys say their license is better because it protects the intentions of the original authors and the "freedom of the code." The BSD guys are upset that their original intentions are not being honored by the GPL guys. Now, the BSD guys should fully understand the motivation of the GPL guys, to make sure what we want gets propagated on. The GPL versions and any changes to it will remain "free."
The BSD guys have "Made their big gay bed, and they must sleep gaily in it." (apologies to "Three to Tango")
Your fourth amendment rights are perfectly preserved because you have the right to walk away from any job that requires drug testing or a polygraph.
That's why I did leave, however, there is a large segment of the population that could not, without undue hardship, protect their rights.
The government should ABSOLUTELY step in and prohibit companies from invading the privacy of workers or customers.
One of the things you'll have to learn in life is that people who disagree with you sometimes do it for reasons other than stupidity, ignorance, or inferiority.
Being middle aged as I am, I'm pretty sure I've got it right. Carefully considered opinions are the bedrock of wisdom.
As Rehnquist had pointed out w/r to pornography, "I know it when I see it." Justice and Liberty are not so much subjective as they are in need of balance.
I consider drug testing and credit reporting a violation of implied rights and privacy under the fourth amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated."
If "Liberty" and "Justice" are highly subjective concepts to you, then I hope you get the chance to have first hand experience.
The ignorance on display is amazing.
"Code" as some abstract universal entity does not exist to be owned. There are only instantiations of it, copies of it, and only those can be owned. There is no such thing as intellectual property.
That may be true in a complete abstract notion, but it is not true in a legal sense. Patents, copyrights, trade secrets are intellectual property by definition.
Someone else making "unauthorized" copies of their copy does not at all restrict what you can do with your copy.
This is only true in a vacuum, If I write code that runs on Windows and Linux and t is designed to make interoperability possible within an application sphere, and microsoft takes my code, changes it (and keeps the changes private) so that it no longer functions with my original code, and then using their monopoly position and forces vendors to remove old APIs I used. Microsoft has effectively removed my ability to use my code. This happens all the time and GPL is a good protection of my freedom and the freedom of users to use my code.
You don't have to give them a copy in the first place, and you're free to require something from them in exchange for a copy (say, some other code from them); but once they have a copy of it, it is theirs to do with as they please, and once they've given *you* what *you* demanded in exchange for it, they don't have to give anyone anything they don't want to.
This is almost accurate, and what I demand in return for access to my code is a simple and clean share and share alike. If you don't like it, don't use my code.
"extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."
And talk about a zealous, uninformed statement. Yes, extremism in the defense of liberty can be and often is a problem.
Sorry, but if you can't recognize the origin and inherent value of the phrase (hint, I didn't write it), you are not educated enough on the foundations of liberty to actually comment on it.
When will otherwise intelligent people give up their ignorance and READ about their history!!!
Yes! It's called irony.
You are making a strawman argument. I simply asked if you resent "HAVING" to use a piece of software with an implied instead of choosing it.
Companies, you are right, are very pragmatic, but you can be sure it is not in your best interest to let their pragmatic deliberations choose your fate. You need to make sure you protect yourself.
Compromise is an interesting thing, I wonder how much Adobe compromises? Isn't it in your best interest to make sure you have an alternate?
Well, there are no absolutes in life. If you must pay a toll to accomplish something, then you must, but as a citizen you must work on removing the toll if it is not beneficial to society.
I have quit jobs because they wanted random drug testing, lie detector (bogus name, polygraph) tests, credit checks, etc. I am a member of the ACLU and believe in the Bill of Rights.
I think DRM and the nature of commercial software are serious dangers to freedom. (Amongst other things.)
You do what you want, but defense of freedom is IMPORTANT in its own right, and haven't you ever asked yourself *WHY* you *NEED* Photoshop, Acrobat, etc? Don't you feel your freedom harmed by the REQUIREMENT?
I think you miss the point. The Parent poster does not want to be forced to live by the 'share and share alike' rule that you were brainwashed with in kindergarten
Then that is simple, he should use someone else' code.