he interestingly notes that software bugs are inevitable, and we should accept that and focus on making software that can simply tolerate bugs. very interesting indeed.
direct quote:
Perhaps we would do better learning instead to design systems that recognize the inevitability of software errors, tolerating them as safe locks tolerate inevitable mechanical imperfections.
how is hosting links to illegal files illegal? all torrents files are, are links which tell users with bittorrent where they are able to download illegal files (obviously many torrents are for legal files too). since the torrents sites aren't hosting any actual files how is this any different from google linking to a webpage that hosts pirated music or movies or images?
ok everyone who says "compile the source yourself, look at the source yourself, check the md5s yourself, etc..." needs to realize this very important thing:
98% of web users can't do any of the above. lets break it down.
1) compile/look at the source yourself. are you kidding me? how many lines of code are there for firefox/mozilla? you need to be pretty skilled in programming and have plenty of free time to read through all the lines of codes and search for that one tiny little backdoor/virus written into the source on that "mirror" server. i've done some my share of programming and am a skilled computer user but i couldn't do the above without serious time and some assistance. nevermind the 90% of the population who knows way less than me. this just is the worst argument ever since it doesn't apply to about 98% of webusers
2) "check the md5 checksums"... again like 90% of web users would say wtf is an "md5 checksum" and also the point others have mentioned if the source has been modified odds are they also took the 2 minutes to update the md5 checksums
the bottom line is most peoples' excuses for firefoxs' unsigned program situation are just not practical and not acceptable.
now does the dude at microsoft have some valid points? he sure does. is he also very biased? no doubt about it. but i think everyone needs to wakeup and realize all of us geeks on slashdot talking about how we "don't trust Verisign anyway" need to realize again 90% of people don't even know who Verisign is. they just know the program is "unsigned" and "may not be safe." now some users wont care and click anyway, but some will be cautious because of all the friggin spyware they've had and just say forget it.
are we willing to throw away those potentinal firefox users because we didn't throw down for a $600 VeriSign certificate? i hope not.
count me in for $20 towards the certificate if they go for one
Slashdot Mirror
you forgot his conclusion...
he interestingly notes that software bugs are inevitable, and we should accept that and focus on making software that can simply tolerate bugs. very interesting indeed.
direct quote:
Perhaps we would do better learning instead to design systems that recognize the inevitability of software errors, tolerating them as safe locks tolerate inevitable mechanical imperfections.
how is hosting links to illegal files illegal? all torrents files are, are links which tell users with bittorrent where they are able to download illegal files (obviously many torrents are for legal files too). since the torrents sites aren't hosting any actual files how is this any different from google linking to a webpage that hosts pirated music or movies or images?
video lan client is the best video player out there. it plays everything i've ever thrown at it.
;)
http://www.videolan.org/
a clean, free, open source gem
ok everyone who says "compile the source yourself, look at the source yourself, check the md5s yourself, etc..." needs to realize this very important thing:
98% of web users can't do any of the above. lets break it down.
1) compile/look at the source yourself. are you kidding me? how many lines of code are there for firefox/mozilla? you need to be pretty skilled in programming and have plenty of free time to read through all the lines of codes and search for that one tiny little backdoor/virus written into the source on that "mirror" server. i've done some my share of programming and am a skilled computer user but i couldn't do the above without serious time and some assistance. nevermind the 90% of the population who knows way less than me. this just is the worst argument ever since it doesn't apply to about 98% of webusers
2) "check the md5 checksums"... again like 90% of web users would say wtf is an "md5 checksum" and also the point others have mentioned if the source has been modified odds are they also took the 2 minutes to update the md5 checksums
the bottom line is most peoples' excuses for firefoxs' unsigned program situation are just not practical and not acceptable.
now does the dude at microsoft have some valid points? he sure does. is he also very biased? no doubt about it. but i think everyone needs to wakeup and realize all of us geeks on slashdot talking about how we "don't trust Verisign anyway" need to realize again 90% of people don't even know who Verisign is. they just know the program is "unsigned" and "may not be safe." now some users wont care and click anyway, but some will be cautious because of all the friggin spyware they've had and just say forget it.
are we willing to throw away those potentinal firefox users because we didn't throw down for a $600 VeriSign certificate? i hope not.
count me in for $20 towards the certificate if they go for one