So when this same type of thing happens in Windows it's that Windows coders are inept but when the same happens in Linux it's because of a conspiracy? Please. If the Samsung coders are that inept, the deserve to be fired at once. This 'bug' is that severe that there is absotely no excuse.
The Linux community better be damn well ready for when this becomes commonplace as more people use Linux. I don't expect it as much from real vendors but it's going to happen more from the likes of amateur coders and malware producers. This is a bogus argument, which simply is not applicable in this case. If Linux gets more users, the percentage of those who install and execute everything the find will grow, but this has nothing to do with dangerous commercial, binary only software packages.
Too many have fallen pray to the myth that Linux isn't going to have some of the same issues that Windows has with these areas in software. Maybe too many, but not those who count. Every developer and every admin with normal average knowledge knows that Linux will have the same problems when companies spew their binary only junk around, which has to be installed as root. This is one reason why there is such a strong opposition against binary drivers in the kernel.
This incident alone shows that Linux will not be immune to those who don't care enough, don't know enough or are willing enough to sacrifice system security for whatever reasons. "Don't care enough, don't know enough". You make is sound as if a user was at fault here. What would have been the correct behaviour of a user who knows and cares except not to by Samsung hardware in this case?
...I would not call this a mere bug. This was an intentional attempt to create a backdoor. Come on, who believes that a very specific driver of all things changes the permissions of a very unspecific program like OpenOffice? Something like that does not happen by accident.
Ok, I might be wrong with my accusation, but in this case I'd say I don't have to prove it, but Samsung has to prove its innocence by making public in details how exactly it came to this 'bug'.
Actually I am avoiding the whole of America. Currently I am looking for a new job. I am a bit afraid that I might find a good one, which might include necessary visits to Satan's own country. It would be a tough decision then. Btw. I would not have the same problems with visits in Russia or even China.
As far as I know retro viruses do not integrate themselves at totally random places in the genome, but there are preferred areas. So would it be possible to manufacture an artificial retro virus, which preferably integrates itself within the sequence the HIV virus adds to the human genome, rendering it inert this way?
unfortunately sarcasm come across well on the internet. without the person's body language, people can't identify sarcasm and often incorrectly assume the poster is an idiot.
Yep, already noticed that and decided to be a bit more careful in the future.
Does this really need to be legislated? Eh, no I don't think so.
No, of course this does not need to be legislated. Just like with compulsory drug tests, the market will regulate itself. Just like nobody wanted to take the drug tests and work for companies, which required them, the RFID implantations won't happen because no company would find employees who would accept them.
Look at the parents statement. What I meant was that laws, which does not strictly forbid RFID implantation, are worthless. A law, which just says that an employer cannot require an implantation is even worse than worthless. It gives a semblance of protection, but does in effect nothing at all. For exactly the same reasons you gave.
It's a worthless thing. You don't want your chip implanted? Ok, it is your good right to refuse, it is our good right to choose an employee, accepts it.
Now, the idea is to run Linux on it eventually, but I'm married and haven't got the same kind of spare time as I did back in 2000....
Then:
That said, I know how to secure and harden Windows machines.
Yes, I know Windows can be hardened, though I cannot do it myself, I do know one or two people who can. But I have never seen a person, who could harden his Windows and forget maintenance forever. Keeping in touch with all the Windows problems is a lengthy and time consuming task. The strange thing is most people does't seem to recognise how much time they spend on nonproductive time just to keep their system clean. Another problem is that many hardly see when their efforts failed.
On the other hand you rarely get Linux preinstalled, therefore Linux is sooo difficult, you have to spend sooo much time just to install it. If you make a mistake, you almost for sure see that something is wrong, which causes most people to feel dumb. People don't like feeling dumb, so Linux must be the cause.
However, if it is installed and running it is very low maintenance. So there might be a couple of reasons to prefer Windows over Linux, but for sure it has nothing to do with 'spare time' or the lack of it.
And where is there the logic? Even if there was a huge world wide flood, which buried the dinosaur bones much deeper than they would have been without the flood, how is the gap between dinosaur bones and human bones explained? If dinosaurs and humans drowned in the same flood, the bones should be equally distributed.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I can't speak for the previous poster, but I care what the FSF say because a lot of people listen to them, including people who have influence on the development of policy and law in the EU.
In a way the FSF is a lobby organisation like many others. I understand your point of view, but I would not overrate to influence of the FSF. I suppose many programmers, which use the GPL do so without any ideology in general and the FSF in particular in mind. And even if the FSF exaggerates from time to time, which lobby organisation does not in order to be heard?
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The FSF acts like "free software" is a moral issue, with key rights at stake.
And you care what the FSF says exaclty why? I write GPL software, but don't care at all what the FSF says.
They believe all software should be GPL, and we are losing our freedom otherwise.
So what? Others believe in a young earth. Does not concern me either.
However, they do no provide any justification as to why software should be treated any different than anything else, nor do they provide any reason to believe that they think their rules should apply to anything but software.
Ok, misunderstood in your previous post what you meant with 'justification'. If you mean justification that way, I must say I don't care. I don't need more justification to use the GPL other than that I like the concept. I profited from it, I give back.
Seems the only dispute here remains in the definition of 'free' when it comes to free software'.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
1) The definition of "free" used in "free software" isn't a definition most people would expect (as evidenced by the fact that any introduction to free software has a length intro on how they define the word free)
And I am exactly refuting that. Everybody except trolls know that every freedom has limits. Just as in my example with the public domain software, just because I cannot make public domain software my own and close it for anybody else, it is not less free. Same for the GPL restrictions. But yes, 'free' is a very powerful meme, and most closed source apologist hate it, that this meme is so strongly connected to the open source movement. Tough luck, live with it.
2) The free software movement is based on the idea that anyone receiving software should inherently be entitled to the full source so that the software can be recreated exactly, however, there is no justification as to why software should receive this treatment when there are no expectations that other types of products should.
Pardon me? No justification? It is the same justification that is valid for each and every product: The copyright. Btw., you are mixing here free software movement with the special case of the GPL. BSD is also part of the free software movement, but noone needs to give his sources away. When it comes to copyright, the copyright holder is entitled to choose how he likes to license his work. He may demand money, he may demand a friendly postcard, he may demand that you heed the demands within the GPL. You don't like it? Too bad for you. I don't like to pay for software. Too bad for me. I don't use commercial software, you please keep your greedy little hands from GPL software.
Your post, when readable, is simply setting up some pretty bad strawmen to tear down.
You really should not talk about strawmen.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
"Freedom = no limitations" is a troll?
You are definitely and without a doubt a troll. But fine, have it your way. You know that PostgreSQL is BSD? Most BDS is free? No free enough? Public Domain? Ok, from now on all public domain software belongs to me. Noone is allowed to use any public domain software withougt paying me $$$$. Noone is allowed anymore to say that there is a single piece of public domain software, which was not written by me. I can not do this? Hey, public domain limits my freedom. You call this 'free software'? Ridiculous.
As for taking freedom from the user... in what other industry do you expect a manufacturer to provide the full source to their products?
Name one. I expect all industries to do so, when a contract exists, which entitles me to get the sources. When it is software and they use GPL software, they have a contract with the copyright holder to provide full sources. If they don't want to do this, they have to code their own stuff.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
When you buy a car, do you expect to be given the specifications to manufacturer a new engine identical to the original? Or the other parts of the car?
No, of course not.
Do you expect your home electronics to come with circuit diagrams detailing every part and connection?
No, of course not.
Do you expect your CPU to come with the code used to create it?
No, of course not.
Do you expect your music CDs to come with sheet music?
No, of course not.
Oh wait, what am I saying, of course I do. I expect exactly this when a manufacturer voluntary committed himself to do exactly that. And this is what each manufacturer does, when he uses GPL code. This is not acceptable? No problem, but hands off from GPL code.
Most things do work the way the majority wants, in the long run.
I don't think the experiment 'democracy' is old enough to be really sure here. And even if this statement was valid in the past, I am not sure it is still applicable. The world changes, so does technology and especially the media. The methods to manipulate information today would have been the wet dream of a Joseph Goebbels. The most important requisites for democracy are not votes, but information.
I live in Germany and I can see democracy deteriorating at an alarmingly rate. Oh, we will always have our 'right' to vote, but it won't help, because with the proper control of the media and a proper divide and conquer strategy you can make sure to get the results you need.
I have quite a bit of experience dealing with leftist fundamentalists who can't get it out of their heads that violent revolution is the "only way"
I am not a leftist fundamentalist, but I am afraid that is what will happen. Not that I see this as 'way', especially not one that should be furthered, but one that will sooner or later happen. Just call me a pessimist, if you like.
I am also no right winger, but when I see how Germany (just as an example, there are still states) installs a surveillance state, which even dwarfs the DDR, then I say the state is trampling on my rights.
Generally I like the idea of a democracy, I just wonder how many will survive this century.
Russia does not have strong democratic traditions, just as Germany did not have strong democratic traditions under the Weimar republic.
What strong democratic traditions are worth can be seen in the best democracy money can buy.
As for a cold war, it takes two to tango and Russia is really the only one talking cold war.
Depends on where one stands. Just because one talks about a 'missile defense system' and the other one about 'missiles' it does not necessarily mean the one is more aggressive than the other. The one simply might have the better press.
Perhaps practice your translation skill a bit more. Never said that. But if you think that most things work the way the majority wants, I can understand your conclusion. However, in that case it would be totally ok if we get a new cold war. Russia is a democracy, America is a democracy, most of Europe's countries are democracies, so if we get a new cold war, it must be the will of the majority.
I think you are letting nostalgia get the better of you.
Maybe, maybe not. All your examples above, from the letter throwing president of Iran to suddenly everyone and his grandmother has or is close to having the bomb, how comes? I deem the current situation much more dangerous than the situation around the 80th. Sure, there were some minor wars, but generally both super powers more or less behaved. But perhaps you can explain the apparent rise of 'terrorism' after the cold war? Coincidence?
As for the 1984 concerns. In modern democracies with strong constitutions, sanity eventually prevails.
Sorry, but I gave up this hope decades ago. I don't believe in democracy anymore. The average intelligence and character of the so called majority is simply too low.
A particular government oversteps its bounds, but is eventually reigned in.
This has to be proven, yet. At least it has be be proven that this is possible without a major spill of blood.
For all the rest of your reply: We will see.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
except the GPL people believe they shouldn't give back to the BSD community, which is rude.
Why is it rude? They use the BSD license the way it was intended by the copyright holder.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I mean, if you go to a restaurant for dinner, do you complain of your freedom being violated if you're not given the recipe for what you're served?
Stupid example. May I give an example, which is exactly as stupid?
You go to a restaurant for dinner, and get something you cannot identify. When you ask what this is, you get the answer 'food'. Does it violate your freedom, when you are asked to eat or pay for something you don't know?
As I said, this example is as stupid than yours. I suppose others could find dozens for other ones to support the one or other opinion.
It also goes to show once more that the GPLv3 is anti-business.
GPLv3 anti-business? Really? Actually when the GPLv3 is out I will relicense my code using the GPLv3. But I am not anti-business. If you don't want to use GPLv3 you might come to me and we start negotiating how much you have to pay me to use my code otherwise. Normal business behaviour. Should be no problem for you.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
Yada-yada-yada. Don't you know that everything that runs on Windows 2000 automatically belongs to Microsoft? No? Fortunately this statement is as much FUD as yours. But I really wish more FUD like that would be spread against Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
...I would not call this a mere bug. This was an intentional attempt to create a backdoor. Come on, who believes that a very specific driver of all things changes the permissions of a very unspecific program like OpenOffice? Something like that does not happen by accident.
Ok, I might be wrong with my accusation, but in this case I'd say I don't have to prove it, but Samsung has to prove its innocence by making public in details how exactly it came to this 'bug'.
The post surely is correct and good and deserves to be modded 'insightful', but it is an 'Anonymous Coward' post. I never waste mod points on those.
Actually I am avoiding the whole of America. Currently I am looking for a new job. I am a bit afraid that I might find a good one, which might include necessary visits to Satan's own country. It would be a tough decision then. Btw. I would not have the same problems with visits in Russia or even China.
As far as I know retro viruses do not integrate themselves at totally random places in the genome, but there are preferred areas. So would it be possible to manufacture an artificial retro virus, which preferably integrates itself within the sequence the HIV virus adds to the human genome, rendering it inert this way?
No problem. Just find an argument how this helps fighting terrorism.
Look at the parents statement. What I meant was that laws, which does not strictly forbid RFID implantation, are worthless. A law, which just says that an employer cannot require an implantation is even worse than worthless. It gives a semblance of protection, but does in effect nothing at all. For exactly the same reasons you gave.
It's a worthless thing. You don't want your chip implanted? Ok, it is your good right to refuse, it is our good right to choose an employee, accepts it.
The correct way to mark employees is still an ear tag.
On the other hand you rarely get Linux preinstalled, therefore Linux is sooo difficult, you have to spend sooo much time just to install it. If you make a mistake, you almost for sure see that something is wrong, which causes most people to feel dumb. People don't like feeling dumb, so Linux must be the cause.
However, if it is installed and running it is very low maintenance. So there might be a couple of reasons to prefer Windows over Linux, but for sure it has nothing to do with 'spare time' or the lack of it.
And where is there the logic? Even if there was a huge world wide flood, which buried the dinosaur bones much deeper than they would have been without the flood, how is the gap between dinosaur bones and human bones explained? If dinosaurs and humans drowned in the same flood, the bones should be equally distributed.
Name one. I expect all industries to do so, when a contract exists, which entitles me to get the sources. When it is software and they use GPL software, they have a contract with the copyright holder to provide full sources. If they don't want to do this, they have to code their own stuff.
Oh wait, what am I saying, of course I do. I expect exactly this when a manufacturer voluntary committed himself to do exactly that. And this is what each manufacturer does, when he uses GPL code. This is not acceptable? No problem, but hands off from GPL code.
I live in Germany and I can see democracy deteriorating at an alarmingly rate. Oh, we will always have our 'right' to vote, but it won't help, because with the proper control of the media and a proper divide and conquer strategy you can make sure to get the results you need. I am not a leftist fundamentalist, but I am afraid that is what will happen. Not that I see this as 'way', especially not one that should be furthered, but one that will sooner or later happen. Just call me a pessimist, if you like.
I am also no right winger, but when I see how Germany (just as an example, there are still states) installs a surveillance state, which even dwarfs the DDR, then I say the state is trampling on my rights.
Generally I like the idea of a democracy, I just wonder how many will survive this century. What strong democratic traditions are worth can be seen in the best democracy money can buy. Depends on where one stands. Just because one talks about a 'missile defense system' and the other one about 'missiles' it does not necessarily mean the one is more aggressive than the other. The one simply might have the better press.
Perhaps practice your translation skill a bit more. Never said that. But if you think that most things work the way the majority wants, I can understand your conclusion. However, in that case it would be totally ok if we get a new cold war. Russia is a democracy, America is a democracy, most of Europe's countries are democracies, so if we get a new cold war, it must be the will of the majority.
You go to a restaurant for dinner, and get something you cannot identify. When you ask what this is, you get the answer 'food'. Does it violate your freedom, when you are asked to eat or pay for something you don't know?
As I said, this example is as stupid than yours. I suppose others could find dozens for other ones to support the one or other opinion.