[ale] Opera 7.11 Linux Final is Out

Wed May 21 11:13:02 EDT 2003

the point isn't that you DO go through every line of code.  of course i
don't have time for that.  but i COULD if i had a question as to the
integrity of a program i'm running.  why would i even BOTHER trying to
make my system secure if i was going to just turn around and run a program
that i have absolutely no way to verify the integrity of?

i'm not saying ALL programmers should work for free.  in the
case of proprietary software for linux and ALL mac/win software i think
it's very acceptable to be paid.  but we're talking about a WEB BROWSER
here ok?  on linux.  i think any widely used and publically available
software for linux should absolutely be open source.  i find it hard to
believe that no one else yet agrees with me.

open your eyes.  if we didn't have open source, we would not have linux.
if every person that worked on linux software made their 'cut' off of
selling the software to end users, it would be more expensive than
microsoft products.  you can say "if you don't think i'ts worth it, don't
buy it.  but they still have a right to sell it" -- but it's the
principle.  i don't want to see linux software headed towards
commercialism because what if the newbie linux users start to think that's
ok?  what if they think it's NORMAL to sell linux software?  if the linux
software market starts getting flooded by commercial vendors, not only
would that be horribly greedy and unethical [to USE other people for your
own profit] but it denounces the notion of the 'public' software that
people have loved about gnu/linux for so long.

believe me dude, many many linux operators refuse to run binaries.  and
they would be stupid not to.  excuse me if i just called anyone stupid,
but binaries are highly dangerous.  anyone who knows shit about shit won't
run one on a system they believe is secure because once that's done, the
system can no longer be counted on.  i can go right this second and the
source code for every piece of software on my machine.  that doesn't mean
i've READ every line of it.  but of course i look through them.  i read
the configure/Makefile scripts and glance at and grep the code.  you kind
of have to if you care about your computer.  but you don't have to READ
every line of code.  i can go back at any point in time and see the source
code i compiled.  if something is acting strange, i will know why.  and
more importantly than that is the principle.  my feelings about this topic
are more protective than anything.  linux is BUILT on the concept of open
source software.  it urks me to see people disregarding the wishes of the
programmers who have released so much code in support of the open source
movement.  i think it's blatently selfish to cast aside the IDEALS on
which the platform is built to stand on top of it and peddle software in a
way that has been DENOUNCED by the linux community and is in fact the
REASON for the EXISTENCE of the community.

if you don't understand this notion, then you probably bought red hat off
of a store shelf.  read about the free software foundation.  learn how and
why open source works.  learn how linux got where it is today and tell me
that selling commercial software for linux shouldn't be considered 'USING'
the developers of linux [who have not made/wanted money].

it's about the principle.  if linux has given you anything NEAR what is
has given me, you will be protective of its ideals as well.  don't forget
that if we all thought the way you did, we wouldn't have linux.

synco

On Wed, 21 May 2003, James Sumners wrote:

> You are not giving your code to your employer. Your employer is paying you for
> the code. When you decided that you wanted to work for whatever company you work
> for to you essentially made the arrangement that you would write whatever they
> asked for as long as they give you a pay check.
>
> Someone who writes software and then offers up the source code for free (as in
> no money) is not doing such a thing. I do prefer that this be the way of things;
> but, if someone, company or person, produces a product that they
> do not wish to disclose the source to I don't really care. If it is a good
> product that I feel is worth the amount of money they are asking for I will
> purchase the product so as to say "Here, you have done well so far. Keep up the
> good work."
>
> To write something off because they do not offer the source code for a specific
> platform is absurd. And it is not a valid argument to say that you must have to
> source because you are concerned about some security hole it might create. I am
> sure that 99.99999% of the people who make such an argument do not spend
> countless hours going through every line of source code to every single program
> they have installed on their machine.
>
> On 21 May 2003 03:07:11 -0400
> Marvin Dickens <mpdickens at tlanta.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 01:58, James Sumners wrote:
> > > Oh no! Someone is trying to make a profit and not give everyone their hard
> > > work.
> >
> > ...Snickering as I read this... I've been involved with computers and
> > software in some form or fashion since the early 1980's. It is how I
> > make a living and I really don't know how to do anything else. So, let
> > me get this straight:
> >
> > I'm supposed to give away sw that I spend 40 or 50 hours a week
> > writing.  Almost every programmer, with the exception of college
> > students, that works on gnu or otherwise free sw also holds down a full
> > time job as a programmer.
> >
> > To think it works any other way is not the product of a rational mind.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > M. dickens
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
>
> --
>
> All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological
> personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the
> corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a
> condition to which they are quickly addicted.
>
> Missionara Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
> CH:D 59
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale