[ale] Opera 7.11 Linux Final is Out

[Joseph Knapka]

Synco Gibraldter <synco at xodarap.net> writes:

> 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.

I don't agree. I bet Linus doesn't agree, either.

Open source is a wonderful thing. But the only way Linux and other OSS
OSes can take back the computing industry from the likes of Microsoft
is if users have an incentive to use them. That incentive will come
from availability of high-quality, consumer-friendly applications, and
one major incentive for people to produce *consumer-friendly*
applications is the expectation of monetary profit.

> open your eyes.  if we didn't have open source, we would not have linux.

On the contrary, I think it's more like, "if we didn't have Linux, we
wouldn't have open source." Linus released Linux with no expecation of
personal profit, but if he hadn't done so I gaurantee you open source
would not be where it is today.

> 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.

But *you* don't decide if someone is being used. *They* do. If a
programmer produces and gives away a product with no strings attached
(not even GPL strings), then that's their decision, and they are
implicitly acknowledging that their work may be used by others without
compensation to the author. If that's the way they want it, then to
argue that they're being exploited in some way seems a bit
silly. Linus has explicitly made it clear that deploying closed-source
software on Linux is OK with him. It seems he *wants* commercial,
closed-source software to be produced for Linux.

<URL: http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/linus1999.shtml>

It's also rather silly to assert that just because someone isn't
being paid in money for a product they produced, they aren't able
to profit from it. Everyone who makes a significant contribution
to the open-source community stands to profit in some way, sometimes
tangible and sometimes not. Surely you've read ESR?

> 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.

And even *with* source, you can't be gauranteed your system is secure,
*even if* you read (and understand the security consequences of) every
line of code in every app. The only way you can can achieve gauranteed
security is by unplugging your machine from line current. Do you build
GCC from source before you build any apps for your system? If you
don't, how do you know GCC isn't inserting backdoors into every piece
of software you build? Even if you do build GCC from source, you can't
be certain this kind of thing isn't going on - the GCC you build your
GCC with could be inserting the backdoor-insertion code. So to
*really* be secure, you'd better hand-compile the GCC source, or
write your own C compiler from scratch in machine code (can't
trust gas or nasm, either).

But you don't. You trust the GCC distributors; therefore from
your perspective, GCC may as well be closed-source software.
Why is that OK (from a security standpoint), but Opera isn't?

> 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.

The wishes of (at least one of) the programmers in question are clear:
If you want to write closed-source software for the Linux platform,
knock yourself out.

>  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.

I *did* buy RH8, and I've had a Slackware subscription for years. Why?
Because I want to support corporations that support open source. Those
places *pay people* to write OSS code, improve the kernel, and so
forth.

Cheers,

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