[ale] Opera 7.11 Linux Final is Out

[Synco Gibraldter]

all good points man -- all good.  but...


On 21 May 2003, Joseph Knapka wrote:
> 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.
>

but is the purpose of linux [and other ossoses] to 'take back the
computing industry?'  it didn't used to be... i mean, it would be great if
linux were the norm-- but not at the expense of its founding ideals.
linus isn't going to tell people not to make software for his os.  but he
didn't do it for money.  gnu folk didn't do it for money.  at what point
did money even become an issue?


> > 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 you want to think about it like that, it really makes no difference on
the conclusion; open source IS where it is today.  it has produced
software that is competitive with OSes that have been around for MUCH
MUCH longer.  it has grown very swiftly.  and all its success has stemmed
from a system through which the software is better BECAUSE it is free.  at
what point is it okay to scrap the OSS methods and switch over to the less
effective commercial software method of development?  if linux had been
commercial from the start, do you honestly believe it would be as far as
it is today?


> 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>

true, it's not *my* place to tell them they can't do it.  really, no one
at this point can tell them they can't.  but i still hold my personal
opinion that it's wrong.

> 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?

i'm not talking about profit through experience, reputation, and other
aspects of personal valuation -- i'm talking about putting your software
in a box, putting a price tag on it, and putting it on a shelf.


> 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?
>

right, but it's about minimizing the risk.  i have a lot more confidence
in my gcc build than i would in an opera binary.  we can never be 100%
confident that our systems have not been compromised, but these risks are
constant/fixed.  we cannot escape them.  running a binary that somebody
gives/sells you is a huge leap of potential risk.  since you're so
insecure anyway, how about i send you a binary and you run it blindly?  i
didn't think so ;]


> 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'm not arguing that the world feels the way i do.  it's obvious from the
responses today that i'm in the minority on this one.  but whereas linus
is probably motivated by the 'growth' of his OS, i love the ideals of open
source.  i appreciate all that's been done by these programmers to get the
platform is deep as it is currently and i want it to continue as quickly
and successfully as it has been.  i feel like if money were involved
throughout the whole process, it would be much different.  that's why i
believe the introduction of money into the OSS environment is not going to
be beneficial.


> 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.

i support those types of organizations too.  absolutely.  but what is
opera doing for the open source community?

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