Open Source Developers Shun GPLv3 - Linux

This is a discussion on Open Source Developers Shun GPLv3 - Linux ; http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927...T22gOpvU0jtBAF Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body for open source ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 259

Thread: Open Source Developers Shun GPLv3

  1. Open Source Developers Shun GPLv3

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927...T22gOpvU0jtBAF

    Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open
    source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year
    under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body for
    open source and free software, according to a survey released Wednesday.

    In addition, more than 40% of those surveyed said they won't ever publish
    their work under Version 3 of the General Public License, which was released
    earlier this year by the Free Software Foundation. "GPLv3 is controversial
    because it imposes restrictions on what you can do with programs," said John
    Andrews, CEO of survey taker Evans Data, in a statement.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: Open Source Developers Shun GPLv3

    On Sep 27, 12:28 pm, "Ms. Polly Ester" wrote:
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927...ylt=AiieE0MGKY...
    >
    > Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open
    > source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year
    > under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body for
    > open source and free software, according to a survey released Wednesday.
    >
    > In addition, more than 40% of those surveyed said they won't ever publish
    > their work under Version 3 of the General Public License, which was released
    > earlier this year by the Free Software Foundation. "GPLv3 is controversial
    > because it imposes restrictions on what you can do with programs," said John
    > Andrews, CEO of survey taker Evans Data, in a statement.



    More fragmentation to put some more nails in the Linux coffin.
    At some point the Linux loons will figure out that all of these spin
    offs are not a good thing for Linux.

    With 700+ different versions of Linux and now new GPL3 it's just more
    confusion for the suits that make the decisions.
    Microsoft makes it easy for those types.
    Linux makes it a clusterfsck.



  3. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    pus.boy99@gmail.com wrote:

    > On Sep 27, 12:28 pm, "Ms. Polly Ester" wrote:
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927...ylt=AiieE0MGKY...
    >>
    >> Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open
    >> source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year
    >> under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body for
    >> open source and free software, according to a survey released Wednesday.
    >>
    >> In addition, more than 40% of those surveyed said they won't ever publish
    >> their work under Version 3 of the General Public License, which was
    >> released earlier this year by the Free Software Foundation. "GPLv3 is
    >> controversial because it imposes restrictions on what you can do with
    >> programs," said John Andrews, CEO of survey taker Evans Data, in a
    >> statement.

    >
    >
    > More fragmentation to put some more nails in the Linux coffin.
    > At some point the Linux loons will figure out that all of these spin
    > offs are not a good thing for Linux.
    >
    > With 700+ different versions of Linux and now new GPL3 it's just more
    > confusion for the suits that make the decisions.
    > Microsoft makes it easy for those types.
    > Linux makes it a clusterfsck.



    There are more Linux clusters that windopws clusters.
    There are more open source developers than Micoshaft developers.
    75% of all new projects are open source.
    Its time to switch to Linux and be done with.
    See the advanced technology in action here
    http://www.livecdlist.com
    Just download and boot from CD.
    All your drivers automagically configured.
    No amount of Pistification of your Pista PC will
    compare with a Linux PC.
    http://www.distrowatch.com for more in depth reviews.


  4. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation


    "7" wrote in message
    news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...



    > See the advanced technology in action here
    > http://www.livecdlist.com
    > Just download and boot from CD.


    You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.


  5. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7

    wrote
    on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:25:36 GMT
    <4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
    > pus.boy99@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >> On Sep 27, 12:28 pm, "Ms. Polly Ester" wrote:
    >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927...ylt=AiieE0MGKY...
    >>>
    >>> Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open
    >>> source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year
    >>> under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body for
    >>> open source and free software, according to a survey released Wednesday.
    >>>
    >>> In addition, more than 40% of those surveyed said they won't ever publish
    >>> their work under Version 3 of the General Public License, which was
    >>> released earlier this year by the Free Software Foundation. "GPLv3 is
    >>> controversial because it imposes restrictions on what you can do with
    >>> programs," said John Andrews, CEO of survey taker Evans Data, in a
    >>> statement.

    >>
    >>
    >> More fragmentation to put some more nails in the Linux coffin.
    >> At some point the Linux loons will figure out that all of these spin
    >> offs are not a good thing for Linux.
    >>
    >> With 700+ different versions of Linux and now new GPL3 it's just more
    >> confusion for the suits that make the decisions.
    >> Microsoft makes it easy for those types.
    >> Linux makes it a clusterfsck.

    >
    >
    > There are more Linux clusters that windopws clusters.


    True, but I'm not sure as to its relevance. Most users
    won't play "build the grid". Of course, most users use
    Microsoft (unfortunately for them), so there's some issues
    there... :-)

    > There are more open source developers than Micoshaft developers.


    I wish I knew how to verify that. It's probably true, though
    a lot of freeware / shareware source code is targeted at Windows.

    > 75% of all new projects are open source.


    Ditto.

    > Its time to switch to Linux and be done with.


    Conquering all of the world's desktop ... one user at a time. :-)

    > See the advanced technology in action here
    > http://www.livecdlist.com
    > Just download and boot from CD.


    One of the things Windows cannot do. (At least legally! :-) )

    > All your drivers automagically configured.
    > No amount of Pistification of your Pista PC will
    > compare with a Linux PC.


    Oh, but gotta love the hypnotically pretty backdrops... :-)

    > http://www.distrowatch.com for more in depth reviews.
    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
    std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
    if(*i == thing) {...}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    Asstroturfer dennis@home wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:

    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >
    >
    >
    >> See the advanced technology in action here
    >> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >> Just download and boot from CD.

    >
    > You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    > booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    > It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    > Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    > It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.


    100% wrong!!!

    Linux distributions come with source code.
    If you don't trust a distro, you can make it yourself
    with the original source code.

    Begs the question which corporation is gonna trust a micoshaft CD that has
    no accompanying source code?
    Micoshaft recommend their install CDs which are self booting
    and you have no access to their source code to know
    whats in a Micoshaft CD!!!

    All Linux CDs come *WITH* source code so that you can be sure
    that no viruses or other crap spyware and adware has been put into it.

    That is a fundmantal distinction between open source Linux
    and closed source untrustworthy Micoshaft sponsored products.



  7. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >
    >
    >
    >> See the advanced technology in action here
    >> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >> Just download and boot from CD.

    >
    > You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    > booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.


    Strangely enough, though 7 is a loon, he's not the sort of loon to
    recommend you trash your machine from some roague CD. The list is genuine.

    > It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.


    Actually, no. Some don't even make it easy or possible to have write
    access to your drives

    > Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    > It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.


    Well, I've used dozens of LiveCDs over the past few years, and not one has
    ever harmed my PCs. On the contrary, they've helped me save data when
    hardware went tit's-up.

    --
    Kier


  8. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    dennis@home wrote:

    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >
    >
    >
    >> See the advanced technology in action here
    >> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >> Just download and boot from CD.

    >
    > You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    > booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    > It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    > Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    > It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.


    Idiot
    --
    Who the **** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?


  9. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation


    "7" wrote in message
    news:dOVKi.21730$c_1.2486@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    > Asstroturfer dennis@home wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:
    >
    >>
    >> "7" wrote in message
    >> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>> Just download and boot from CD.

    >>
    >> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    >> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    >> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.

    >
    > 100% wrong!!!


    You shouldn't be so certain, the Internet is full of nasty clever people
    that will eat you for breakfast.

    > Linux distributions come with source code.
    > If you don't trust a distro, you can make it yourself
    > with the original source code.
    >
    > Begs the question which corporation is gonna trust a micoshaft CD that has
    > no accompanying source code?
    > Micoshaft recommend their install CDs which are self booting
    > and you have no access to their source code to know
    > whats in a Micoshaft CD!!!
    >
    > All Linux CDs come *WITH* source code so that you can be sure
    > that no viruses or other crap spyware and adware has been put into it.


    Rubbish.
    They don't all come with source, and you will find it hard to compile it and
    make your own.
    You have no way to actually know a live CD is safe unless you know where it
    came from and you know they can be trusted.

    >
    > That is a fundmantal distinction between open source Linux
    > and closed source untrustworthy Micoshaft sponsored products.


    You are letting irrational hate get in the way of logic.
    You would make an ideal target for a hacker.


  10. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "7" wrote in message
    >> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>> Just download and boot from CD.

    >>
    >> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    >> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    >> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.

    >
    > Idiot


    Just what I said! It's obvious he hasn't a clue.

    --
    Operating systems:
    FreeBSD 6.2, Debian 4.0
    PCLinuxOS 2007, (K)Ubuntu 7.04
    Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" alpha - Tribe 5

  11. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    William Poaster wrote:
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> "7" wrote in message
    >> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>> Just download and boot from CD.

    >> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    >> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    >> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.

    >
    > Idiot.
    >


    are jokes. You two have been in bed with each other too many times.
    Please, no one wants to see you two with your sloppy seconds sex act.>

  12. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, dennis@home

    wrote
    on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:59 +0100
    :
    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >
    >
    >
    >> See the advanced technology in action here
    >> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >> Just download and boot from CD.

    >
    > You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    > booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    > It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    > Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    > It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.
    >


    An interesting problem, all around. Sony in particular
    ran into a variant of this issue when releasing certain
    discs with their now-famous rootkit. Stick disc [#] in --
    get infected. Any .iso[*] is of course a problem waiting
    to happen, if one downloads it from the wrong place.

    I'm going to try to break it down; let's see how much
    sense this makes. Basically, that box by one's elbow
    (or foot) is a rather sophisticated state machine/storage
    repository/cruncher/message or packet sender. In short,
    it can (attempt to):

    - store information
    - retrieve information from storage
    - retrieve information from the Internet (the Web being a subpart
    thereof)
    - compute based on internal information
    - run one or more sequences of control instructions (software)
    - any combination thereof (e.g., games generally are a
    combination of information retrieval -- game data --
    information storage (save files, instruction broadcast
    for multiplayer affairs), and simulation (basically,
    computation).

    and more nefarious uses:

    - destroy data by writing zeroes all over it.
    - ransack internal storage, looking for interesting data.
    - feed from various sources, looking for even more interesting data.
    - broadcast pings, nonsense packets, or deliberately corrupted
    packets designed to interfere with some other system's operation
    (e.g., the infamous teardrop bug caused a kernel crash, or
    the system is simply participating as part of a 'botnet doing a
    DDoS flood).

    It's worth noting that control instructions can be
    either data (if one uses something like a hex dump or
    disassembler) or instructions to the microprocessor.
    Script engines complicate things further; the
    microprocessor can of course interpret instructions but a
    scripting engine can read data and do various things such
    as read files, write files, do various computations, etc.
    The best known scripting engine is arguably Perl, but
    Bash, Python, Ruby, PHP, and Tcl also fit. (On Windows,
    there's VBScript and JScript as well, plus PowerShell when
    it comes out.)

    So who's fault is it in case of things like BadBunny,
    Netsky, or Sobig? An interesting question.

    Now, that shiny disc, to oversimplify things, can be one
    of three items.

    - data.
    - instructions.
    - both.

    Audio is digital data. (For whatever reason it's not
    extractable as such without specialized code, however;
    instead, it comes through as straight sound. See the
    Red Book for the gory details in the case of CD's.
    I don't know if DVDs have similar issues or not;
    they're even weirder AFAICT. Of course rippers are
    readily available anyway.) Presumably, Sony's disc
    had an Autoplay capability of some sort, that installed
    their little hack on machines capable of processing such.
    One wonders if a PPC or SPARC, attempting to play a disc,
    would run that hack -- and if that hack would at least try
    to install itself and fail. For its part Linux would not
    have been affected by Sony's hack, mostly because Linux
    doesn't try to interpret the Autoplay as instructions
    to execute. (Actually, programs such as mplayer are the
    ones responsible for playing the disc; Linux will read
    the data but not interpret it.)

    A boot .iso is designed to work with a "mole" -- actually,
    the PC's bootloader, which on modern PCs is sufficiently
    sophisticated to locate something on the disc, load it
    into RAM, and execute it; that something will then do
    a little setup and commence loading the rest of itself
    into the system, and then await user input. Or it might
    just start looking around, destroying data, etc...while
    playing a song. (A Mac virus at one point did almost
    exactly that.)

    So now...take an arbitrary disc, insert it, and reboot.
    Is it going to destroy the data on your system? [+]
    Good luck finding out without destroying your system --
    a sufficiently sophisticated virus might be able to key on
    certain cues to determine whether it's running natively
    on a system and therefore able to destroy it, or running
    in a sandbox such as VmWare or QEMU, and therefore act
    innocuous. Of course acting only goes so far; if one is
    expecting a Linux Distro, a "quick key fakey spreadsheet"
    approach -- implemented on certain older model games --
    won't fool a user for long, especially one who can tell
    a Linux boot sequence from a random list of uninteresting
    text crud.

    [#] disc = CD or DVD. disk = winchester hard drive
    storage unit (or in very rare cases an internal USB drive
    in lieu thereof).
    [*] actually, it's not a bijective mapping -- at least, not
    without a little work. Generally speaking, .iso images are
    data tracks, usually designed to be placed on a writable
    CDROM, then fixed. One then gets a single data track.
    Audio discs can be represented as an ordered playlist of
    ..wav or .ogg or other such files; the disc itself comes
    through as several tracks. One can also mix; Quake I
    and Quake II in particular have some musical (well, FSVO)
    tracks on them following the game proper. (Quake IV was
    too big for music. I don't have Quake III.)

    [+] there's a blurry line here, but for the most part the
    hardware is safe unless the virus works very hard to
    overheat the disk drives -- and I'm not sure that's possible
    on modern drives, at least while the system's fans are
    operating properly.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
    std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    7 wrote:
    > pus.boy99@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Sep 27, 12:28 pm, "Ms. Polly Ester" wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927...ylt=AiieE0MGKY...
    >>>
    >>>Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open
    >>>source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year
    >>>under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body for
    >>>open source and free software, according to a survey released Wednesday.
    >>>
    >>>In addition, more than 40% of those surveyed said they won't ever publish
    >>>their work under Version 3 of the General Public License, which was
    >>>released earlier this year by the Free Software Foundation. "GPLv3 is
    >>>controversial because it imposes restrictions on what you can do with
    >>>programs," said John Andrews, CEO of survey taker Evans Data, in a
    >>>statement.

    >>
    >>
    >>More fragmentation to put some more nails in the Linux coffin.
    >>At some point the Linux loons will figure out that all of these spin
    >>offs are not a good thing for Linux.
    >>
    >>With 700+ different versions of Linux and now new GPL3 it's just more
    >>confusion for the suits that make the decisions.
    >>Microsoft makes it easy for those types.
    >>Linux makes it a clusterfsck.

    >
    >
    >
    > There are more Linux clusters that windopws clusters.
    > There are more open source developers than Micoshaft developers.
    > 75% of all new projects are open source.
    > Its time to switch to Linux and be done with.
    > See the advanced technology in action here
    > http://www.livecdlist.com
    > Just download and boot from CD.
    > All your drivers automagically configured.
    > No amount of Pistification of your Pista PC will
    > compare with a Linux PC.
    > http://www.distrowatch.com for more in depth reviews.
    >



    So that what...just makes linux a bigger pile of crap?
    Frank

  14. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    7 wrote:
    > Asstroturfer dennis@home wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:
    >
    >> "7" wrote in message
    >> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>> Just download and boot from CD.

    >> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    >> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    >> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.

    >
    > 100% wrong!!!
    >
    > Linux distributions come with source code.
    > If you don't trust a distro, you can make it yourself
    > with the original source code.
    >
    > Begs the question which corporation is gonna trust a micoshaft CD that has
    > no accompanying source code?
    > Micoshaft recommend their install CDs which are self booting
    > and you have no access to their source code to know
    > whats in a Micoshaft CD!!!
    >
    > All Linux CDs come *WITH* source code so that you can be sure
    > that no viruses or other crap spyware and adware has been put into it.
    >
    > That is a fundmantal distinction between open source Linux
    > and closed source untrustworthy Micoshaft sponsored products.
    >
    >

    <7 doesn't even know what it's talking about. The fool has no clue.
    However, 7 likes to run its mouth. It was this one time 7 ran its mouth
    about .Net in a neutral NG. 7 got its ass annihilated by developers who
    were in that NG. It was another time 7 was in the Suse NG and needed to
    open its mouth about something, and again, 7 got its ass annihilated in
    the Suse NG. 7 no more knows what it's talking about than the man in the
    Moon. And 7 should be ignored. >

  15. Re: Open Source Developers Shun GPLv3

    On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:42:48 -0700, pus.boy99 wrote:

    > On Sep 27, 12:28 pm, "Ms. Polly Ester" wrote:
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070927/

    tc_cmp/202101921;_ylt=AiieE0MGKY...
    >>
    >> Fearing the restrictions it places on their work, the majority of open
    >> source software developers do not plan to publish code in the next year
    >> under a controversial new license authored by the main governing body
    >> for open source and free software, according to a survey released
    >> Wednesday.
    >>
    >> In addition, more than 40% of those surveyed said they won't ever
    >> publish their work under Version 3 of the General Public License, which
    >> was released earlier this year by the Free Software Foundation. "GPLv3
    >> is controversial because it imposes restrictions on what you can do
    >> with programs," said John Andrews, CEO of survey taker Evans Data, in a
    >> statement.

    >
    >
    > More fragmentation to put some more nails in the Linux coffin. At some
    > point the Linux loons will figure out that all of these spin offs are
    > not a good thing for Linux.
    >
    > With 700+ different versions of Linux and now new GPL3 it's just more
    > confusion for the suits that make the decisions. Microsoft makes it easy
    > for those types. Linux makes it a clusterfsck.


    pus.boy99 ....
    aha hahaha HHA ha HA hAHh AHH AhHHAHAH Ah HA h HAH ...



    --
    Rick

  16. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation


    "Kier" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.09.27.22.10.39.759492@tiscali.co.uk...
    > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "7" wrote in message
    >> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>> Just download and boot from CD.

    >>
    >> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.

    >
    > Strangely enough, though 7 is a loon, he's not the sort of loon to
    > recommend you trash your machine from some roague CD. The list is genuine.


    But I have no way to know that and I certainly aren't going to trust someone
    shouting in a news group, anyone that does is being foolish.
    It shows that people still don't understand the basics of security if they
    do.
    If you can't verify the source you may as well let the hacker sit at the
    machine and give him the passwords.

    >
    >> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.

    >
    > Actually, no. Some don't even make it easy or possible to have write
    > access to your drives


    You don't know how Unix works if you think that.
    If you boot an entire OS it will be able to do anything it likes to your
    drives unless you are running an encrypted file system that prompts you for
    a password at boot before it can decrypt the drives. No Linux or windows
    does that that I know of. You certainly can't do anything about it when the
    source is available as if you store the password on the machine the rogue
    software can use exactly the same mechanism to extract the password and
    access the file system as the original OS. This is also true of windows but
    someone has to disassemble the software and find the mechanism first so its
    slightly more difficult.

    >
    >> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.

    >
    > Well, I've used dozens of LiveCDs over the past few years, and not one has
    > ever harmed my PCs. On the contrary, they've helped me save data when
    > hardware went tit's-up.


    I have used live CDs too but not one that someone has been shouting about in
    a news group.. you can't trust anyone these days.

    Live CDs are one of the biggest security risks the average user is likely to
    come across now floppies have gone (mostly).
    (Any bootable device suffers from exactly the same security problems
    whatever OS you are running on the machine.)
    It doesn't take a lot of skill to put some malicious software on one and it
    has total access to the machine be it windows or Linux or dos.
    You have to be sure that it is what it claims before you boot it.
    If it is malicious and you boot it the average user will never know anything
    bad has happened.
    They could easily be the Linux (and everything else) equivalent of the boot
    sector virus that dos suffers from and there is no easy way for a user to be
    sure other than from where they download it from.

    Where is the definitive list of live CDs that have been verified and the
    checksums and software to verify the cd before use? Who exactly is
    responsible for doing that and do they have the skills to do it are a couple
    of questions I would ask if I put a security hat on.


  17. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    dennis@home wrote:

    < snip >

    >>> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.

    >>
    >> Actually, no. Some don't even make it easy or possible to have write
    >> access to your drives

    >
    > You don't know how Unix works if you think that.
    > If you boot an entire OS it will be able to do anything it likes to your
    > drives unless you are running an encrypted file system that prompts you
    > for a password at boot before it can decrypt the drives. No Linux or
    > windows does that that I know of. You certainly can't do anything about it
    > when the source is available as if you store the password on the machine
    > the rogue software can use exactly the same mechanism to extract the
    > password and access the file system as the original OS. This is also true
    > of windows but someone has to disassemble the software and find the
    > mechanism first so its slightly more difficult.
    >


    You don't know how Linux works if you think that.
    First of all: Encrypted file system are nothing new in linux
    So yes, we already have a point you aren't aware of
    Your whole scenario consists of a lot of "if", "when", "should"

    Tell you what: You don't trust liveCDs. Good for you. Don't use them

    But you are certainly stupid enough to trust windows enough to connect it to
    the internet. Bad for you. And it tells anybody with half a working brain
    that *you* know nothing at all about security. Not a tiny little shred

    < snip more bull**** >
    --
    Linux is for people who want to know why it works.
    Mac is for people who don't want to know why it works.
    DOS is for people who want to know why it does not work.
    Windows is for people who don't want to know why it does not work.


  18. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:47:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    >
    > "Kier" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.09.27.22.10.39.759492@tiscali.co.uk...
    >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "7" wrote in message
    >>> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>>> Just download and boot from CD.
    >>>
    >>> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >>> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.

    >>
    >> Strangely enough, though 7 is a loon, he's not the sort of loon to
    >> recommend you trash your machine from some roague CD. The list is genuine.

    >
    > But I have no way to know that and I certainly aren't going to trust someone
    > shouting in a news group, anyone that does is being foolish.
    > It shows that people still don't understand the basics of security if they
    > do.


    That would be a social engineering type hack, right? I do take your point
    in that regard. One of my favourite books is a fascinating exploaration of
    the art, called 'A Complete Hacker's Handbook'.

    > If you can't verify the source you may as well let the hacker sit at the
    > machine and give him the passwords.


    How come we don't see this happening, then? I have *never* heard of such a
    thing being done. Probably it *could* be, somehow, but I know of not one
    instance.

    >
    >>
    >>> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.

    >>
    >> Actually, no. Some don't even make it easy or possible to have write
    >> access to your drives

    >
    > You don't know how Unix works if you think that.


    It's not impossible, certainly, but without root access it's not easy. Of
    course, some LiveCDs are desighed to do partitioning and rescue work, so
    they by definition must be able to write to disc. But if you have
    physical access, no system is really safe, however well-protected.

    The ordinary user, however, is not going to be able to break his sytem
    using a LiveCD. That was my initial point. LiveCDs don't usually touch
    the underlying OS at all - in fact, with sufficient memory you can run one
    without a hard disk in the machine at all.

    > If you boot an entire OS it will be able to do anything it likes to your
    > drives unless you are running an encrypted file system that prompts you for
    > a password at boot before it can decrypt the drives. No Linux or windows
    > does that that I know of. You certainly can't do anything about it when the
    > source is available as if you store the password on the machine the rogue
    > software can use exactly the same mechanism to extract the password and
    > access the file system as the original OS. This is also true of windows but
    > someone has to disassemble the software and find the mechanism first so its
    > slightly more difficult.


    The source isn't usually available on a LiveCD, no mater what 7 said.
    There usually isn't room.

    >
    >>
    >>> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >>> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.

    >>
    >> Well, I've used dozens of LiveCDs over the past few years, and not one has
    >> ever harmed my PCs. On the contrary, they've helped me save data when
    >> hardware went tit's-up.

    >
    > I have used live CDs too but not one that someone has been shouting about in
    > a news group.. you can't trust anyone these days.
    >
    > Live CDs are one of the biggest security risks the average user is likely to
    > come across now floppies have gone (mostly).


    Yes, no problems like that have been detected, to my knowledge.

    > (Any bootable device suffers from exactly the same security problems
    > whatever OS you are running on the machine.)
    > It doesn't take a lot of skill to put some malicious software on one and it
    > has total access to the machine be it windows or Linux or dos.


    Less easily with Linux, but essentially, yes.

    > You have to be sure that it is what it claims before you boot it.
    > If it is malicious and you boot it the average user will never know anything
    > bad has happened.
    > They could easily be the Linux (and everything else) equivalent of the boot
    > sector virus that dos suffers from and there is no easy way for a user to be
    > sure other than from where they download it from.


    Yet there doesn't seem to be one, does there? If it's that easy, why
    isn't it being done?

    >
    > Where is the definitive list of live CDs that have been verified and the
    > checksums and software to verify the cd before use? Who exactly is
    > responsible for doing that and do they have the skills to do it are a couple
    > of questions I would ask if I put a security hat on.


    Well, I don't deny it's always good to cultivate good security habits,
    whtever OS you're using. But, like I said, nothing like that ever seems to
    have happened. I do vaguely recall there was a case where some dodgy rpms
    or something got into a reputable distro repo, but it was very quickily
    discovered and stopped. The transparency of open source tends to make such
    things more difficult to get away with.

    --
    Kier


  19. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation


    "Kier" wrote in message
    newsan.2007.09.28.08.40.43.637828@tiscali.co.uk...
    > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:47:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Kier" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2007.09.27.22.10.39.759492@tiscali.co.uk...
    >>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "7" wrote in message
    >>>> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>>>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>>>> Just download and boot from CD.
    >>>>
    >>>> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >>>> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    >>>
    >>> Strangely enough, though 7 is a loon, he's not the sort of loon to
    >>> recommend you trash your machine from some roague CD. The list is
    >>> genuine.

    >>
    >> But I have no way to know that and I certainly aren't going to trust
    >> someone
    >> shouting in a news group, anyone that does is being foolish.
    >> It shows that people still don't understand the basics of security if
    >> they
    >> do.

    >
    > That would be a social engineering type hack, right? I do take your point
    > in that regard. One of my favourite books is a fascinating exploaration of
    > the art, called 'A Complete Hacker's Handbook'.
    >
    >> If you can't verify the source you may as well let the hacker sit at the
    >> machine and give him the passwords.

    >
    > How come we don't see this happening, then? I have *never* heard of such a
    > thing being done. Probably it *could* be, somehow, but I know of not one
    > instance.
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, no. Some don't even make it easy or possible to have write
    >>> access to your drives

    >>
    >> You don't know how Unix works if you think that.

    >
    > It's not impossible, certainly, but without root access it's not easy. Of
    > course, some LiveCDs are desighed to do partitioning and rescue work, so
    > they by definition must be able to write to disc. But if you have
    > physical access, no system is really safe, however well-protected.
    >
    > The ordinary user, however, is not going to be able to break his sytem
    > using a LiveCD. That was my initial point. LiveCDs don't usually touch
    > the underlying OS at all - in fact, with sufficient memory you can run one
    > without a hard disk in the machine at all.


    You have misunderstood.
    You even know what I say is true from what you have said above and then you
    ignore what you said and say it can't happen because its a live CD. It is
    because its a live CD (i.e. bootable) that it can happen. Don't think I am
    getting at Linux here because I am not it can happen with any bootable disk.
    It has happened with windows.. people have released images on P2P with
    malicious code built in. There is nothing to stop someone doing exactly the
    same with a live CD and they are also on P2P from various sources too. Don't
    think that Linux makes you secure.. nothing makes an idiot with a computer
    secure.

    While its true that many *real* live CDs can't access the disks, its only
    because whoever put the CD together removed that ability.
    Anyone could create a live CD that can access the disks and can do anything
    they like including instaling root kits or emailing data or anything they
    like.
    Unless you can identify these disks you have a security problem and it is
    not going away just by saying it hasn't been done yet.. the reality is that
    you probably wouldn't know if it had been. To start with while people don't
    believe it can happen who is going to look.

    >
    >> If you boot an entire OS it will be able to do anything it likes to your
    >> drives unless you are running an encrypted file system that prompts you
    >> for
    >> a password at boot before it can decrypt the drives. No Linux or windows
    >> does that that I know of. You certainly can't do anything about it when
    >> the
    >> source is available as if you store the password on the machine the rogue
    >> software can use exactly the same mechanism to extract the password and
    >> access the file system as the original OS. This is also true of windows
    >> but
    >> someone has to disassemble the software and find the mechanism first so
    >> its
    >> slightly more difficult.

    >
    > The source isn't usually available on a LiveCD, no mater what 7 said.
    > There usually isn't room.


    I know but it can fit on a DVD.

    >>>> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >>>> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I've used dozens of LiveCDs over the past few years, and not one
    >>> has
    >>> ever harmed my PCs. On the contrary, they've helped me save data when
    >>> hardware went tit's-up.

    >>
    >> I have used live CDs too but not one that someone has been shouting about
    >> in
    >> a news group.. you can't trust anyone these days.
    >>
    >> Live CDs are one of the biggest security risks the average user is likely
    >> to
    >> come across now floppies have gone (mostly).

    >
    > Yes, no problems like that have been detected, to my knowledge.


    Is anyone looking?

    >> (Any bootable device suffers from exactly the same security problems
    >> whatever OS you are running on the machine.)
    >> It doesn't take a lot of skill to put some malicious software on one and
    >> it
    >> has total access to the machine be it windows or Linux or dos.

    >
    > Less easily with Linux, but essentially, yes.


    There is another error, why is it less easy? I see no reason for it to be
    less easy.. in fact I think it might be easier as I have the source i need
    to modify it to do what *I* want.
    >
    >> You have to be sure that it is what it claims before you boot it.
    >> If it is malicious and you boot it the average user will never know
    >> anything
    >> bad has happened.
    >> They could easily be the Linux (and everything else) equivalent of the
    >> boot
    >> sector virus that dos suffers from and there is no easy way for a user to
    >> be
    >> sure other than from where they download it from.

    >
    > Yet there doesn't seem to be one, does there? If it's that easy, why
    > isn't it being done?
    >
    >>
    >> Where is the definitive list of live CDs that have been verified and the
    >> checksums and software to verify the cd before use? Who exactly is
    >> responsible for doing that and do they have the skills to do it are a
    >> couple
    >> of questions I would ask if I put a security hat on.

    >
    > Well, I don't deny it's always good to cultivate good security habits,
    > whtever OS you're using. But, like I said, nothing like that ever seems to
    > have happened. I do vaguely recall there was a case where some dodgy rpms
    > or something got into a reputable distro repo, but it was very quickily
    > discovered and stopped. The transparency of open source tends to make such
    > things more difficult to get away with.


    That is an illusion not backed up by logic.
    There are so few people that really know what they are doing with open
    source that they can't get all the bugs so they are unlikely to find
    anything malicious unless it has a bug and an undesirable side effect. I can
    just see someone sitting there and going through a "Ubuntu 7.1" live CD
    looking for stuff that shouldn't be there.


  20. Re: Open Source Developers Shun Micoshaft Corporation

    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:11:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    >
    > "Kier" wrote in message
    > newsan.2007.09.28.08.40.43.637828@tiscali.co.uk...
    >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:47:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Kier" wrote in message
    >>> newsan.2007.09.27.22.10.39.759492@tiscali.co.uk...
    >>>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:59 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "7" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4lUKi.21642$c_1.10147@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> See the advanced technology in action here
    >>>>>> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >>>>>> Just download and boot from CD.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You must be joking.. nobody in their right mind would download a self
    >>>>> booting CD recommended by anyone they didn't know.
    >>>>
    >>>> Strangely enough, though 7 is a loon, he's not the sort of loon to
    >>>> recommend you trash your machine from some roague CD. The list is
    >>>> genuine.
    >>>
    >>> But I have no way to know that and I certainly aren't going to trust
    >>> someone
    >>> shouting in a news group, anyone that does is being foolish.
    >>> It shows that people still don't understand the basics of security if
    >>> they
    >>> do.

    >>
    >> That would be a social engineering type hack, right? I do take your point
    >> in that regard. One of my favourite books is a fascinating exploaration of
    >> the art, called 'A Complete Hacker's Handbook'.
    >>
    >>> If you can't verify the source you may as well let the hacker sit at the
    >>> machine and give him the passwords.

    >>
    >> How come we don't see this happening, then? I have *never* heard of such a
    >> thing being done. Probably it *could* be, somehow, but I know of not one
    >> instance.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> It could do absolutely anything to the machine you boot it on.
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually, no. Some don't even make it easy or possible to have write
    >>>> access to your drives
    >>>
    >>> You don't know how Unix works if you think that.

    >>
    >> It's not impossible, certainly, but without root access it's not easy. Of
    >> course, some LiveCDs are desighed to do partitioning and rescue work, so
    >> they by definition must be able to write to disc. But if you have
    >> physical access, no system is really safe, however well-protected.
    >>
    >> The ordinary user, however, is not going to be able to break his sytem
    >> using a LiveCD. That was my initial point. LiveCDs don't usually touch
    >> the underlying OS at all - in fact, with sufficient memory you can run one
    >> without a hard disk in the machine at all.

    >
    > You have misunderstood.


    No, I don't think so.

    > You even know what I say is true from what you have said above and then you
    > ignore what you said and say it can't happen because its a live CD. It is


    Not 'can't', so much as 'is less likely to'.

    > because its a live CD (i.e. bootable) that it can happen. Don't think I am
    > getting at Linux here because I am not it can happen with any bootable disk.


    Of course it can happen. The fact it, it doesn't seem to *be* happening,
    at least not on a large enough scale that it can be detected.

    > It has happened with windows.. people have released images on P2P with
    > malicious code built in. There is nothing to stop someone doing exactly
    > the same with a live CD and they are also on P2P from various sources
    > too. Don't think that Linux makes you secure.. nothing makes an idiot
    > with a computer secure.


    We're a trifle more secure than Windows, though no system is 100% secure,
    with a determined enough attacker.

    >
    > While its true that many *real* live CDs can't access the disks, its
    > only because whoever put the CD together removed that ability. Anyone
    > could create a live CD that can access the disks and can do anything
    > they like including instaling root kits or emailing data or anything
    > they like.


    Anyone could, yes. But I've heard of no case of it happening. And since it
    would be relatively easy, you would naturally expect it to have happened
    often enough to have been noticed or detected.

    > Unless you can identify these disks you have a security problem and it is
    > not going away just by saying it hasn't been done yet.. the reality is that
    > you probably wouldn't know if it had been. To start with while people don't
    > believe it can happen who is going to look.


    Someone may have done it somewhere, of course, and gone undetected. But
    they will have crafted a LiveCD of their own, not placed it in the public
    domain, as it were.

    >
    >>
    >>> If you boot an entire OS it will be able to do anything it likes to your
    >>> drives unless you are running an encrypted file system that prompts you
    >>> for
    >>> a password at boot before it can decrypt the drives. No Linux or windows
    >>> does that that I know of. You certainly can't do anything about it when
    >>> the
    >>> source is available as if you store the password on the machine the rogue
    >>> software can use exactly the same mechanism to extract the password and
    >>> access the file system as the original OS. This is also true of windows
    >>> but
    >>> someone has to disassemble the software and find the mechanism first so
    >>> its
    >>> slightly more difficult.

    >>
    >> The source isn't usually available on a LiveCD, no mater what 7 said.
    >> There usually isn't room.

    >
    > I know but it can fit on a DVD.


    I can, yes. But even them, it usually won't be, though you can request it
    as of right..

    >
    >>>>> Its just the sort of thing a hacker would try to get you to do.
    >>>>> It would be a damn good way to root Linux boxes BTW.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, I've used dozens of LiveCDs over the past few years, and not one
    >>>> has
    >>>> ever harmed my PCs. On the contrary, they've helped me save data when
    >>>> hardware went tit's-up.
    >>>
    >>> I have used live CDs too but not one that someone has been shouting about
    >>> in
    >>> a news group.. you can't trust anyone these days.
    >>>
    >>> Live CDs are one of the biggest security risks the average user is likely
    >>> to
    >>> come across now floppies have gone (mostly).

    >>
    >> Yes, no problems like that have been detected, to my knowledge.

    >
    > Is anyone looking?


    Probably. If you can think of this occurring, then someone else no doubt
    has thought of it, and is watching for it.

    >
    >>> (Any bootable device suffers from exactly the same security problems
    >>> whatever OS you are running on the machine.)
    >>> It doesn't take a lot of skill to put some malicious software on one and
    >>> it
    >>> has total access to the machine be it windows or Linux or dos.

    >>
    >> Less easily with Linux, but essentially, yes.

    >
    > There is another error, why is it less easy? I see no reason for it to be
    > less easy.. in fact I think it might be easier as I have the source i need
    > to modify it to do what *I* want.


    That's an argument often made to suggest Linux is less secure - yet it
    doesn't seem to be, does it, despite the source code being freely
    available to all? You'd think it would be an open invitation to every
    hacket and cracker out there.

    >>
    >>> You have to be sure that it is what it claims before you boot it.
    >>> If it is malicious and you boot it the average user will never know
    >>> anything
    >>> bad has happened.
    >>> They could easily be the Linux (and everything else) equivalent of the
    >>> boot
    >>> sector virus that dos suffers from and there is no easy way for a user to
    >>> be
    >>> sure other than from where they download it from.

    >>
    >> Yet there doesn't seem to be one, does there? If it's that easy, why
    >> isn't it being done?
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Where is the definitive list of live CDs that have been verified and the
    >>> checksums and software to verify the cd before use? Who exactly is
    >>> responsible for doing that and do they have the skills to do it are a
    >>> couple
    >>> of questions I would ask if I put a security hat on.

    >>
    >> Well, I don't deny it's always good to cultivate good security habits,
    >> whtever OS you're using. But, like I said, nothing like that ever seems to
    >> have happened. I do vaguely recall there was a case where some dodgy rpms
    >> or something got into a reputable distro repo, but it was very quickily
    >> discovered and stopped. The transparency of open source tends to make such
    >> things more difficult to get away with.

    >
    > That is an illusion not backed up by logic.


    No, it's not an illusion, it's a fact. It's a lot harder to hide something
    in Linux code, because it's available to all for inspection. Of course,
    it's not *impossible*, but it's harder.

    > There are so few people that really know what they are doing with open
    > source that they can't get all the bugs so they are unlikely to find


    Whao, there. So few There are thousands and thousands who know what
    they're doing - and are doing it, daily.

    > anything malicious unless it has a bug and an undesirable side effect. I
    > can just see someone sitting there and going through a "Ubuntu 7.1" live
    > CD looking for stuff that shouldn't be there.


    They don't need to. What's on there is what's in the Ubuntu repos, which
    is scrutinised by the whole community.

    --
    Kier


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast