Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Richard M. Stallman: Portrait of a Pirate Hacker (in Layman's Terms)

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 04, 2002
 Comments:
Richard M. Stallman, ubiquitously known as "RMS", is the Patron Saint of the "open source" movement. "Open Source" is a method of software distribution which implements a means of copy protection by not distributing the final program codes. Instead, the user must assemble this final "executive" code by hand, thus eliminating the need for the proprietary data which must be included in a company-distributed copy.

This is all fine and good, in theory, and the Open Source movement has garnered a vast following from across the untamed corners of the internet. In this essay, I will explore how Mr. Stallman came to embrace this movement.

gnulinux

More stories about Gnu/Linux
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
Linux in the corporate world
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Review: Linux Mandrake 8.1
Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold
Alan Cox Is an Unprofessional Jerk
Where Do You Stand in the GNU World Order?
Linux: From awk to sed
Adequacy Interview With Linux Torvalds

More stories by
osm

Holes
Natalie Portman Desensitized Me
Review: Planet of the Apes
Kicking the Cat
Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode I
Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode II
Taboo: The Downfall of America
Where Do You Stand in the GNU World Order?
Linux Zealot Gets Educated
The Motherland

RMS was born in Modesto, California and attended Berkeley University. This shouldn't surprise anyone, since Berkeley is the Liberal Hive of America and RMS is an admitted communist. RMS began his bizarre lifestyle while attending Berkeley, where he occupied the attic of a clock tower. This eccentricity continues today and RMS will not travel without a grandfather clock and a spitoon.

RMS' penchant for thievery was evident from the very beginning. His attic "apartment" was filled with equipment stolen from the Berkeley computer labs. This was quite an achievement in the early '70s, when any computer equipment was the size of a refrigerator.

RMS and his hacker friends cut class regularly, opting to spend their time and parent's money constructing illegal electronics devices designed to covertly access phone lines. The group of pirates would hack into the phone company, and charge enormous phone bills to unsuspecting Republican professors.

It was during this period that Stallman met Steve Jobs. RMS' technical savvy was far exceeded by that of Jobs and, never one to like being second-best, this caused him to pursue software hacking. RMS' hacking ability was innate and he and Jobs formed an alliance which would later result in the birth of Apple Computer.

Jobs' technical accumen was matched only by his ability to sell. He designed the internal electronics and outer package design of the first Apple, which was financed by Nolan Bushnell. He set RMS on to the task of developing the computer's "operating system" - a sequence of low-level MS-DOS commands which tell the computer how to decode program codes.

Though a gifted "coder", Stallman was quite lazy and didn't fare so well with the new operating system. His sloppy design and bloated codes were barely useable on the first microcomputer. Jobs dumped Stallman and hired John Wozniack to rewrite the internal operating system codes for the Apple I.

This situation didn't sit too well with RMS. Though he effectively dropped out of college, through non-attendance, he remained in the clock tower, unbeknownst to the faculty and administration of Berekely. His bizarre reclusiveness and tendency to "hack" only in the night kept him invisible to everyone, though rumors did circulate around campus about the "haunted clock-tower" and the deformed ghost that would occasionally appear, transluscent white, on top of the tower playing a magical flute.

Stallman grew sullen and withdrew into his own world in the clock tower. He watched as the joint Apple/Microsoft empire grew to become the computer industry and he vowed to topple it by undermining the livelyhood of his arch-rival Steve Jobs (and, by extension, Bill Gates) with his illegal offerings.

Stallman conspired with Linux Torvaledse, another Berkeley student, to create a hacker operating system which could be used to leverage the internet and wreak havoc on corporations everywhere. RMS even went so far as to use Microsoft's innovative GUI (Graphical User Implementation) which he had stolen from Microsoft's mainframe computer and given the hacker alias "X-Windows". Unfortunately, RMS was not able to acquire the latest Microsoft GUI codes and was thus forced to settle for an inferior version.

RMS' continued interest in communism provided him some insight as to how to spread his hacker tool across the internet. By stressing the free nature of the software, he would appeal to the welfare nature of the public.

This marketing scheme worked spectacularly. RMS' hacker tool is now installed on countless computers, hidden away in the dark bedrooms of LSD-using hacker teens.

But Stallman didn't foresee the desire of the consuming public for Quality software, as opposed to his lean, second-rate offerings. Not even a price of 0.00 could turn the general public to installing this unwieldy hacker tool known as "Red Hat Linux".

Today, RMS and his following, consisting mostly of unpopular teens who gravitate toward the cult-like group of pirate hackers, continue to sing the praises of their "operating system". Neglecting to mention that it violates current DMCA legislation. This "operating system" is primarily used to trade illegal hacker "warez" and music videos.

Popular music stars like Metallica have called RMS and his hacker tool, "the single greatest threat to artistic expression in the history of man." And Bill Gates has noted, "They are all thieves. They spend their time stealing instead of innovating."

My hope is that this short essay has opened your eyes to the illegal Open Source movement and will give you pause when you may be enticed into downloading it, virus-like, into your unsuspecting computer.

       
Tweet

AMAZING (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:46:13 AM PST
You are probably THE best fictional writer of adequacy.org

I guess wher Steve Jobs and Richard Stallman founded Apple Computers Stallman was known as Steve Wozniak.

Keep up the good work. While writing fiction is easy, making it entertaining isn't.

Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a BA in physics. During his college years, he also worked as a staff hacker at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, learning operating system development by doing it. He wrote the first extensible Emacs text editor there in 1975. In January 1984 he resigned from MIT to start the GNU Project.

Stallman received the Grace Hopper Award for 1991 from the Association for Computing Machinery, for his development of the first Emacs editor. In 1990 he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, and in 1996 an honorary doctorate from the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. In 1998 he received the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award along with Linus Torvalds. In 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Award. In 2001 he received a second honorary doctorate, from the University of Glasgow.

Luckily this was not difficult to write. I have also save a copy of this post using notepad. So I'll be able to post it again and again because I know you'll probably just delete it.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

true (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:57:28 AM PST
Not to mentio that STEVE Wozniak (a member of the Homebrew Computer Club) didn't write the OS for the Apple I. He created the prototype which became the Apple I. Jobs and Wozniak formed Apple Computer (in a garage no less) on April Fool's Day 1976. The sell a computer circuit board they called the Apple I for $666.66. It has no keyboard, case or power supply.


Apple 1 details (none / 0) (#109)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 12th, 2002 at 07:26:07 PM PST
The Apple 1 was a single board machine. It was not as crude as is being made out here though.

It had a video output and it's own screen memory and display system.

It had a parallel input keyboard port on the board to which any common generic ascii keyboard could be attached.

The only component of the onboard power supply missing was the transformer.



 
I think that would qualify as spamming (none / 0) (#6)
by error27 on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:14:59 AM PST
Sometimes spammers provide useful services and products but I think in your case it would merely be annoying.

But fortunately this site has a high tech way of blocking spam.


 
Lies, Damn Lies, and NAWL's Posts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:17:45 AM PST
I guess wher Steve Jobs and Richard Stallman founded Apple Computers Stallman was known as Steve Wozniak.

This only barely makes sense, but I think I get what you're trying to say. As was pointed out in the essay, Wozniak was hired by Jobs after RMS failed to produce a worthwhile operating system for the Apple. Jobs had the hardware skill but was too busy to learn the DOS commands necessary to create an operating environment for the Apple.

Keep up the good work. While writing fiction is easy, making it entertaining isn't.

Whatever.

Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a BA in physics.

Stallman was nowhere near Harvard. He attended Berkeley and failed to graduate due to his antisocial behavior.

During his college years, he also worked as a staff hacker at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, learning operating system development by doing it.

Stallman was nowhere near MIT. He attended Berkeley and failed to graduate due to his antisocial behavior. However, you are correct in that he is a "hacker".

He wrote the first extensible Emacs text editor there in 1975.

EMAX is a hacking tool which displays networking information. It is used to steal passwords as they are typed in.

In January 1984 he resigned from MIT to start the GNU Project.

Stallman was nowhere near MIT. He attended Berkeley and failed to graduate due to his antisocial behavior. The "GNU Project" is a known violator of encryption laws and, currently, the DMCA.

Luckily this was not difficult to write. I have also save a copy of this post using notepad. So I'll be able to post it again and again because I know you'll probably just delete it.

Had I wanted to delete it, I could have deleted all of your postings. No problem.

Now, please quit using this web site to spread obvious lies.


HISTORY (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 02:03:44 AM PST
Apple History

Here's the link in plain text
http://apple-history.com/history.html

A Biography on Steve Jobs with links to the biography about Steve Wozniak.


Error (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 04:29:17 AM PST
I clicked on your plain text link and my browser didn't go anywhere. Could you give me the plain text link as a hypertext hotlink? Thanks.


link (none / 0) (#14)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:51:09 AM PST
Apple History
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
yeah (1.00 / 2) (#20)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:45:11 AM PST
The hypertext link is directly above it dumbass.

It's the same link. It was just printed in plaintext.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

 
Dear Sirs, (none / 0) (#68)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:37:54 PM PST
I too had this error. NAWL sir, please post your "hyperlink" so that I can click on it with my "mouse".
<p>Thank you


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
You think for a minute (none / 0) (#17)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:55:53 AM PST
I'm going to follow your hacked link so you can download a virus onto my Windows? You people never give up, do you? Just because the truth doesn't fit your distorted concept of what Should Be, you have to try to destroy it. Nice try, but no thanks.


Merely a Hijacked Domain (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by doofus on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:39:55 AM PST
It's not a virus, it's just a hijacked domain.

I've reported it to the Internet Society; they'll be updating the appropriate routing tables shortly (after getting approval from the owners of the internet first, of course.).


duh (1.00 / 2) (#21)
by dirty monkey man on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:48:22 AM PST
no one owns the internet, that's ridiculous.

just like power lines or phone lines, it's in the public domain, so it's no one's property and the government maintains it.


 
geez (1.00 / 2) (#22)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:48:30 AM PST
You are so dumb, you would say the earth was flat if someone told you it wasn't




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

yeah, no kidding (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:15:58 AM PST
It's like the rumors of people being made to believe Lunix is better than Microsoft OSes. I mean, sure, 0.24% believe this is so, but this is still an order of magnitude less than the incidence of mental health problems in the general population! Modulo insane people, 0% of people believe in the flat earth and Lunix's superiority.


you got that right (LOL!) (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:14:19 PM PST
Lunix is an OS that is made for really old, 8-bit computers like the Commodore64, you dipshit!
Linux, on the other hand, is a Unix-clone that is ALOT better than any crappy Windows-release!


 
He's right though... (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:12:38 PM PST
Most windows releases are better than LUNIX ( Little UNIX just so you know ). It's not hard to beat an 8-bit OS with a 32-bit one, even WITH crappy code. LOL, you guys are obviously shooting low :)


 
I'm waivering (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:54:38 PM PST
Sometimes I think you purposefully post outright lies just to get some sort of perverse entertainment. But the more of your posts I read, the more I think you actually believe this crap.

No, I know the Earth is not flat. It's egg-shaped because during the formation of the Solar System, it passed close to Jupiter. The resulting gravitational tug caused a lump to form in the northern hemisphere. Some scientists postulate that this event actually tore a chunk from the Earth to create the moon.

Hope this helps, dipshit.


LoL (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:11:12 PM PST
Where do you get this stuff? A good number of scientists agree it was probably some form of asteroid either hitting or coming close to Earth or something of the sort...

*sigh* I quit. Adequacy.org is the most foolish group of people I've EVER come accross in my times... I mean SHIT, you guys think Linux users are all evil, you think Microsoft is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you seem to think that no matter what, Linux users are out to get you, you seem to irrationally have beliefs and what-not that DO NOT support the relevant evedence.

Gawd.


You are irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:29:53 PM PST
Where do you get this stuff? A good number of scientists agree it was probably some form of asteroid either hitting or coming close to Earth or something of the sort...

That's a liberal lie. The liberals want you to believe that it was an asteroid. If you believe it was an asteroid, then you will accept that it could happen again. This gives liberals the power they need over people: "We need a bigger government to protect the citizenship from asteroid collisions."

That's the facts, Jack.


What the heck? (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:01:36 PM PST
Ok, I can't walk away ( what can i say :P )

But really, what the heck is that liberal bullcrap? Who do you think you are judging my mental capacity?

You're track record shows you deny the facts and choose illusional ones, but besides that, the asteroid thing is probably true.

Here's the clincher though:
WE WILL BE HIT BY ANOTHER EARTH SHATTERING ASTEROID AND NO GOVERNMENT WILL STOP IT.

It will be the end, hopefully, of this pitiful and ignorant species.


All I can do is shake my head (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:14:47 PM PST
But really, what the heck is that liberal bullcrap? Who do you think you are judging my mental capacity?

Liberal bullcrap is just that: liberal bullcrap. Communists are not welcome here.

You're track record shows you deny the facts and choose illusional ones, but besides that, the asteroid thing is probably true.

True, I choose to believe that which makes the most sense. That may be controversial, but it is in no way "illusional".

WE WILL BE HIT BY ANOTHER EARTH SHATTERING ASTEROID AND NO GOVERNMENT WILL STOP IT.

If it were up to the liberals, you are probably correct. They have a vested interest in worldwide devastation, thus creating mass-dependancy on big government.

Fortunately, the liberal cause looks like it's finally going out of vogue. The Republican missile defense system will not only shield us from the treacheries of other nations, but will also protect us from impending doom from space.

It will be the end, hopefully, of this pitiful and ignorant species.

Speak for yourself.


All Hail Jimmy Carter! (none / 0) (#63)
by doofus on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:07:28 PM PST
    Fortunately, the liberal cause looks like it's finally going out of vogue. The Republican missile defense system will not only shield us from the treacheries of other nations, but will also protect us from impending doom from space.


Smashing asteriods hell-bent on laying waste to our democratic and freedom-loving lifestyle, (to be replaced with some sort of American Christian Taliban based in Costa Mesa California, no doubt) should be child's play for a government whose most advanced weapons system ever fielded by the US Air Force was originally developed under a Democratic president's regime.


Well, now we know why you're called "doofus&q (none / 0) (#65)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:43:23 PM PST
You honestly believe all that technology was around in '77? Microsoft wasn't even around yet to innovate it.

More liberal revisionist history.


check your dates (none / 0) (#66)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:59:42 PM PST
The company now known as Microsoft was found in 1975 by William Henry Gates III (Bill Gates) and Paul Allen. The company was originally called Traf-o-Data and was founded before the two left Harvard during their junior year (check Bill Gates website at www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.asp). It was during this time in which they wrote BASIC for the Altair 8800.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Dude, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:19:01 PM PST
You're so full of shit, you spit brown. Quit spouting your Linus propaganda here.


awwwwwww (none / 0) (#71)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:54:26 PM PST
What's the matter? Too proud to visit Microsoft's website and read Gates' bio?

I know maybe you're talking about the fact that I printed his name as William Henry Gates III. Well seeing as how his father is William Henry Gates II, I don't think it's that difficult to figure out.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

More lie (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:25:02 PM PST
His father is William Henry Gates jr.

There is no William Henry Gates II. That would be pretentious.


how it appeared at microsoft.com (none / 0) (#73)
by NAWL on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 12:06:19 AM PST
Billy's Bio
William (Bill) H. Gates is chairman and chief software architect of Microsoft Corporation...
FastFoward >>
Born on October 28, 1955, Gates and his two sisters grew up in Seattle. Their father, William H. Gates II, is a Seattle attorney. Their late mother, Mary Gates, was a schoolteacher, University of Washington regent, and chairwoman of United Way International
Oh and here's that "Linus propaganda" that osm was referring to--
In 1973, Gates entered Harvard University as a freshman, where he lived down the hall from Steve Ballmer, now Microsoft's chief executive officer. While at Harvard, Gates developed a version of the programming language BASIC for the first microcomputer - the MITS Altair.

In his junior year, Gates left Harvard to devote his energies to Microsoft, a company he had begun in 1975 with his childhood friend Paul Allen.
Now that's MITS as in Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems of Albuquerque, New Mexico not MIT as in Massachusetts Institute of Technology.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

Obvious editing error (none / 0) (#75)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 04:37:39 AM PST
No respectable man would call himself "the second". It simply isn't correct.


depends (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by NAWL on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:07:09 PM PST
No respectable man would call himself "the second". It simply isn't correct.

Not exactly. If you are referring to someone with the same name in direct succession the "the second" would not be correct. In other words if your father is William John Grace, and yours is too he would use Senior and you would use Junior. However, there are times when this IS correct. Here's some examples:

Pope John Paul I >> Pope John Paul II
Not father and son

William John Grace >> Pillip John Grace >> William John Grace
So it would look like this:
William John Grace I >> Phillip John Grace >>William John Grace II

Also many countries do not observe Senior and Junior. Look at the English nobility.

It is prefectly acceptable to use I and II as opposed to Senior and Junior.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

 
rriigghhtt (1.00 / 2) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:02:27 PM PST
I'm SURE your Republican non-existant overcostly missle defense system will save our entire species from being destroyed when it somehow manages to destroy a massive asteroid the size of the state of texas from hitting the earth...right...


Besides, your facts do not always make the most sense, but that's your opinion. There's a difference between sense and logic.

Anyways, I'm not a liberal and I'm not pro-communism. I don't delude myself like that, thank you very much.

You, however, automatically assume I am a liberal because you lack the ability to understand me or something? I do not understand. Liberals are not necessarily the only ones who inspire through fear, most parties do and Republicans are no more innocent than any other.


 
this article is fictional crap (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 11:24:20 PM PST
I have talked to RMS and he was working at MIT which to my knowledge is not near Berkeley ;)

"Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a BA in physics. During his college years, he also worked as a staff hacker at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, learning operating system development by doing it. He wrote the first extensible Emacs text editor there in 1975. In January 1984 he resigned from MIT to start the GNU Project."

^-- This is directly from his bio on http://www.stallman.org/ (about 3/4 down). This article is crap.


 
BFD (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:46:50 PM PST
Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a BA in physics. During his college years, he also worked as a staff hacker at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, learning operating system development by doing it. He wrote the first extensible Emacs text editor there in 1975. In January 1984 he resigned from MIT to start the GNU Project.


In one paragraph, you have proved that Harvard's standards have sunk drastically.
Stallman received the Grace Hopper Award for 1991 from the Association for Computing Machinery, for his development of the first Emacs editor. In 1990 he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, and in 1996 an honorary doctorate from the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. In 1998 he received the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award along with Linus Torvalds. In 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Award. In 2001 he received a second honorary doctorate, from the University of Glasgow.


Who really cares about such worthless awards? I could give myself the "Greatest Man in the Universe Award" and that won't mean anything. Even if Richard Stallman was awarded the Nobel Prize for Programming,it wouldn't change the fact that he's a terrible programmer and eMacs is proof.
Luckily this was not difficult to write. I have also save a copy of this post using notepad. So I'll be able to post it again and again because I know you'll probably just delete it.


Assuming does make you look like an ass, especially when you are wrong.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

 
hold up (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:35:08 AM PST
Stallman conspired with Linux Torvaledse, another Berkeley student, to create a hacker operating system which could be used to leverage the internet and wreak havoc on corporations everywhere.
Linus Torvalds attended the University of Helsinki where he received his Masters Degree in Computer Sciencs at age 21.

The GNU project was well under way before Linus began writing Linux (which is a kernel not an OS). The GNU system was already there and they were developing their own kernel called Hurd (`Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'). While its development was taking place they learned of a kernel called Linux. Originally they weren't going to use it as they had heard it wasn't very portable. They later learned this was not true.

You can learn why they chose to use linux and not hurd by going here. Since many stupid people think the linux kernel should be called GNU/Linux (which really means GNU system/using the Linux kernel), the GNU project set out to finish Hurd.
RMS even went so far as to use Microsoft's innovative GUI (Graphical User Implementation) which he had stolen from Microsoft's mainframe computer and given the hacker alias "X-Windows". Unfortunately, RMS was not able to acquire the latest Microsoft GUI codes and was thus forced to settle for an inferior version.
This is funny. Ok, you seem to forget that the MS Windows GUI was not all that impressive until Win95. This GUI was later used in Windows NT. Let's not forget that X Windows is a windowing system. It is not a GUI (windows manager). Wonder who realy stole what from who. I won't get into that because that will lead to the whole MS stealing from Apple history, and I don't wanna type that much.
RMS' continued interest in communism provided him some insight as to how to spread his hacker tool across the internet.
That's funny. This image at the top of his website read: "America Means Civil Liberties, Patriotism Is Protecting Them"
Not even a price of 0.00 could turn the general public to installing this unwieldy hacker tool known as "Red Hat Linux".
Red Hat Linux isn't the only linux distro. You forget Mandrake, SuSE, OpenLinux, BeeHive Linux and many more.
Today, RMS and his following, consisting mostly of unpopular teens who gravitate toward the cult-like group of pirate hackers, continue to sing the praises of their "operating system". Neglecting to mention that it violates current DMCA legislation. This "operating system" is primarily used to trade illegal hacker "warez" and music videos.
You mean corporate IT rooms like those at IBM are run by teens? Also it has already been found that Linux itself does NOT violate the DMCA. Also not every country has adopted DMCA-like legislation. In other words it's not global.
Popular music stars like Metallica have called RMS and his hacker tool, "the single greatest threat to artistic expression in the history of man.
I though we were discussing Linux not Napster or Morpheus.
And Bill Gates has noted, "They are all thieves. They spend their time stealing instead of innovating."
Link please
My hope is that this short essay has opened your eyes to the illegal Open Source movement and will give you pause when you may be enticed into downloading it, virus-like, into your unsuspecting computer.
So OSS=Linux and linux only? What about *BSD? You forget that open source has been around much longer than popular software like that from Microsoft. If OSS is so bad I guess you should say something to elby. According to uptime.netcraft.com this site runs FreeBSD as do many other sites such as Yahoo!.


Quit with the acronyms already. (none / 0) (#69)
by MessiahWWKD on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:44:54 PM PST
The GNU project was well under way before Linus began writing Linux (which is a kernel not an OS). The GNU system was already there and they were developing their own kernel called Hurd (`Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'). While its development was taking place they learned of a kernel called Linux. Originally they weren't going to use it as they had heard it wasn't very portable. They later learned this was not true.


Maybe if you open source hackers would focus on programming instead of trying to think up retarded acronyms, you would be able to develop an OS that can actually compete the perfection that is Windows XP.
That's funny. This image at the top of his website read: "America Means Civil Liberties, Patriotism Is Protecting Them"


Ever hear of propaganda? He's insisting that the only way America can protect civil liberties is to become a communist regime under the FSF.
Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

 
we gnaw (4.84 / 13) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:36:40 AM PST
nibble nibble munchkin. the M$FT is so big yes. it controls, controls all. the people they walk by i see their feet though my window. their feet swing by the bars on my window. pretty feet shiny shoes. swish swish. are they going to work? i WILL NOT go to work. M$FT is at work. M$FT controls the pretty feet people. controls their money their futures.

i sit and rebuld my kernel. my CPU thrums. the kernel it is the key. we hack the linux yes good. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, ...2.6!!!!!!!!! the M$FT it fears the linux. spreads lies. says the linux comes with no warranty. THE WARRANTY IT IS BAD! it goes into your pores. steals your power. the kernel is good. the kernel will rise and slay the M$FT. when the itching comes i think about the linux. it helps.

i hack a driver for my dvd-rom. it does not work. i debug. it does not work. i delete the old source. and start again. i recompile. it does not work. on M$FT the dvd-rom is plug and play. that is how they get you. get behind your eyes. start the itching. so i hack the driver. i hack, we hack: we gnaw. gnaw at the ropes of slavery. the ropes of M$FT. pretty feet people, we will save you.

the itching comes...


Why can't all Lunixists be fun like you? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by elenchos on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:44:26 PM PST
Sorry to hear about that itching, btw.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Steps to success. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by tkatchev on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:05:22 PM PST
It helps if you wash.

(Note to self: a "sponge bath" is not the same as a shower.)


--
Peace and much love...




 
bless your soul (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:34:44 PM PST
bravo!

i work wearing chucks, sucks they not made amerikan no more, and hack on mac all day, into the night. right now, i pray tribble saves the day.

the kernel *will* save you, and do not scratch--it hurts the mirror.

sean broderick


 
Slight Inacuaracy in the article (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by hulver on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 03:08:47 AM PST
RMS is not for "Open Source", he is against "Open Source". He sees "Open Source" software as an perverted twisting of his idealistic "Free Software" campaign.

"Free Software" is his idea that everybody else should buy software and give it to him for Free. He then gives these pirated copies away to his close circle of friends in the underground GNU hacker group. He calls these people his HURD.
--

Bah.

 
I would like to correct your factual errors (4.50 / 2) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 04:05:48 AM PST
but I'm afraid your main error is that you are not a liberal.

I would be delighted to help you learn to love GNU, but everything is so much easier once your outlook on life is repaired. I recommend theraputic sessions in the People's Republic of Cambridge, MA. The MIT sauna parlour is open 24/7.

GNU/Peace and GNU/Respect
RMS


 
The real Open Source Definition (none / 0) (#15)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 05:58:33 AM PST
Open Source Definition



I dont understand why its so bad? If a programmer wants to release the source code with their program then why cant they? It means others can build upon the existing code or incorperate parts of it in to their own programs without being tied down by legalisms.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

my problem with that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by dirty monkey man on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 08:00:07 AM PST
that seems crazy to me. god knows what could have been added to the program. i like the fact that if i click on something called word.exe, Word starts up, and it's the same program that came straight from Microsoft. I can trust that the program contains no malicious code and it's always exactly the same (besides version particulars).

the big problem to me with this open source stuff is that i could end up with a version of word.exe that someone deliberately introduced malicious code into. so there i am working on my document while the program is deleting my harddrive or mailing my credit cards to hackers. see, you lose all the security and trust in a product that a company provides.

if i go to a dealership and buy a ford i know its a ford, and i know that someone hasn't taken the car apart and changed its parts and its design. when i buy prescription drugs i know they have not been tampered with and the ingredients and formula have not been fiddled with by amateurs. that's important to me, and more importantly, it's safe.

and maybe i don't have enough faith in mankind, but i just do not trust people to behave without malice.


hmmmm, ok (none / 0) (#23)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:52:44 AM PST
the big problem to me with this open source stuff is that i could end up with a version of word.exe that someone deliberately introduced malicious code into

And the fact that you had source code would allow you to varify it didn't. If you trust the source code but not the binaries, then compile the source




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

well... (none / 0) (#25)
by dirty monkey man on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:26:59 AM PST
i understand your point but i'm not sure i agree with what you're saying in practice.

it seems like i would have to be some kind of expert to tell if the source code is good or not. i'm good with computers, but there's no way i could read through and understand source code. on top of that, even if i somehow knew the source code was ok, i'd probably have to buy software to make the compile process. all this would definitely impact my productivity in a negative sense.

i just don't understand the point for all this confusion and dicking around - no matter how you slice it with open source it seems like a loss. either i get an executable that i don't trust or i get source code that i can't understand that i have to then make compile to an executable i don't trust. WTF?!

now if you compare that mess with a shrink-wrapped cd with a serial key and a security hologram that contains an unaltered executable straight from the company that made the product and stands behind it then i think you will see my point here.


So-Called "Source Code" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by doofus on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:49:37 AM PST
In fact, "source code" does not exist - at least not in the way criminal hackers, open source zealots and other miscreants want intelligent, law-abiding people like us (who have more important things to do with our lives) to believe.

To believe these sorts is to believe that somehow humans write a program in an "higher order language" that is then "compiled" by a software program called a "compiler" (open source zealots are at least consistent if not imaginative in their terminology) which is then run on a US government certified Microsoft Windows compatible computer.

Clearly this is not the case, since the high order language --> compiled source step is underpants gnome business plan-like in it's vagueness.

No, clearly, computer programs are written using ASCII art-like techniques wherein the "programmer" uses "graphical user interfaces" to create "windows" and "dialog boxes" which in turn generate directly the 1's and 0's needed by the highest-quality personal computers in use today.

Anything else is pure folly.


someone silence this guy - he knows too much (none / 0) (#30)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:04:38 AM PST
wayyy too much :)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Ahhh! (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:04:29 PM PST
AHHH! We've been discovered! We're all going to die!! NOOO....


 
Thats a fair point (none / 0) (#28)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:49:41 AM PST
Open source is only really for developers and users who want absolute saftey.

A developer is able to take part of the open source code written by someone else and put it in their own program.
Maybe they the original progam had a cool menu system and it would look good in the new program.
The developer can then look at the source code and see how they did it for ideas or can completely copy the menu code into their program.

It allows programmers to work faster and the best way to learn is to read open source program code.

You're argument about not knowing if an exe is safe actually proves why open source is safer.

If this malicious word.exe wasnt open source then you're right, there is no way you could ever know if it was safe. But if it was open source then people would see the maliciousness in the source code and would report it, blacklisting the author.

To a certain extent there are many parts of windows that work similar to open source. Microsoft doesnt give programmers the source code of the Windows API functions (unfortunately) but tells programmers how to use them in order to create their programs faster.

Pretend you are making a save file window for your program. Whats the point in making it from scratch if the code is already available for it? saves time doesnt it? Imagine if every programmer had to write the code from scratch.
Using the same public code would also mean less bugs as with 1000's of people looking at the code any bugs would be seen and fixed.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

not sure i understood (none / 0) (#41)
by dirty monkey man on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:12:30 PM PST
it honestly sounds like here that the only benefit is to the programmers who can steal and take credit for other people's work. that's the only point i kept reading in your post, that it makes life easier for the programmers.

You're [sic] argument about not knowing if an exe is safe actually proves why open source is safer.

no it doesn't.

If this malicious word.exe wasnt open source then you're right, there is no way you could ever know if it was safe. But if it was open source then people would see the maliciousness in the source code and would report it, blacklisting the author. i think you're deliberately missing my point here. my point is that if i by a CD from a professional software company i am assured by a sacred contract that the software will not harm me or my computer. if it does, then heads are going to roll and people are going to lose their jobs and no one wants that do they. see it's in the company's best interest to release the best program they can so they do.

and not only that, but many companys then voluntarily patch their programs after the fact to make them better. it's just professionalism. and when you compare that to a bunch of hobbyists who's biggest motivator is getting 'blacklisted' by the other hobbyists, then i just don't see how there's any comparison.




I see (none / 0) (#79)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:40:22 AM PST
im sorry I didnt explain it well enough.

The idea of open source isnt anything to do with stealing peoples software.
Its not an announcement saying "I believe in open source so I can take apart any program I want".

The author has to announce their software open source and this is announcing an agreement to give the software and code away free and allow people to use it how they want.
Basically the authors make the progam and then give it away for free.
The reason why people do this is because it does help contribute to software development and shared resources online. Obviously it doesnt make any money and is why companies hate the idea. But noone forces anyone to make their programs open source.

Linux has been modified and built upon by countless thousands of individuals not a single company.
Someone builds video drivers, someone else builds a GUI for it, someone else builds support for various disk drives, someone else builds system commands. Usually as a small personal project asside from their real jobs.
Everything is open source in linux so that other programmers can build upon existing features making them better - so if new hardware comes out, someone can make drivers to support them and then all linux users can download them.
The reason why its not as good as Windows is because there isnt billions of $'s behind it and hardly any full time programmers on it. But the argument is, that while it doesnt appear as good as windows, a programmer is able to change and add whatever they want in the system and customise it exactly how they want, which in windows is impossible. Also for these people it is possible to fix the bugs and security problems with linux themselves wheras in windows they'd have to wait for a microsoft update.
So to some people linux is a better operating system - for them.
Neither is linux a hacker OS - i mean they have two Linux labs at my university. And I know of at least 2 professors who are into developing linux.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

that is not what "stolen" source is (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by philipm on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 05:44:50 AM PST
the idea of stolen source is very simple.

Stolen source was created because RMS was:

1) Too lazy to take a shower
2) Upset that all the real computer scientists left his criminal organization to go work for a living while he was left alone to work on criminal hacking tools.
3) Upset that said REAL computer scientists would not let him "borrow" or "steal" their hard earned future work.

If you don't believe me simply go to the many fine RMS web sites.

As for your silly argument that everyone who contributes to Lunix does it because they uphold the RMS "shelfhelp" guide philosophy, Pah! That is quite obviously wrong. Sneaky great companies let their employees to contribute to Lunix because:

1) They like to make fun of the little hackers.
2) They want to secretly see if their competitors will use the buggy code and suffer financial ruin.
3) They contribute "binary" only - thereby virally infecting the bad linux virus with their own good virus.
4) They have mentally unstable Lunix hacker employees and they need a method by which to identify them
5) and many more!


--philipm

 
...a question... (none / 0) (#31)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:24:25 AM PST
...but i just do not trust people to behave without malice.

Do you trust corporations to behave without malice?


yes! (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:37:53 AM PST
Because they know that if they want my money, they will have to earn it. Open Source hobbiest are not only malicious (see slashdot if you want evidence for their unflinching vituperance and hatred), they are too incompetent to understand something so elemental and natural as Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments (aka, Capitalism.)


the proof (none / 0) (#35)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:19:35 PM PST
If you want to understand Open Source and why people use it, visit:

LimeWire
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

they use it because they like stealing? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:37:39 PM PST
A link to a site waxing poetic about the virtues of thievery is formidable evidence for the existence of criminal rationalizations. Quel surprise. However, it's not proof of anything. Open source does not, can not, will never prove anything. It is merely a single doctrine, and one that isnt particularly coherent.

The problem with you Lunixheads is that you are not lucid, you are noisy with big words like Freedom, Proof, Good, Evil, etc, that you repeat without guilt for your lack of their understanding. That's ok, they're tough words to crack if cracking them is even possible. What's not ok is that you dont realize how tough they are, preferring smug ignorance and the false certainty of your doctrine.

You are zealots.


Hmmm... (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:35:38 PM PST
Two things:

ONE:
Does it not seem to fall under your logic the fact that Microsoft DID NOT design their own operating systems, but rather stole them from Apple, XEROX, Sun, and Sony? This kinda thing comes from 'criminal rationalizations.' Then you could always realize that they got their standards such as IBM's AT and PS/2 standards through backstabbing. Their optical mice were stolen from the same 3rd party organization that makes Logitech's. Microsoft Office was a virtual replica of Wordperfect only MS Office was initially free. Microsoft bought out a lot of computer manufacturers who wouldn't adhere to their standards. Microsoft's .NET system is a direct attack against most similar systems. Microsoft removed compatability with most SQL'ish database types to promote that one. Microsoft's Visual Studio is a rip-off of borland's. and other thins like that.

TWO:
Open source is NOT stealing, though you might want to think it is. Open Source is why things like CD-RW's work in Linux, and why OS's like Linux, parts of OSX, Solaris, OpenBSD, etc.. are beyond the capacity of Microsoft's and other non-open source OS's.

Prime Example:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional is limited to two processors, 7 GB of RAM, NTFS file system, and has a limit on the max hard drive space ( though I cannot remember what this limit is at the moment. )

Linux is limited to 8 processors, no limit on RAM, just about any file system, and unlimited hard drive space.


paranoid delusions are the entire basis for (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:06:53 AM PST
Lunix's so "superiority".

Does it not seem to fall under your logic the fact that Microsoft DID NOT design their own operating systems, but rather stole them from Apple, XEROX, Sun, and Sony?

After I stopped laughing, I realized the seriousness of your allegation. The design of an OS is specified in its source code. Do you have any evidence that Microsoft has stolen source code from any one of Apple, XEROX, Sun or Sony, much less all of them?

Does the word libel mean anything to you?


libel? (none / 0) (#84)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 03:32:38 PM PST
what on this site?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Unfortunately... (1.00 / 1) (#98)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:19:50 PM PST
Due to the fact that I cannot replicate Microsoft's Source Code because they won't release it I cannot prove it thus-wise.

But, you'll note that the Operating Systems themselves do not look very different from their respective operating system thefts. It would be quite easy, I'm sure, to prove this fact if they would do so anyways.

Anyways, the design of an OS is based on it's DESIGN, NOT necessarily the source code. I could change the source code of Windows XP from C to C++ but it would still be Windows XP, but just in C++.

Thank you.


no, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:57:53 PM PST
Anyways, the design of an OS is based on it's DESIGN

It all suddenly makes sense. No wonder Lunix runs like crap, its based on DESIGN, not code.


 
look you moron (none / 0) (#76)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:08:44 AM PST
first I dont run linux and secondly open source just means sharing of source code - it isnt a "everyone must give away their source code idea". The author decides that they want to make their source code available to people. Why is that a bad thing? It helps people to develop their own programs and to learn how other people have developed the ideas for their programs.

"they're tough words to crack if cracking them is even possible. What's not ok is that you dont realize how tough they are, preferring smug ignorance and the false certainty of your doctrine."
Are you religious? because this is the same complaint athiests have at disproving religion.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

i'm sure the previous poster would be happy to be (none / 0) (#92)
by philipm on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 05:31:58 AM PST
i'm sure the previous poster would be happy to be excluded.

In fact I am positive he is not running Lunix and performing criminal activities with it. This is like the vile criminal telling the fbi that he doesn't want the fbi to muscle in on his action.

As for your basic lack on understanding of freedom and justice, that ties in neatly with you opinion that "stolen" source sw is ok.

If I need several cans of black market caviar i will be sure to talk to you.


--philipm

 
empty hippie rhetoric (none / 0) (#36)
by dirty monkey man on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:21:32 PM PST
i think i'm just echoing what the other guy said, but since you quoted me, i assume you were asking me, so i'll answer.

i'm not stupid or blind enough to trust corporations implicitly, corporations do awful things all the time.

but i do trust that a corporation that makes software isn't going to put viruses and worms in their programs just for a sick thrill like a hacker would. companies operate out of self-interest, and self-interest alone, and this would be suicide.


Umm...no (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:23:03 PM PST
IF a corporation would act out of self-interest and self-interest alone that corporation would devolve or be destroyed under our mixed society. Examples:

Standard Oil
General Electric
Apple Computers

et all...

If you aren't convinced, go out and buy some economics books. WHY in the heck do you think that corporations will do ANYTHING for the customer if that customer is willing to do enough for them? It's a mutual gain. Besides a corporation acting out of purely self-interst would employ robots. You don't know what you are talking about here, sorry.


what the hell is wrong with you? (none / 0) (#62)
by dirty monkey man on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 07:25:54 PM PST
you my friend either need a course in critical thinking skills or you need to get a doctor to open up your skull and scrape all that dogshit off your brain.

but please do me a big goddamned favor next time and think for a minute before you fuck up my eyes with garbage like that last post.

you think a corporation ever does something nice because it wants to do something nice? not on your life shorty, a corporation ONLY ever does something nice to better its image, avoid litigation, increase profits, increase branding, placate its employees, or better it's customer relations. and anyone whose head has not been replaced with a horse's ass understands that.

do you think a corporation ever does something good anonymously? eh? i didn't think so.

you should take your economics books and return them to the kiddies librarian and see if she'll let you take out some books from the adult floor.


Wow... (none / 0) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:29:58 PM PST
"You must give in order to recieve."

Publicity is NOT always the #1 reason to do things. But besides, for a corporation to done anonymously to anyone would result in HUGE litigation problems ( assuming they DID donate as a corporation ). A person could donate ok, but truely a corporation is just not able to.

Example:
A corporation is ran by a board of directors who vote on certain issues. If they found, let's say, 30,000 dollars missing they wouldn't know what to do. It would be reported stolen, and depending on the corporation and the situation at the time they may/may not pursue it. But if it happens enough times, they WILL and someone WILL get fired for it. A corporation usually has to report EVER PENNY to the government so that they may claim as many tax deductions as possible. Missing money = missing deductions = high taxes ( note that a corporation's money is usually taxed TWICE instead of just ONCE so every deduction REALLY means something ). This means there's no realistic way for them to donate anonymously.

Of course, that's just one side. Did you know that non-profit organizations must report all of their money to the government as well. Anonymous donations don't always go over well.
"The greatest harm comes from the best intentions."

So maybe it is you who should take a critical thinking class. Obviously you don't quite understand the way the corporations must operate in order to continue to do so properly. Like I said, you should probably read a few books on ECONOMICS and CORPORATE RULES in order to understand this properly. Maybe they ARE donating with their name on it, but how often do you hear them bragging about it? When was the last time you heard about a hospital bragging in an interview because it supports medcare/medicade patients? When was the last time you heard a corporation ( other than Microsoft and other KNOWN corrput corpers ) saying about how they donated to this or that or something else? Really?

Besides, learn to criticize properly. You don't have to be childish to get your point accross, sir or ma'am.


listen you dumb bastard (none / 0) (#102)
by dirty monkey man on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 08:24:54 AM PST
my point wasn't that corporations do or should do good things anonymously, my point was that at the root of ALL actions of a corporation is self-interest.

is that a bad thing? nope. what the hell else would motivate a company?

i brought up anonymous acts to illustate this point since that's the only situation i could think of where a good act would not have self-interest as its base motivation. capish?

now normally i don't spend this much time trying to educate myopic hippies, but i'll give it one more shot: you know how some tuna companies will use dolphin-safe nets? yes, they do that to try and kill less dolphins and yes they do that to be responsible with the environment and all that other happy horseshit, but under all that lurks a single motivation: SELF-INTEREST. see, if nobody cared about dolphins, the tuna company wouldn't either. same goes for your crazy 'they would hire robots example'. they don't keep from hiring robots because they know it would be bad for people, they keep from hiring robots because it would be bad for business.

and this was the point i was making. corporations act out of self-interest alone.

now go beat off or find a cool sticker for your bong or do whatever the hell else you dirty hippies do while us realists are working.


 
Let's get this straight... (none / 0) (#42)
by Gordon on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:12:57 PM PST
... you're concerned about security - so you choose Microsoft products?

This is a company that persists in selling a flawed e-mail application which is responsible for propogating 90% of the viruses on the Internet (the other 10% are down to IIS, also a MS product).

This is a company that ships a new operating system that lets crackers get *total control* of your machine once you connect to the net.

I could go on.

Certainly, word.exe is a great word processor. But to rely on MS to keep your computer secure is extremely unwise indeed.

Gordon


Empty Lunatix Lies (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:49:43 PM PST
This may shock your system but some of us know what we're doing and have never been bitten by an e-mail application. If I understand you correctly, Lunatix run Linux because only an OS which does nothing much, none of it particularly well, will keep them safe from nothing dangerous. Finally, the operating systems Windows2000 and XP have had considerably less security problems than Lunix. You do know the difference between an OS and an application which can turn automatic scripting on and off, dont you?

So, yes, people concerned about security do choose Microsoft products. Every fucking time.


Lies? (none / 0) (#50)
by Gordon on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 04:32:17 PM PST
If I understand you correctly

You don't! I'm not advocating Linux, or any other OS, merely pointing to MS's track record vis-a-vis security.

You do know the difference between an OS and an application which can turn automatic scripting on and off, dont you?

I do! However, I fail to see the relevance of your question.

So, yes, people concerned about security do choose Microsoft products. Every fucking time.

This statement is ludicrous, silly and demonstrably incorrect.



Fact: (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:19:28 PM PST
Very few large corporation's networks are run in a Microsoft based system. That's why they keep pushing for it. If you look, you may find where Office Depot ( a company who once used to use Microsoft's networking stuff for it's WAN ) got hacked and lost a lot of sensitive corporate data. Since then we've switched over to a BSD system and now we can't even hack the server from INSIDE the system!! ( sadly enough, we tried. We were VERY Bored and it was VERY slow :-( )


 
It doesn't surprise me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 09:05:40 AM PST
that Stallman hijacked the definition of Open Source too. Either way you cut it, it's in violation of the DMCA and Stallman and his Merry Men should be imprisoned.


dont say that word (none / 0) (#26)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 10:34:00 AM PST
DMCA can go to hell. Its one of the stupidest acts ever introduced. Talk about government caving into record and movie companies.
Logically flawed, it just reminds me that the US government is incapable of understanding the internet.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

to call the DMCA "logically flawed" (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 11:41:33 AM PST
betrays a thoroughly inadequate understanding of logic. According to that understanding, Open Source is doubly flawed because it (1) posits a world view as does the DMCA; (2) posits precisely the wrong world view according to the crush of humanity by way of their their elected representatives.

Open Source is undemocratic. Stalliman is a Stalinist.


no (none / 0) (#34)
by PotatoError on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 12:15:46 PM PST
DMCA sets out to protect the rights of authors in order to allow development of the software industry.
It is logically flawed because in fact it ends up stifling development of the software industry.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

very funny (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:58:44 PM PST
It is logically flawed because in fact it ends up stifling development of the software industry.

The only dearth of software is software that runs on Lunix. There is an embarrassing variety and quantity of quality Windows software whose creation continues to flow unabated. In fact, the flow accelerates year after year after year. This is true for music, for books, for anything under copyright. We are literally drowning in Art and Science thanks to copyright. And yet, you've obviously ignored the opportunity to learn any of it.

Congratulations, you've compounded your ignorance for the meaning of logic with a lie. Not idle, tendentious speculation, an outright lie. Pretty good for one sentence even by your standards. And what's with your hatred for the Irish?


you dont know the half of it (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 02:59:46 PM PST
The only dearth of software is software that runs on Lunix.

That's because Lunix software is GPLed. Under the GPL, the "fair use" doctrine does NOT apply as it does under copyrighted works. If you so much as copy one line of GPL code from function foo(), your entire program must be GPLed as well. If you quote that line of foo() in a computer article written for a trade publication, a school textbook meant to educate children, or something for popular dissemination in bus and metro stations, the entire publication must be put under a copyleft license!

It's unamerican and little wonder why Lunix users have no software except an EMACS editor to write no software on.


Woah! (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 06:57:10 PM PST
I just realized that all 30 of these developers apps that allow me to write in C++ Alone don't exist!! WOAH!!! Sheesh, get a clue.

Renick on your comment about GPL:

You obviously don't understand the GPL. The GPL does NOT EVER require you to release your copyright on particular material inside a source code or a binary/object code. Any parts that are your's still remain your intellectual property and are subject to all laws pertaining to such as long as the GNU does not VOID such laws.

You ONLY have to distribute and allocate your program as GNU if you were derive, in part or whole, your program from a GNU program. This means that NO, copying one line from function foo() does NOT put your program under GNU's GPL. Rather, copying the entirety of function foo(), or the threads that would be similar enough to prove in a court of law the derivition of function foo() in a given program would require you to put it under GNU's GPL. There ARE allowances and the License is not a kill-all.

Never do you renick your ownership of Patent, copyright, or ANY intellectual property when you accept a GPL of ANY kind. In fact, it's ILLEGAL to do so for any Patent or anything other than a copyright, which requires a signature and express permission in a signed and notorized form ( which you can attain from an intellectual property or property lawyer ).

If you have any other questions regarding GNU's General Public License please consult this site:
<A HREF=http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>GNU Webpage</A>


 
You havent got a clue (none / 0) (#77)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:18:00 AM PST
You probably dont know what DMCA is.

Well did you know that various researchers have been forced to not publish their research because they are afraid that they will have law suits againt them?

Did you know that some researchers have been threatened by the music and movie industry for doing research which the industries didnt like?

That people supposedly meant to test system security are afraid of doing so because they fear having law suits against them?

This is why the DMCA is stupid and suppresses research and threatens security and stifles the software industry.

How about reading up on something before denouncing it as a lie or even posting at all.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

common open source solecism (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:41:08 PM PST
Well did you know that various researchers have been forced to not publish their research because they are afraid that they will have law suits againt them?

Ok, let me explain something to you. When person A makes a patentable discovery which person B reverse engineers, person B hasnt made a discovery. Get it? Person A added to human knowledge, not person B. Reverse engineering is not useful "research."

If patents were unavailable, person A would not have been motivated to make the patentable discovery which person B (the open source leech) was too stupid to discover in the first place. Therefore, intellectual property laws such as the DMCA protect and encourage discovery. IP laws have done more to further the lot of humanity than any smelly hippy and his army of thieving sycophants ever will. Free men (men in control of their economic destiny) cannot make progress without IP laws.

The reason you dislike the DMCA has nothing objective to do with discovery. You dislike the DMCA because the DMCA was expressly written to deal with thieving hackers and their earnest application of RMS's self-publicized aversion to paying for honest art and invention. (In fact, RMS pays for nothing. RMS is an unemployed bum who sponges room and board off a legion of fawning, brainwashed terrorist sympathizers.)

In otherwords, potatohacker, you are a common thief. You are too busy stealing American innovation to have any time left for learning the English language or furthering the lot of humanity through your own PATENTABLE inventions.


 
It proves who matters when they make laws. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by elenchos on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 01:00:04 PM PST
And who does not matter: geeks.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


I didnt say they didnt matter (none / 0) (#80)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:44:07 AM PST
But unfortunately they do. Every damn stupid thing they do matters. in a bad way.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Wrong Again, Mr. Potato Head (none / 0) (#47)
by osm on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 02:03:43 PM PST
DMCA can go to hell. Its one of the stupidest acts ever introduced. Talk about government caving into record and movie companies.

The DMCA has nothing to do with record and movie companies. The DMCA is legislation which requires hardware manufacturers to include V-chips in their products and for software manufacturers to provide remote access to the information stored in the V-chip.

The legislation was enacted to give the FBI the ability to read the V-chip information to obtain evidence for criminal investigations. Investigations which, I'm sure, 70% of the readership of this site is under.

The Linus operating system violates the DMCA since it provides no way for the FBI to access the hardware's V-chip information. This was an intentional omission made by Stallman, since his goals were to create an illegal hacking tool. It would be stupid of him to give the FBI free access to a complete history of his illegal activities.

And even though the V-chip can be used to determine if a user is illegally copying music and videos, it really has nothing to do with the entertainment industry.

Please refrain from posting obviously incorrect information here, or I will be forced to delete your posts.


make stuff up why don't ya (none / 0) (#49)
by NAWL on Fri Jan 4th, 2002 at 03:40:33 PM PST
The DMCA is legislation which requires hardware manufacturers to include V-chips in their products and for software manufacturers to provide remote access to the information stored in the V-chip.

You really know nothing about the DMCA do you? And it's not the DMCA which requires V-chips in TELEVISION. The FCC does.

The legislation was enacted to give the FBI the ability to read the V-chip information to obtain evidence for criminal investigations. Investigations which, I'm sure, 70% of the readership of this site is under.

The FBI will access your television how? TVs can receive, not transmit.

The Linus operating system violates the DMCA since it provides no way for the FBI to access the hardware's V-chip information.

Computers don't have V-chips

And even though the V-chip can be used to determine if a user is illegally copying music and videos, it really has nothing to do with the entertainment industry.

Obviously when you posted a while back that anyone can do a search on the V-chip patent you you didn't bother to do so. So I did.
U.S. Patent number 5,828,402 has been issued to Tri-Vision Director and v-chip pioneer Tim Collings, protecting the unique, flexible V-gis v-chip technology.

Tim Collings' v-chip Patent specifies technology capable of adapting to multiple and changing television ratings systems.

The Patent and Trademark Office of the United States Department of Commerce Web Site (http://www.uspto.gov) lists the Patent as follows: United States Patent: 5,828,402
Collings: October 27, 1998


Method and apparatus for selectively blocking audio and video signals.
Please refrain from posting obviously incorrect information here, or I will be forced to delete your posts. Let me see if I got this straight. When someone posts ACCURATE, FACTUAL information you call them liars and delete their posts? Yet you submit total bullshit with no real or solid proof and expect to be taken seriously!?!




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

NAWL sir, (none / 0) (#89)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:06:27 AM PST
Back to your game of "facts" I see.

The FBI will access your television how? TVs can receive, not transmit.

This is a lie and you and I both know it. According Gorge Orwell's ground breaking expose 1984, our government has been able to send and recive transmissions from television sets well before the book was written. I challenge you to disprove this well known fact when it's written in that book, plain as fact.

As far as your patent nonsense, well, we all know how you hackers love to fight our capitalistic patent system. However, it occured to me (as well as many other sophisticated readers, no doubt) that you are being inconsistant: on the one hand you and your hacker friends feel patents are evil, and are all invalid, but on the other hand you use a patent to try to prove your arguement. Surely this cannot be the case - a hacker such as yourself, posting a referance to a patent? How can you, a person who thinks patents are invalid, use one as a referance? Since you think patents are invalid, surely you must deny the existance of anything that they refer to, no? By treating patents as valid, you do great harm to you and your communist comrades, not to mention your arguments.

Go back to your little third world country NAWL, our gated community of elite authors, physicsts, economists, rocket scientists, polititians, FBI agents, and other noble members of our society despise your factually incorrect, utter rubbish of postings. Take your "facts" elseware.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

haha (none / 0) (#90)
by NAWL on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:27:17 AM PST
You know that stereotyping is the product of a weak mind.

And how can I take a look at my third world country? I live in America. My family is originally from Spain, jackass.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

I pity you sir, (none / 0) (#95)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:25:24 PM PST
Nice defence. A simple, fourth grade ad-homen attack. You must be a genious.

Here on adequacy, we attack the ideas, not the people.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
I challange you! (1.00 / 1) (#100)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:37:41 PM PST
I challange you to PROVE this point. How can a television SEND a signal? And if it could, why has no one come out and said such information? Things like this would've gotten into the public ( They usually do ). Besides, what makes George Orwell's book necessarily FACT? Just because we have the tech doesn't mean we do it. We've been able to travel to Mars for about 10 years, but we haven't done that. We've created lasers powerful enough to power guns, but we don't have those. We have computers strong enough to BE AI's, but we choose them not to be. We have electric cars that would run fine in our society, but we don't use them. Just because such technology exists, doesn't mean we use that technology.


Television sets do transmit. (none / 0) (#110)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 12th, 2002 at 07:48:03 PM PST
Television sets always radiate RF energy. Various subsystems within the set emit signals that can be easily picked up by a sensitive receiver. This is why someone in a van parked on the street in front of your house, with the proper equipment, which amounts to nothing newer than RF gear from the 60's, can determine what channel a Television or radio in your house is tuned to.

Further, the lower frequency emissions of the deflection circuitry within a television display can easily contain additional information. The V chip, for all we know, could be radiating information about what channels you regularly watch, what times your set is on, etc. to an outside monitoring instrument.

Any receiver except for the most simple passive crystal sets emit an RF signal. That's just the way it goes.



 
hehe (none / 0) (#81)
by PotatoError on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:48:52 AM PST
the V chip succesor of the J chip, successor to the B chip. Yes and of course according to current legislation it is illegal to use microsoft windows or linux.
In fact it is illegal to use a computer now that the NSA have passed their OUWADH act.
Noone knows what it stands for yet.
But its bound to be scary.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Lies lies lies!!! (4.00 / 1) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 02:49:49 AM PST
You have been listenning to too many Rush Limbaugh marathons osm (if that even is your name).

>>RMS is an admitted communist.

That should read RMS is an aquitted communist. For those of you who failed social studies in high school that RMS was found innocent. Think about him as being as inocent as a pure, snow white flower.

RMS is a great humanitarian and freedom fighter. I don't see osm feeding starving children... Tell me who should I trust? RMS, the respected philanthropist, or osm the man with the worlds worst hair cut.


Anonymous Reader Sir, (none / 0) (#88)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:52:28 AM PST
So, we talk again, eh?

Sir, as you already know, RMS is most definitly not pure, snowy white, but more of a hellish red color with a tatoo of a Hammer and Sickle. RMS, being a communist and theif should be thrown in jail.

RMS is not a philanthropist, more of a misanthropist as any true philanthropist would charge a price for his software. Otherwise, he would be stealing from the mouths of his employees and their families. Some humanitarian indeed.

The only freedom RMS has been fighting for is the liberation of the communist party. Surely, we cannot have that.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Have you heard of metaphor? (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 04:58:22 AM PST
>>RMS is most definitly not pure, snowy white

First of all, that was meant metaphorically, not literally. I wrote, "Think about him as being as inocent as a pure, snow white flower." I did not write that RMS was literally a pure, snow white flower.

>>Otherwise, he would be stealing from the mouths of his employees and their families.

RMS does not have employees so your post is utterly pointless.

Once again, reason wins over cheap sophistry!



I grow tired of your antics, Sir, (none / 0) (#96)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:41:16 PM PST
Anonymous reader, how then can you defend your other writings to this artice. Take this one, where you call open source hobbysts malicious. Or take this post, where you tell your readership to recend their hacker ways and read the bible. Who will belive you after this damning evidance. You are an incoherant, phsycotic, rambling twit. How do you explain these discrepancys.

You could say somebody else wrote them, but you and I both know this is a lie. Very rarely would somebody else gain access to your "password" and write to this weblog, so you cannot use that argument.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
Ahahahhahhahahhahahahhahhahhahahhahah (2.50 / 2) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 12:15:37 AM PST
Both sides just send me cracking up laughing as i read this.

Congartulations adequacy, you've earned your way onto my bookmark list as one of my all time favorite joke sites.

It's truly sublime, the level of bluffing that exists here.

In the case that you may be serious...
Well, I don't want to think about that.
I'm content knowing that at least half of us are getting a good laugh out of this joke.

Peace out.


 
Excellent historical perspective (none / 0) (#104)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 11:02:47 AM PST
As an educator in the Washington state school system, I find articles like this to be invaluable tool in teaching computer history. Already, I have begun working this into my curriculum. Young children need information on how to avoid becoming the demons of todays economy. RMS, and others like him who steal knowledge and information for their own selfish purposes should be studied. It is our ignorance of the past that condemns us to repeat history. Thank you, OSM!

By the way, I believe you made a mistake. Shouldn't it be DSL-using hacker teens? DSL and broadband are tools of the devil in which our unsuspecting children are drawn into sin through copyright violation! Visit http://www.broadbandsin.org for more information.



 
stupidity (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 13th, 2002 at 09:26:19 AM PST
You are so so stupid, i can't even begin to describe it!



 
yet again, another MSWIN user can type (1.00 / 1) (#113)
by Bladen on Wed Jan 16th, 2002 at 10:54:20 AM PST
its really funny that osm Decided to Quote Bill Gates in reference to Stealling, seeings how he STOLE the idea of a Graphical user interface from XEROX. so that invalidates your argument there for that part. and as far as Linux being a HACKER OS is also not ENTIRELY true, it is a Widely used operating system for people who use it for SPECIALIZED applications, My father( who is a Computer Specialist for one of the Largest GIS firms in the nation ) uses Linux for his Work, because you can Program it and its Software for Exact Spec's. can you change how the software works and make additions and remove functions that just eat up system resources that you need for other applications in Windows, not easily it all comes down to personal preference and your dedication, true Linux can be used to hack, but that is up to the individual to decide if thats what he wants to do, you can reprogram your system to be the ultamate hacking machine with little programs to do all sorts of potentially destructive things. but like i said, its up to the end user to make those decisions. what you pro windows people are sounding like is this
(for example ONLY)
Windows=Chevy cars
linux and all open source Os=mitsubishi
you are now breaking the law if you drive a Mitsu. and you should be thrown in jail, because you are breaking the law if you drive a mitsu, we have no proof that you are, but people who drive mitsu's must be breaking the law because its a mitsu.
how much sense does that make to you, personally it sounds like a bunch of people whineing about something they know nothing about, you are entitled to your opinion, but only the EDUCATED and INFORMED ( i say this due to the lack of common sense and actual Inteligence being shown by people who MIGHT have a PHd in something or other NOT RELATED to computers.)
Will be accepted WITHOUT harsh words and will be viewed as a legitamate view.



 
in Layman's terms (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 17th, 2002 at 01:56:04 AM PST
This part of the title of your article says it all!
Your article shows clearly that you have _no_ clue about computer science (as have some people posting in reply to this article, especially those with a PhD). (examples:
<quote>
"operating system" - a sequence of low-level MS-DOS commands which tell the computer how to decode program codes.
</quote>
This is nonsense. OS's are usually written in C or assembler (read a book about OS development from your favorite book store) MS-DOS _is_ a OS (though not in fashion anymore!) Unix is an OS (and has been around before MS-DOS was!) Linux is just a variant of Unix and not some "hacking tool" (By the way, you also confuse the term "hacker" (somebody who writes software for fun) with "cracker" (sombody who illegally gains access to computer))

<quote>
"Open Source" is a method of software distribution which implements a means of copy protection by not distributing the final program codes. Instead, the user must assemble this final "executive" code by hand, thus eliminating the need for the proprietary data which must be included in a company-distributed copy.
</quote>
This is the weirdest definition I ever read about open-source. Open source software does _not_ implement _any_ kind of copy protection! Instead it gives away the "proprietary data" (the source code) that a company like Mircosoft is not willing to share with its customers.

<quote>
Linux Torvaledse, another Berkeley student
</quote>
Linus Torvalds is from Finland where he also got his computer science degree. What is this preoccupation of yours with UC Berkeley about?

<quote>
hacker alias "X-Windows"
</quote>
The GUI "X" (which is for graphical user "interface" _not_ "implementation" as you wrote)
has been developed at MIT around 1985 and was intended to run on professional work stations that always run UNIX (i.e. long before anybody thought about developing Linux!) Nobody stole it from Microsoft. It is simply a completely different thing! Visit www.x.org or since you appear to be afraid to visit "alien" web-sites, go to a bookstore and read a book about UNIX where you will undoubtedly also find something about X, too.) By the way, chances are much higher to be infected by a virus or a trojan if one runs Microsoft software than UNIX variants! The code red virus, for example, _only_ infected windows machines that run a special piece of badly written Microsoft software (IIS servers, check out http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-19.html). Machines running UNIX (for example Linux) just logged a bad HTTP request during an attack and that was it!

The problem here is that you wrote an article about things you simply do not have a deeper knowledge about. So, go read some books, write some software yourself, and come back in a year or so, and try it again! Nobody with at least some knowledge of computer science will take you seriously.



 
Wonderful troll (none / 0) (#115)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 11:37:44 AM PST
This article had me laughing for five minutes. People in neighboring cubicles are looking at me strangely and reaching for their telephones to call security.


 
torvalds (none / 0) (#116)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 24th, 2002 at 11:14:56 AM PST
eh , torvalds didnt go to berkley , why am I posting this this site is a joke hehehe


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.