Posted on 12/08/2005 4:06:06 PM PST by zeugma
ping
Your original quote, several days ago, was:
"Don't they have to give a copy to anyone who wants a copy?"
So when I answer that question with a conclusive NO, you then say that my answer, "...has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter being discussed..."
Well, yes it does, sorry to inform you. It answers your question exactly. That's why you changed your question, there, Buzzy, and will continue to do so every time I shoot you down. Not hard to see why, either. Spin in little circles, troll.
The makers of RedHawk Linux don't have to share it with ANYONE if they don't want to.
"And since they are selling it, there's nothing stopping some "company" in China buying a copy of this software, and getting the source code, then legally distributing it to ANYONE, INFINITELY, whithout ever having to pay for it again."
Why should you care if they get limited-feature, Commie crapware for free? If it's as bad as you say, then why not let them have it?
No you didn't, you've been trying to claim they're not distributing it, repeatedly putting up this FAQ link saying they can keep it private if they want to. I gave you a link to the actual GPL license that shows they do have to give the source code away when they distribute it, including listing the section number for you but you didn't even recognize it as the actual license.
Now you're reduced to "why not let them have it", which has of course been your underlying position all along. But you'd already lost that argument, since you didn't realize it, as I already told you several times what they do with it, being they not only use it to run their government computers, they resell it to other countries, many of which we don't want them to. But who cares, you seem comfortable saying, "why not let them have it" is as pitiful as it gets.
"No you didn't, you've been trying to claim they're not distributing it,..."
Oh, this is rich. Where did I say that exactly again (and don't just say Section 3...copy and paste it)? Why don't you argue with what I said, rather than dreaming up straw men out of thin air? You're weak, and it's getting more obvious by the second.
"...repeatedly putting up this FAQ link saying they can keep it private if they want to."
That's because they CAN, jackass! Do some reading!
" I gave you a link to the actual GPL license that shows they do have to give the source code away when they distribute it..."
Yup. I never argued any different. But they're under no obligation to release the OS if they don't want to. Your original statement (which I copied and pasted here earlier) was that they have to give a copy to anyone who requests it, which is untrue. And now, when you get caught, you try to lie again about what you said, and worse, about what I said. You're nothing but a liar through and through, but we knew that already.
"including listing the section number for you but you didn't even recognize it as the actual license. "
Repetition of a lie not only doesn't make it the truth, it is also a sure sign that you have nothing of substance to say. Keep it up. We're all laughing at you.
" But who cares, you seem comfortable saying, "why not let them have it" is as pitiful as it gets."
First, poor sentence structure. Second, you talk out both sides of your mouth, saying that Linux is "commie crapware", and basically bashing it as worthless, confusing, and impossible to use, then ranting frantically about giving it to the Chinese. Seems to me that if it is as bad as you think, you'd not care who had it. Your protests about it suggest the opposite. Thanks for proving my point, although I suspect the only point you're aware of is the one in the middle of your head.
So, Buzzy, can you explain why it's bad to use Linux because people give it to the Chinese, but it's OK to use Microsoft, because it's sold to the Chinese (and that company invests money and resources there, selling out American jobs)?
P.S. You use Linux everytime you post on FreeRepublic. If you really believe as you do, then why don't you leave?
Sorry. My mistake for not recognizing him as the prophet of our times! ;)
Like when he went postal over security updates for the Knoppix live CD.
Because, you know, those viruses have a nasty way of writing themselves to finalized CD-R's.
What a moron.
->Where did I say that exactly again?
How about your first post in the discussion, numskull.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530486/posts?page=27#27
->But they're under no obligation to release the OS if they don't want to.
But this company is releasing it, you freaking idiot, so the FAQ link you keep posting in your defense doesn't even apply.
->So, Buzzy, can you explain why it's bad to use Linux because people give it to the Chinese, but it's OK to use Microsoft, because it's sold to the Chinese
Because there's a huge difference in selling something to someone verses giving it to them for free, especially if they take that free software and use it on all their government computers and resell it to other governments we don't want to have it. Apparently not a big enough difference for you to understand though.
Are you really that ignorant? The point obvious to anyone who actually understands these issues is you can't apply security patches a finalized CD. You don't know much of anything except how to sling insults that only expose your own stupidity.
Hmm. I thought the point of a Live CD was that virii can't infect your machine due to the read-only nature of finalized CD-Rs.
If a virus cannot infect your machine, what's the point of security updates?
Do you even understand how a computer works? It needs the software loaded into RAM before it can act on it, unless the O/S is based on ROM which is rare. And unpatched code in RAM is wide open for attack, no matter where it was originally loaded from.
Ahh yes. The infamous RAM virus. How long will it live once you are finished with a Live CD and reboot?
No such thing as a "RAM virus", I don't know where you learn this crap but it's never correct. As far as whether exploits of any kind could survive reboots, yes, they could, if you had any writeable devices available. Don't make the mistake of underestimating what can happen to you if yourloaded O/S is unpatched.
I don't know where you learn this crap but it's never correct.
In this case he was entirely correct and your rude rebuttal was completely wrong..
Section 3!
Where's Thelma Lou?!?!
Apache is for commies!
You've got to nip it in the bud!
No he wasn't, he was making a wild incomplete and innaccurate guess as to what I was referring to, being the fact that any vulnerability that is unpatched and in RAM can be exploited.
your rude rebuttal was completely wrong..
No I wasn't, I was referring to a family type of virus, not some specific obscure version like you found. So while I'm sure you're proud of your little find, as typical it in no way rescues his original incorrect claim, and is nothing but further proof you boys can't do anything but play word games in your defense.
Thanks. I already got it and it works great. I use the history because sometimes I like to go back to a thread here on FR for reference.
I know that. I was being sarcastic. I guess I'll have to include that tag at all times from now on as you seem incapable of seeing it.
The class of "RAM virii" as you put it could do no harm with a Live CD-based OS. Anything that would run over the net into you computer would have to be Javascript/ECMAscript or a Java applet. That program would then have to transfer other files into the infected computer. That transfer would fail as the media is write-only. A quick re-boot, and the infection is gone.
Trust me on this one--since Live CD OSes are mainly *nix-based, the whole arrangement of the drive assignments are different than if the machine had booted up off the HDD. A virus (written for Windows, probably) would have no chance of figuring out how to infect the machine it was trying to run on in RAM.
If there is any writable media used on the machine, someone could figure out a way to make a virus. Rebooting would clear it temporarily. Of course, a machine without writable media is fairly useless; equivalent to choosing a police state because you're afraid of crime!
Thanks for finally speaking somewhat sensibly. But you should know that virii are but one type of exploit, and if your currently loaded RAM is exploitable, there are multiple damages you could suffer, from denial of service all the way down to whatever media you have mounted being fully destroyed.
I learned long ago that virtually nothing is impossible (WRT computers) if you throw enough will and effort into it. However, a virus written for windows will not infect a *nix machine.
Of course, a machine without writable media is fairly useless; equivalent to choosing a police state because you're afraid of crime!
I don't believe so. I've got a mini-CD with a Linux distro on it that I can use in any computer when I want to surf the web or FReep. Nothing is mounted writeable, and the machine performs the exact function I want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.