Posted on 10/01/2002 1:05:54 PM PDT by ShadowAce
To be honest, though, there is a major difference between Windows vulnerabilities and *nix vulnerabilities. MS usually fixes known, used, and exploited vulnerabilities in its OS, while *nix security alerts/patches are made to fix potential exploits. The difference here is that *nix developers will find and fix problems in the code before they are used to breach a server/machine, while Windows developers have to fix a current problem that is already affecting its user base.
OS developers at the very least get education, experience and the source code. And yes, job offers.
The source code alone is *very* valuable. As you should realize. Imagine if MS offered the same deal -- you work on Windows, you get the Windows source code. Would you call *that* pretty good compensation? Of course you would.
If I'm remembering correctly, in "Galt's Gulch" they didn't work for any "money" as the outside world recognized it at all. The use of gold as a currency had been outlawed. So they received no "direct compensation" for their production at all. Only a 'currency' that was of their own making.
So the 'producers' created their own economy, mainly a 'barter' system, just like the OS community did.
OS developers do receive 'compensation' for their efforts. And the fact that the compensation is outside the corporate system is actually a bonus.
I'd say you have it dead wrong. OS developers are *NOT* selfless. They're businessmen. They're the real producers. They've just created their own "Galt's Gulch".
Two things: One, if what I quoted earlier is true, then maybe the reason (if this is even true at all, see below) that Windows is constantly fixing known bugs and Linux is fixing potential bugs is because Windows is a target of major attack. In other words, if Linux becomes such a target, as the author claims is possible in the future, then perhaps they wouldn't be able to "keep up" either, just like Windows doesn't seem to be able to.
Two, I'm not even sure it's true that most patches/fixes made by Windows are "reactive" in nature, as opposed to "pro-active". I don't pretend to know a lot about computers, but when I download my "Windows Updates", the message read is usually something like the following:
This patch addresses a security issue that has come to the attention of Microsoft. Given this issue, it is possible for a malicious user to ... blah blah whatever...(the important part of the description is this)...however, no incidences of this exploitation have been reported.
Believe me, I'm no great fan of Microsoft, not nearly as much as I used to be even just 2 years ago. But, as a simple matter of convenience, it simply can't be beat, imo, for the average home user. In other words, I really can't see "Granny Smith" sitting at home and writing code to make her operating system work, which is still what one has to do with Linux. And I've also said all along that the only reason Linux is "more secure" than Windows is because it hasn't been "cool" to attack it with the ferocity and tenacity that the little hacker "phreaks" attack Windows.
I think the author agrees with me on that point too, at least from the frequency of attack standpoint. If not, why else would he say, "Virus writers haven't made Linux a major target--yet."?
Microsoft, despite its obvious flaws, is simply a succesful product, for whatever reason. It's simply classic liberal "class envy" to deny that, and that's what the virus writers are suffering from, class envy. In their mind, it's the "evil, conglomerate corporation" (evil because they're a corporation, and not for any other reason) against the meek, good-guy "dood", and thus, virus attacks against their OS are not only required, but morally justifiable. Which is complete nonsense of course, when you consider that most victims of these viri are average users, who could never be correctly described as "evil". Of course, most virus writers are children, who haven't matured yet, and are just angry at the world in general and looking for someone to pick on to vent their teenage angst, so we shouldn't really expect any better.
The point is though, Linux can and will suffer an equal fate, if they become "evil" enough to draw the wrath of the oppressed "dood".
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Glad to see I've brought some humor into your day. BTW, what's so funny?
Then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with someone like that, then.
Face it, you're wrong.
"Doesn't justify the effort involved"?
That just said a whole lot about you. Believe it or not, most of the best coders do it because we love it. The pay is nice, but I'd be doing this even if I wasn't being paid. Heck, I *did* do this before ever being paid.
And that may be why you just can't understand the OS movement. As I said, it's a "group jam" for programmers. Is a musician jamming with his friends doing it out of a "desire to give something back to the community"?
No. It's pure selfishness.
You know why I do some open source work on the side? Because I can't tell you how much seeing that source code is worth to me. To see how other people do things, to see real-world techniques and patterns in use. I end up using all of that knowledge in my job. It makes me a better developer, and increases my pay. I can give my boss better solutions more quickly.
You blow that off as unworthy of effort. Man, that alone tells me something.
Except most users are heavily invested emotionally in it.
Show me somebody who is making money with open source.
Quick answer: Any of the distros... RedHat, Suse, Slack, Mandrake, etc... it's called "value-add".
There are many varied reasons why people write and release viruses. Some think they're performing a "community service" by exposing bugs and don't want to risk getting trapped in the DMCA. Some are just kids who like to pull pranks. Some are simply conducting experiments which get out of hand... see "David Smith" and "Melissa".
But I don't really think they're targeting Microsoft platforms just because it's Microsoft, but because the Microsoft stuff is so buggy and MS is perceived to be slow to react. Think "easy target".
There are people out there targeting Linux, BTW. For certain crackers, Linux is the platform of choice because of its power and ability to be used as a remote attack platform. But Linux is relatively hard to crack, due to security considerations in the design, and the fact that Linux users tend to know more about what they're doing when they install a box.
And, I guess it's more fun to hijack a terrified Windows user's desktop right under his/her nose.
How interesting, we show you OS developers, and explain the motives of those developers, and prove that they're in it for their own self-interest.
Then you ignore all that, and repeat your untrue claim.
Do you actually know any OS developers?
OS is the "Galt's Gulch" of the 21st century.
Try `halt -p`
Depending on your distro, you may also want to adjust the 'halt' script in the startup suite. On Redhat and Mandrake that'd be /etc/rc.d/init.d/halt
ACPI is a pain, so far. I managed to get it up under 2.4.18 (patched the kernel, etc.), but it has a long way to go. I like that Linux makes it so whatever handles are available on the hardware are visible to the user.
They're all profiting from it, in different ways, as we've shown you. In ways that are outside the corporate system. At the very least, they get access to source code -- a *very* lucrative thing -- and education and experience, both *very* valuable things.
And I think you know that.
It's pure self-interest that drives a person into open-source. The "Galt's Gulch" of the 21st century.
I agree with this 100%. I get paid well to be a programmer and I enjoy my job. I also occasionally do coding as a hobby for free. I love this too.
Umm, most OS developers either have a 9-5 job or are in school still. Others get paid to do it by Distributors or Corporations. Some of the Mozilla developers are getting paid by Netscape.
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.