Open Source Philosophy

[matt_arnold]

Bruce Schneier has an article in WIRED Magazine which is a must-read for all computer users who care about keeping their computers free from spyware, malicious access cloaking programs, and other malware. He describes how anti-virus companies chose not to block Sony's malicious computer intrusion program on their infected music CDs. They considered

Comments

[wolfger]

Of course it's fair to want that. The open source world is largely a trade-off... most of the software is free, and so it comes with a money-back warranty. If you don't like something, fix it. Or at the very least, file a bug report

[wolfger]

I'm satisfied with my Linux experience. That having been said, almost two-thirds of the applications that I install through Synaptic Package Manager are nowhere to be found after I install them. That's just to be expected I guess. It's a great basic system but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it yet to my family and friends to be their only system. Here's the thing. The computers of those family and friends are turning into zombie machines that send you and I spam and viruses. It actually does become everybody's problem. So in a way, taking the effort to make a product like Firefox that the stupidest user can use safely is in a programmer's own interests in a roundabout way.

[matt_arnold]

That anonymous posting was me.

[overthesun]

WEll. .. Im not really out there in Open Source land. . . .But I am definitely concerned about the same issues. My answer is this

[stormgren]

In an ideal world, you shouldn't have to worry about it.

In this world, you do.

For us, it's a means, not an end. If we don't find it fun to write shell scripts, compile source code, and other hacking tasks on our own computer, does this mean we want software companies to own our computers and decide what we do with the spokes of our digital hub?

Regardless of the OS, you should know how to work your computer to the best of your abilities. If you cannot do it yourself, you are automatically putting yourself in the hands of others. This applies to cars, home repair and computers.

The middle ground is struck between personal knowledge and the knowledge and leverage thereof of others.

If you have a servant, don't you want that servant to be autonomous to a certain degree?

A computer is a tool, not a servant.

[stormgren]

I tend to disagree with your last statement. We're halfway through an astonishingly visible transition, possibly the most profound in technological history, from artificial tools to artificial servants. Computers, and eventually robots, are capable of doing our jobs for us. Capable, in fact, of eventually being us. They already are doing so to an increasing degree.

[matt_arnold]

That anonymous posting was me.

[stormgren]

Perhaps in the future. As of right now, they are tools. "Gigo" is still the word of the day. What ten years will bring, I cannot say. But you can only work with what you have right now

[treebones]

Dear Santa,

Could you please give big bags of money to several of the more talented and prolific open source coders, so they can go out and start creating or porting a whole bunch of applications to Linux, and thus shooting that particular problem in the head? That way, I can spend my money buying gifts for my friends instead of splitting it all between the EFF and the ACLU?

I've been a pretty good girl this year, and I can tell you for certain that the boys and girls at Sony have been *very* bad. Save me, Santa wan Kenobi; you're my only hope.

...Your Friend Tracy

[matt_arnold]

When you consider that technology is becoming a form of legislation, I wonder if the EFF and ACLU can hire programmers?

[stormgren]

The EFF already has.

[matt_arnold]

A big shout-out goes to my main man Santa and his crew for giving treebones her Christmas wish!

[uplinktruck]

Right on Matt. I'm linking this post to my blog because I could not have said it better.