Linux.com

<TT>Hi Richard,

of course it is ridiculous. The Free(dom) Software world is not one monolithic organisation with the same pattern of thought, behaviour and emotions. Instead they are worldwide, scattered and connected through various 'networks', each with their own beliefs, ideas, thoughts and ethics.

Therefore accusing the 'Open Source'/Free(dom) software community, doesn't make any sense at all!

When questioned, just say:
"you're jumping to conclusions. It could be anyone". Period.

It's considerate of you to write an article on this subject though.

And I will not forget what you did for 'our' community. That's one of the reasons I give back.

</TT>

#

that if free software people make viruses, then they are smarter than the proprietary people who don't?

I'd venture to say yes, but you have to wonder...
Proprietary people make a living off their proprietary OS. Why would they want to cause it harm? The escape from that question is that the OS is inconsequential, that the user's harm is the target, not the defamation of the OS. But we can very likely have an alternative to that: it's not so muth the damage to the user, but the quanitity of it - how many and how bad. The only moviation there is glory, since there is no other gain or some form of anger for targeting everyone indiscriminately.

Yet another reason could be that the proprietaty OS is the only one vulnerable, either technically or by low user IQ.

Suffice to say, proprietary OS and dumb user = easy tatget. If we assert that the reason for the virus is glory, then we can rule it out, since it's not very glamorous to beat up on a cripple.

We also have to look at the fact. Proprietary people use proprietary tools. And the dominant tool kit is very good about hiding intracacies of the OS. So I'm going to venture that these people are not the ones doing it.

All things considered, we conclude we have a few renagade people attacking Windows because of hate for the platform. The more they chisel at it, the worse it looks. Given Microsoft's history of patching, it seems to be a worth while endevor.

On the other side, we have to have someone every skilled to craft attacks against unix-based OS's. You need to know the architecture and how things compile on it. You need to (usually) target a specific version of software, and you have to do it before it changes (a la OpenSource). So many more steps are required.

We conclude that a middle-of-the-road programmer finds the risk of virus development easy and thrilling enough to target windows.

Of course this al hinges on the premise that one does not attack his own OS.

#

If you drive a lemon car and hate it I could see how you could hate its manufactuer and wish evil things to happen to them.

but

if you get rid of the lemon car and get a new car,
a car that you like,
why would you want to hold a grudge against
something from the past.

Seems to me it would be the current drivers of the lemon car wishing the evil.

#

Great advice and commentary Richard. Now maybe you could inform the other so-called leaders of the free and open source software community, namely Eric S. Raymond. Late summer of 2003 SCO experienced an aledged DDOS attack. In the days following that event, ERS in a phone coversation admitted to Darl McBride that in fact the attack came from a member of the FOSS community. This admission was based on an anonymous phone caller pointing to a member of the FOSS community the caller also didn't identify. In short, ZERO proof. This would be no big deal except that this incident is used continually by members of the tech press, including those of the Rob Enderle ilk, as evidence of a proven attack from the FOSS community.
Nothing short of a public statement from ERS, possibly in the form of his now regular Open Letters will correct this, and would give us a link to post whenever this incident is used by the press to forward their guilt by association, evidence-less anti FOSS smear campaign.
Hear this above point in ERS own words. Listen to the Linux show archives of September 9, 2003.

#

Replace ERS with ESR. That's better.

#

Actually it could have been Darl's brother calling ESR for all we know...

#

One of the main problems of Free Software advocacy and "open source" is the lack of professionalism in media appearence. But when we see the professional media making inappropriate accusations or false analysis we blame it on the media and we are right.

Everybody knows that SCO's action was inappropriate, against common rules of business a media campaign was started, false rumor was spread designed to be quoted by journalists. SCO's false reports where designed in a way media uses it. Our analysis was not.

I was probably the same as in the Iraqi war. Every professional in the field knew that the case was crap. However it is unfortunately not enough to be right, you have to say it according to media standards. You have to reach a large audience.

RMS's lack of diplomacy is both admired and cursed by those who follow him. I don't know whether his methods are succesful. I even listend to media reports that complained about the angry crowd. But when journalists infringe on certain standards it is important to protest. But this anger is categorized as radicalism by an interpretation scheme delivered by SCO that makes them immune.

I would rather suggest that we start to hack the media and create our own media agency that presents news according to corporate media standards. And always keep in mind that media reports are 60% wrong, on every side.

#

> I would rather suggest that we start to hack the media and create our own media agency that presents news according to corporate media standards.

By "hacking", I assume you mean it in the same sense as RMS would -- that of taking a process or a collection of information and transforming it into a new, and hopefully more useful form.

If that is the case, then I think this is already being done, albeit in a less than perfect way. What do you think the "new media" outlets of Slashdot, NewsForge and Groklaw are?

Of course, every form of "media" has its own biases, but at least the process is Open here, and people can make their own contributions, regardless of who likes them or not.

#

Does anyone really think that the media is about presenting the news? The primary goal of any media is ratings, the truth comes in at number 18 or 20 somewhere.

So Richard wants to "get the truth out there", the media don't give a flying toss, it won't increase ratings so it doesn't get aired.

What he needs to do is something that will give the media a ratings winner and it will create interest, otherwise he is just preaching to the clergy.

#

And I'm glad it was Richard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Who cares who did it? What matters is what the arguments are and the metaphore which points out the guilty by association fallacy is a good one.

One other thing: "my community" is perceived as arrogant by some. A community isn't owned by one person. At best, it would be "our community".

Other than that, a good article imo.

#

Personally, I think it is a conservative number to say that there are 10 million in the open source/free software movement...but RMS is right. We have a few bad apples, and will always have a few...such is part of the price of freedom and openness. We can't let our community be tarred by those few who would commit acts that we do not condone and that we condem.

Thanx again, RMS!

#

This is a hilarious analogy given that RMS regularly depicts the proprietary folks as Satans handmaiden. I mean I've read the manifestoes and ranting but is proprietary software really destructive or just less desirable...come on as always this man misses the point entirely in his rabid fog of fanaticism.

#

I've read the manifestos too, and I didn't find the satan refferance, Mr/Ms AC.

RMS has, in large part, created the Free Software mouvement as we know it today, and has the courage of his convictions, which is a rare quality atm.

I say well said and Way to go

David (d.mills AT tiscalli_NOSPAM_.fr)

#

... beween Stallman's carefully reasoned argument and the hyperbole and distraction which, quite characteristically it appears, is the best that can be presented by way of counterargument.

I always gain some kind of insight from hearing both sides of any deeply rational debate. On the other hand, when mere vindictiveness and ridicule is offered on one side, what it does is serve to strengthen the other side, to the degree that it makes any contribution at all.

#

Non-free software is not merely undesirable, but in fact quite destructive. For instance, in parts of the world where exorbitant license fees cannot be paid to Non-free software vendors, critical medical decisions have to be made without the benefit of medical diagnostic software that would be available to all in a free software model.

#

Fascists do not need proof. Neither does the American government since the Partidiot Act. It does not take inherent genius to interpolate from historical events, ie- the past actions and tactics of the criminal monopolist Microsoft, to realize that this is a planned campaign against freedom of choice in software initiated bu the aforementioned criminal corporation whose goal is to stop Linux by whatever means necessary, including having it declaired illegal for personal use in the home. Microsoft will play the 'terrorist card' soon. The null morality of Darl McBride has inspired him to do just that. Don't think it won't happen either, that is, the 'illegality' of Linux, because Microsoft is in bed with Big Brother.

All I have to say is that under conditions like this, the last thing I want to hear is "stop bashing Microsoft". The self-imposed silence of citizens is the most powerful tool of a fascist pig corporative state that mixes morality with profit and panders to powerful corporations by ignoring illegality and injustice.

--Glanz

#

... it was obvious in my times too, no one listen to such words. never. they never learned

#

"Some New York programmers fell into the lawful but socially destructive practice of proprietary software: They offered other people attractive software packages without source code, and exacted a promise not to share them with anyone else.

Despite these prevalent evils, "

As much as I like opensource/free software there is no excuse for this behaviour from any free software/open source advocate. I'm sorry to have to say this but you are not god Richard. You don't have any god given right to tell anyone else that they _have_ to do this or that or whatever not.

We can all suggest software that we think is better for different reasons but thats not the same thing as call everyone else evil.

It's not up to you to decide what _other_ people do with their work or what they want to use. You may choose to give your work away, people may choose to use it but if someone want to make proprietary software and there are people wanting to use it who are you to forbid them?

It's ridiculous to call that evil. No, as a matter of fact, it's worse than ridiculous, it's a clear indication that you consider yourself have a right to decide for others, to oppress people with different views and ideas.

#

"if someone want to make proprietary software and there are people wanting to use it who are you to forbid them"

"you consider yourself have a right to oppress people with different views"

are them LEGALLY or PHYSICALLY forbidden from using proprietary software? is there a law hindering them, or is he pushing for such a law, or have you any evidence that he would push for such a law?

#

"or is he pushing for such a law"

Yes, he has stated that several times in interviews and , I don't have links but it shouldn't be too hard to find with you a web-search engine.

Stallman wants to be some kind of dictator in the computing world who decides what everyone should do and outlaw procedures and ideas that he doesn't like.

#

Anonymous Reader wants to be some kind of controll at Newsforge.com.

#

RMS is not trying to dictate anyone what to do or not to do. He's just saying that writing propriatary software is immoral and antisocial as it goes against sharing and communities.

#

"RMS is not trying to dictate anyone what to do or not to do. "

Yes he does, all the time.

#

"Anonymous Reader is not trying to argument without arguments. "

Yes he does, all the time.

#

RTFW:

"Some New York programmers fell into the lawful but socially destructive practice of proprietary software"

DO YOU SEE ANY WORDS LIKE 'EVIL' HERE?
Get a life people! RMS doesn't dictate anything and doesn't call anyone or anything 'evil'. In fact as far as I know he doesn't believe in such things.

Proprietary software and patents are destroying society and innovation. People who support prop. software are motivated by greed and power, and not caring about community as a whole.
All RMS is saying that he doesn't find prop. software helping community, rather the opposite, just like murder, bribe, and so on.

To all of you out there who have worked in the propriatary software industry, I'm sorry you were put in such circumstances and only worried about your own well-being and not community in which you live in and depend upon.

#

That is the reason RMS created FOSS. He went from a community that freely shared code to one that hid it and the GPL was his response to what he saw as something that is WRONG (and maybe evil). What he did benefits all of us. I may not agree will all his opinions ( he is a little goofy on some stuff) but the end result is a lot of software that costs little or nothing and helps many people. RMS has made the world a better place (pissed a lot of people of in the process) and nothing could be more important.

frankburtonATcoxDOTnet

#

DO YOU SEE ANY WORDS LIKE 'EVIL' HERE?
Yes, this line a couple of rows down.
"Despite these prevalent evils, "

"Proprietary software and patents are destroying society and innovation. "

We all have our beliefs, I too think patents and most of all the abuse of them is very damaging. I don't have any special views on proprietary software.

I'm not, however, saying that everyone disagreeing with me is evil and their work should be outlawed. That kind of ideas (to outlaw people with different ideas) is not compatible with basic democratic values.

"People who support prop. software are motivated by greed and power, and not caring about community as a whole."

Maybe you didn't notice the IT crash? Most people doing proprietary software do it to pay their bills I would suspect. I'm not in the business myself but I do know that it's difficult times just like for everyone else who do anything related to computers.

#

I second you. I think it's weird to put side by side the act of murder and the act of writing proprietary software. It's even funny ! He will never change I think.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

I continue to respect Mr Stallman thought. In fact, he had done a lot for us.

#

Stallman's remarks may offend your sensibilities because you haven't read them in context. Or perhaps you're having difficulty in following the logic of his analogy. In that case, you might enjoy his writing more by reading it a little more carefully. You will then notice that he is making an observation, not forbidding a behavior.

On the other hand, it may be that you simply don't like the conclusions he draws, which causes you to substitute your own imaginary interpretation of what he said for the intended meaning, something which the rest of us seem able to follow quite easily. That would be a variation on the strategy called "shoot the messenger" commonly used by people in denial.

Of course, you can hold any viewpoint you want, even a completely irrational one. That would certainly qualify as a "different view or idea" and I can see why you would find it threatened by someone who presents a rational viewpoint. Given the degree to which society operates on rational discourse, it must be a very challenging world for you to live in. You have my sympathies.

#

As a member of the Newsforge.com community i have to agree with you!

J/k. Just wanted to say, a wonderful analysis. Greater than mine. I learned from it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

"shoot the messenger"

exactly,

except the idea has been used long before that. So, 'crucify' is the old version.

#

Last week, the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts attempted to decide the rights of a group of its citizens to have access to a condition which provides a number of significant economic benefits, solely on their opinion of what is right and what is wrong. It was a clear indication that they considered themselves to have a right to decide for others, to oppress people with different views and ideas.

What RMS was doing was stating an opinion, NOT forcing someone to do something. There's a BIG difference

#

"It's not up to you to decide what _other_ people do with their work or what they want to use"

I agree. In fact, i suspect RMS would agree too, though i _cannot_ speak for him.

You see, what you describe is exactly what you argument for: RMS states his opinion. Imo what he posts is rather a column and he may shine throught his opinions regarding propritary software. How can you blame him?

Personally, i doubt wether RMS' method works. People familair with FLOSS already know he hates propritary software. They can imagine that paralel. People who don't, or who are less technical inclined wouldn't understand the paralel easily. For them, a rather extended article about propritary software would be better to learn about the pro's/con's. This is a bit black vs white thinking, and there's ofcourse a grey area, but i think that's rather niche.

The real problem is that some people only or earlier listen to "high autorities" and "people with status".

What matters are the arguments, not the one who says it (the latter is the fallacy that one who has achieved something in society is smarter or rather speaking the truth than one who -albeit as it seems- has not).

"The real enemy of the Left is the Left."

#

"The real enemy of the Left is the Left."

should have been

"The most dangerous enemy of the Left is the Left."

Pardon my Inglish

#

please go crawl back into your doorway. Your rabid belief that closed source is somehow evil is becoming very tiresome.

We all appreciate your phenominal coding skills and thank you for releasing the source, but please give it a rest. It is up to the author and copyright holder as to how they want to distribute their works. It is up to the consumer to decide which they prefer.

bcl

#

nobody's saying it's not.

and stop making up all this FUD yourself, this is becoming quite tiresome indeed.

#

"It is up to the author and copyright holder as to how they want to distribute their works. It is up to the consumer to decide which they prefer."

It seems that you can only discern between
"right" or "wrong" based on the environment you
live in. If you had grown up in a society where
womens are men's possesions
you would believe that this is the right thing.
Any one trying to FREE society from this
kind of thinking would be treated as attempting
to disrupt society and harming peoples (men's)
stablished rights. MANY WOMEN WOULD
AGREE!!! (Of course! They were thought that
not beeing a "good woman" is wrong.)

Big companies who own proprietary software have
much more rights over it's users then they should.
If I buy a book I can have a friend to read it.
If I have a proprietary software, I cannot lend
it to friends. The concern is that copying
software is much easier than copying a book.
Users of software are bound to much more
artificial restrictions (lending it to friends)
than users of books!!
But of course publishers are harmed by you
lending their book as much as a company is
harmed when you make a copy of it's software
and gives it to a friend. In both cases
neither the publisher, nor the software company
will ever see a peny from your friend!

Shall we forbid "libraries" from lending books!!?

Libraries harm publishers even more!!

If successful proprietary software sells X
units and make a profit of Y, then in the case
it sells 2X it will make a profit of 2Y.

When Mr. Stallman talks about "Proprietary
software beeing harmful" - I belive - he is
suggesting a different "means of software
production". Software would be produced in
order to benefit society. Many people,
governments, companies need software. Those
people would promote software development.
Software development will allways have it's
place as a business. What society profits by
giving some company complete control over
all instances of it's software, including
the right to forbid you from making copies,
LEARNING FROM IT, modifying, etc?

Can you imagine a book that forbids you from
writing other books based on the
knowledge you aquired by reading it?
You learn something and
you are forbiden to make an improved version of what you've learned. All this just to protect
proprietary software! Wouldn't society profit more
if the means of software production were
different? No artificial barriers would be
needed!! You wouldn't have to be told:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...you will suffer severe civil and criminal
penalities...!!!

If it was not for "windows" in particular, we
would have much more freedom and much more
good-quality software. Of course you don't belive
this because you think that if it was not for
"windows" we would still be using black and white
display and a command prompt.

If it was not for windows, we would have
much more integration and much more standards.
Developers efforts wouldn't just be in vain
for M$ felt threatened and decided
promote some software's failure.

Society needs new MEANS OF SOFTWARE
PRODUCTION. I belive the best approach
is FREE SOFTWARE ("free" as in freedom, of
course).

#

"please go crawl back into your doorway."

Like you did anything helpfull...

I'd much rather listen to Stallman's comments than yours,
I suggest you take your own advice(..use a spider-hole instead of a doorway)!

#

The point would have been better made if it wasn't infused with the ridiculous comparison of murders to proprietary software users, developers & vender's. Closed/proprietary software is inherently inferior, and bad for the industry as a whole, but it is certainly not evil. This commentary would have been much more effective if this irrational thread were not running through it.

#

A lot of programmers pay their bills with a proprietary job but work on open source projects as a hobby. Are these people good or evil? Or do they have a split personality?

Maybe they are just.... I don't know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... practical? Maybe they like having food and place to live.

#

"Evil...destructive....ethical...rant...rant...ra<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> t..."

The absolute majority of open source software endusers use it because it doesn't cost anything, period.

The absolute majority of all companies adopting open source does so to get free labour working for them for free, period.

#

The absolute majority of open source software endusers use it because it doesn't cost anything, period.

Would you please give us some statistics, or SHUT UP AND STOP MAKING GENERALIZATIONS?

The absolute majority of all companies adopting open source does so to get free labour working for them for free, period.

Really? That's why IBM contributes code to the Linux Kernel and why we've got companies like RedHat and Novell. Last I checked, companies pay RedHat for the enterprise editions and for support and updates.

I guess I forgot why I'm exclusively using GNU/Linux... Maybe, because it's more stable, less security issues, better inovation (because it's open source), etc., etc., and oh, and I think it may even be free!

#

Thank you Richard,

Now I can point people to this artikel. Some idiots and press do say its the Free Software community. Its apparently difficult for people to think a bit deeper!

I want more of your columns so keep writing them!

#

As usual, Richard is over exagerating his point and does no better then the usual maketing strategy of setting up a straw man to knock it down. Robbery and Murder are now where, I mean NO WHERE comparable to open source vs. proprietary software!!! And as usual misses where the real (spiritual) issues are. Richard, you need to get a clue and wake up to God and then see how robbery and murder are in relationship to him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... not how these things are related to the Idol you have set up. With regard to open vs closed, all you have to do is visit enough factories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....to see the reason why you don't reveal all your secrets is so you can stay in business. THIS IS NOT EVIL!!

#

Free software in the long term is for the good of those with less than those of us who were privledged and lucky enough to be born into a place where there is enough money floating around to keep us with nice cars, houses, and lot's of places to go eat at.

There is a terrible discrepancy between the first, second, and third world countries and yes, Intelectual property stands in the way of bridging that divide.

First world nations, particularly my home the United States, has consistently stood in the way of this because it is inherently harmfull to us.

However, to preserve your wealth and status by constantly stepping on others is to further distance yourself from your creator.

I wish you good luck with eternity and sleeping at night.

#

I find that I sleep well at night when I know that God loves me and has prospered me to take care of my bills. And not only this, but to bless others as I choose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... not to be "forced" to give things away such as RMS's philosophy. He is without God, living in spiritual darkness, this is evident in his socialist views that he propogates. Being a solcialist or liberal is not, repeat not, anywhere close to being a Christian. God's kingdom is not described as everybody having an equal share in things and the argument between the haves and have nots is inmaterial. The "real" issue is whether you follow Idol's or the One True God, creator of heaven and earth and believe in his son and then love one another. Again, to stop following Idols. Richard has made it known that he does NOT believe in God or his son, therfore I'm left up with the conclusion that he follows an Idol. Somewhere he has set up an ultimate criteria from which he makes his decisions. This is his idol. Since most people that set up idols, misunderstand the world around them, then they misunderstand the vital issues related to the world.


      It is true that Corporations also worship Idols, hence the distortions and various monopolistic practices they implement as well. But the answer to these things is not that you shouldn't have a company or proprietary practice but that it should be done "in" relationship to the true God. That dosn't mean that you should reveal secrets, it means that the choice is left up to the individual or company as to whether they bless or not.


      Marx and Lennon had it wrong, money is not the root of all evil, it is the "love" of money. And just as they were wrong in leading in entire nation to ruin,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....RMS is wrong in leading the Open Source community with the same philosophy. Reality hits when you look at your starving babies at the dinner table and have a great need to go to work! And what are you working for.... money of course.


      The issues in many of the third world countries is that they have evil governments that do surpress and destroy there own people. This comming from "their" (leaders) lack of following and worshiping God. Not from the fact that there are other nations who are blessed and prospering. Is this to say that we (Americans) are all following God<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... no! But what it does mean that those who seek and follow him shall be blessed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....those who do not will be destroyed. And what will people like RMS say when they are in heaven facing God and telling him how unfair it is that he is not "Open Sourced" to letting everyone heaven?!? Hmmmmm???

#

I agree with you, brother. Matthew 6:24 says "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

It is evident that RMS is serving the god of open source. He also makes Atheism his god. I know that not all open source users are. As a Christian, I believe there is nothing wrong with using, developing, and wishing others to use and develop open source code. I am one that uses open source exclusively. I think there are viable ways to make money with open-source software. Look at RedHat, for instance.

RMS is wrong in leading the Open Source community with the same philosophy.

RMS isn't really "leading" the OSS community -- definately not me. He may have come up with the GNU and GPL, but he doesn't necessary have influence on it's users. I know that Linus Torvalds disagrees with Stallman's politics.

Here's an <A HREF="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33438" TITLE="worldnetdaily.com">
excellent article</a worldnetdaily.com> about open source and the Bible. Open source is not in and of itself socialistic, even if some of it's users are. These are some definitions in the article:

• "Socialism has one supreme goal: to make everyone dependent on the state and to eliminate risk."
  
• "Capitalism has one supreme goal and that is profit."
  

If anything, proprietary software is making you dependant on a single company for your software. I think a lot of people don't like the idea of open source because it doesn't make economical sense (as far as being capitalist). The idea of open source is that EVERYONE benefits from have open code. It definately promotes innovation.

#

Thank you, this was an excellent response and a good pointer to the article. My objection(s) is not against "Open Source" per say but against the insecent attacks that "anything" kept secret is evil. I realize there are those involved in Open Source who are not socialist but it is RMS's particular approach that winds up imposing these political views on his and others works.


      I too enjoy Linux and the "openess" it provides and look forward to more learning, if not for anything but just for the fun of making things work, so it should not be misunderstood that I am denying the benifits of this or the open source projects. What I do oppose is this obvious and sometimes blatent attempt to adopt or accept the "out of proportion" comparisons that only belong in relationship to God. I agree with the "excellent article" that you pointed me too. Thanks for your comments.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

#

You have some strange views as a Christian. So if a person doesn't believe in any God he has to believe in Idols?
Are you the same kind of Christian as those that went on to Crusades to kill people in the 'holy' lands?
Yes it's true most people in Capitalistic world depend on money, but does that make them worshippers of an Idol (money)? If so, millions and millions of so called Christians would qualify as your Idol worshippers.

"Reality hits when you look at your starving babies at the dinner table and have a great need to go to work! And what are you working for.... money of course."

well open your eyes and welcome to America (along with some other capitalistic countries)

"But what it does mean that those who seek and follow him shall be blessed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....those who do not will be destroyed. And what will people like RMS say when they are in heaven facing God and telling him how unfair it is that he is not "Open Sourced" to letting everyone heaven?!? Hmmmmm???"

You're NUTS!

#

You do not understand what the nature of "true" capatilism is. There is a difference between those who trust in it as their God vs those who use the system in relationship to him.


      And how is it,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... who obviously is not a Christian, can decern or judge what being a Christian is. Read your bible (if you have one) of what happens to those who trust in Idols and what there end will be vs the blessings of those who turn from there Idol's and trust in the "true" God. What's that you say?! You don't have a God?! Are you telling me that you don't have something that you absolutley go by? In both cases then, you are spiritualy dead and are in need of life. Better turn before its too late, just as RMS needs to turn. Nuts you say!? We will see who is nuts, when we are all standing before God in heaven.

#

oooh..... an argument ad hominem. Hallmark of the christian theologian.

Very well done.

#

Do not use the name of God IN VAIN!!!!

Amen

#

one cannot be both a socialist and a christian eh? Because god does not require distributive equality in terms of goods, a person who thinks that there should be distributive equality in terms of goods cannot therefore be christian.

Anyone see the flaw in this little doozy of an argument?

#

1 Corinthinas chapter 13 says "Though I bestow all my goods and feed the poor.... and have not love I am nothing. The issue is Loving God and your neighbor, and out of this comes the meeting of the needs of people. In many cases of the open source people, specifically, RMS, he and they, are not doing this out of genuine biblical christian love<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and so this amounts to nothing.


      It isn't the fact that you give as a result of being a christian, but out of what do you give? Do you really think RMS and the like are doing this from God's perspective. And for the others who are Christians and ARE doing this because of their great love for him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... well I say<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....Praise God and keep going!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

#

Doesn't "do onto others has you would have them do onto you" imply that equal distrubtion of goods is God's will?

If you were poor and did not have food, would you not want food? Therefore should we not give to those that have less fortune and wealth. Okay, I am not saying we should have equal distrubtion of goods. But everyone should have food, water and shelter.

Do you think it is God's will for there to be billionaries while at the same time there are people dieing from lack of food?

#

God gives or distributes to those as he sees fit, or as HE wills, not of nesseccity... equally. And what do you say when, he, by his will, gives to some the word of prophecy, faith, pastors, evanglists, teachers. He does not give all his gifts to one person but does distrubute them as he sees fit. True he does this to benifit everyone, but he does give as he sees fit and this not everything to one person. There is no difference then when it comes to some who have billions and those who have just a few dollars. The fact is God's will is for those that have, to share with those who don't have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is to be done out of love, not out of socilism or liberalism. For neither one of those philosophies have God in them as the base for their giving. Eqaulity is not the main issue. But God is at the top and things are to be done in relationship to him.


      Food, water and clothing are not, repeat are NOT to be equated with open source software. The evil governments that are ruled by Ungodly Men are at the heart of many of the nations problems, not that they don't have computers and free (open) software to run them!!

#

"There is no difference then when it comes to some who have billions and thos who have just a few dollars."

Do you believe it is God's will that some have billions and others don't even have food and water? That is what it sounds like what you are saying, and that sounds so wrong to me. Why would God want some people to die from lack of food while others never have to work a day in their life because they come from a wealthy family?

I'm all for rewarding someone's hard work. But when corporations fire thousands of employees to increase their share price for the quater, that is not following God's will.

#

I've translated it into Brazilian Portuguese:

<A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/news/23" TITLE="propus.com.br">http://www.propus.com.br/news/23</a propus.com.br>

--

Marlon Dutra

<A HREF="http://www.propus.com.br/" TITLE="propus.com.br">Propus Software Livre</a propus.com.br>

#

The kneejerk reaction saying MYDOOM was written by a Linux programmer is basically unfair. I think the most reasonable arguement is that it was written by a windows spammer/career virus writer, who was trying to take advantage of the SCO mess. But everyone is spouting supposition and argument, I haven't seen any conclusive proof.

The facts however everyone has to admit, that we've heard so many times its not even reported, is this: the MYDOOM virus was written by a windows programmer to exploit a likely user activity made dangerous by a weakness in the Windows system. It installed malevelolent code similar to many other exploits against Windows that have cost businesses billions of dollars.

What other platforms the coder programmed for is speculation. He was a Windows programmer at least to the extent that Mydoom is a Windows Program. I believe there has never been a virus written for Linux that has ever been so virulent or damaging as Mydoom or any of its brethren.

In the scheme of things it is undeniable that *nix boxes watch the vast majority of viruses without damage. The biggest inconvenience they suffer is having their mailboxes filled with misstargeted copies of Windows viruses.

ls

#

Why aren't people looking at this whole MyDoom thing and its logistics through the lens of criminal psychology? Whatever else MyDoom may be, in essence, it is crime: an attempt to hijack computer and perhaps steal information and/or cause destruction of property. At best, it's vandalism. At worst, it's an attempt by spammers to create open relays and steal sensitive information. This, as normal people understand it, constitutes crime. It is thus fitting to apply principles of criminal psychology. To wit: what do criminals do to keep from getting caught and going to jail, thus disripting their criminal careers? They try to obscure their crimes. They set fire to a house where they have committed a robbery to destroy evidence, for example. Anything that obscures the nature of their intentions and motives makes them that much harder to aprehend and prosecute. Given this basic feature of criminal psychology, what would be one way for a criminal to obscure the nature of their crime - to muddy the investigative waters - in the case of a computer crime like the one involved here? You guessed it: create a smokescreen. Leave pointers that indicate someone else is guilty. Want to detract from your own motives and actions in creating a virus to hijack peoples' computers and perhaps steal their data? Make your virus target a site that's hot in the news - like SCO or M$, so it will look like your motives were something other than what they are. C'mon folks! This is criminal psychology 101. I don't buy for a minute that anyone on the OSS community had anything to do with this crime. I think it was executed by professional criminals who saw a convenient way to muddy the investigative waters by pointing the finger of guilt at someone else: this is called "framing" someone, as I'm sure we al know. I don't care if SCO or M$ lackeys will say I'm trying to shirk blame for the open source community. Basic criminal psychology and common sense are on my side. If they want to fall for the criminals' tactics, let them. It's not going to work on me. And I hope other OSS community folks will think the same - including Richard Stallman!

#

I'm pretty sure this has been considered as a posibility by FBI and such. This is all about clearing out the FUD that MS (and others) spreads about Open Source comunity, related to the virus. We're not trying to catch the ones who've created the problem.

#

I am at conflict with a particular phenomenon and would love to hear your views. It’s not directly related to what Richard wrote, but here goes...

Here you all are trying to distance yourself from individuals who have gone ahead and perpetrated a cyber crime against SCO. In the past there have been many instances where people from the open source world have exploited holes in Windows to causing thousands of organizations worldwide lose millions. Is that not equivalent to cyber terrorism too? However in the open source world they have been hailed as heroes!

On 9/11, individuals whom we call terrorists found chinks in our security and committed one of the most dastardly acts in human history. They are called martyrs back in their homelands.

We are quick to distance ourselves from those responsible MyDoom, but are quick to similar successes and gloat when it brings down a Windows box. Don't both amount to cyber terrorism? Are we being hypocrites?

#