OT: Why not expose software source code?

[Floyd Davidson]

No question....

but like someone said. Why write a virus that will affect 3%.

hehehe.... I LOVE it

Not quite true though.

First, Apple's OS-X is based on a BSD Unix kernel. The viruses
that mcafee lists are all for previous non-unix OS's from Apple.

Second, if you *really* want to shutdown the Internet, not just
parts of it... consider that from the start the Internet has
run on unix machines. That is less true today, but it is still
true enough that *if* someone figured out how to write a real
virus for unix, it would shutdown the whole Internet for days.

If it were only a matter of what would get the biggest band for
the buck, that *is* where the bang is at. It isn't going to
happen because there's that little problem of making it work.

 

[John Doe]

Might be even less than that.

Not quite true though.

First, Apple's OS-X is based on a BSD Unix kernel. The viruses
that mcafee lists are all for previous non-unix OS's from Apple.

Second, if you *really* want to shutdown the Internet, not just
parts of it... consider that from the start the Internet has
run on unix machines. That is less true today, but it is still
true enough that *if* someone figured out how to write a real
virus for unix, it would shutdown the whole Internet for days.

If it were only a matter of what would get the biggest band for
the buck, that *is* where the bang is at. It isn't going to
happen because there's that little problem of making it work.

That is also where the *system administrators* are.
It isn't going to happen much on Apples because the mass of personal
computer users run Windows on PCs. Many connect thru their dsl/cable modems
without a firewall. Hackers do it for fun/notoriety. Such deeds are motive
based.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Might be even less than that.

A successful unix virus would affect 100% of the Internet.

That is also where the *system administrators* are.
It isn't going to happen much on Apples because the mass of personal
computer users run Windows on PCs. Many connect thru their dsl/cable modems
without a firewall. Hackers do it for fun/notoriety. Such deeds are motive
based.

Result based. And trying to attack unix, while it would provide
the greatest gains if there were any success, just isn't going to
be successful.

Which of course is to say that if you personally don't want to
be hassled by viruses, use a Mac or run something like Linux or
FreeBSD. (Firewalls are still necessary though, because while
virus/worm programs may get all the media attention, somebody
using a rootkit to individually attack _your_ box is not fun
either. And that can and does happen.)

 

[Jim Macklin]

Part of the "fun" for these virus writers is the news of the
trouble they cause. If they killed the Internet their
play-pen would be closed.

Also, most of them are PC users/Windows users and that's
what they use.


| >
| >>>No question....
| >>>but like someone said. Why write a virus that will
affect 3%.
| >
| >Might be even less than that.
|
| A successful unix virus would affect 100% of the Internet.
|
| >>>hehehe.... I LOVE it
| >>
| >> Not quite true though.
| >>
| >> First, Apple's OS-X is based on a BSD Unix kernel. The
viruses
| >> that mcafee lists are all for previous non-unix OS's
from Apple.
| >>
| >> Second, if you *really* want to shutdown the Internet,
not just
| >> parts of it... consider that from the start the
Internet has
| >> run on unix machines. That is less true today, but it
is still
| >> true enough that *if* someone figured out how to write
a real
| >> virus for unix, it would shutdown the whole Internet
for days.
| >>
| >> If it were only a matter of what would get the biggest
band for
| >> the buck, that *is* where the bang is at. It isn't
going to
| >> happen because there's that little problem of making it
work.
| >
| >That is also where the *system administrators* are.
| >It isn't going to happen much on Apples because the mass
of personal
| >computer users run Windows on PCs. Many connect thru
their dsl/cable modems
| >without a firewall. Hackers do it for fun/notoriety. Such
deeds are motive
| >based.
|
| Result based. And trying to attack unix, while it would
provide
| the greatest gains if there were any success, just isn't
going to
| be successful.
|
| Which of course is to say that if you personally don't
want to
| be hassled by viruses, use a Mac or run something like
Linux or
| FreeBSD. (Firewalls are still necessary though, because
while
| virus/worm programs may get all the media attention,
somebody
| using a rootkit to individually attack _your_ box is not
fun
| either. And that can and does happen.)
|
| --
| Floyd L. Davidson
<http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
| Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
(e-mail address removed)

 

[John Doe]

Result based.

Trying to teach you semantics isn't why I am here.

Which of course is to say that if you personally don't want to
be hassled by viruses

and you don't mind living in a closet,

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Trying to teach you semantics isn't why I am here.

Nice clue, and I'm glad you are at least able to catch on to
something.

and you don't mind living in a closet,

Trying to teach you where the light switch is, doesn't seem
possible.

You are the one who has to use a phony address in your Usenet
posts to escape from spam and virus attacks...

Which, I can add, has not only the effect of getting one away
from the security problems that Microsoft OS's have, but equally
away from a raft of other problems that go along as baggage, and
give you a computer you can use the way _you_ want instead only
the way programmers at Microsoft wanted. It costs less too.

Basically, it's *out* of the closet, not in.

 

[Alessandro Selli]

Il giorno Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Jim Macklin così ha scritto:

|Part of the "fun" for these virus writers is the news of the
|trouble they cause.

Nothing would be more "news" than killing the internet.

| If they killed the Internet their
|play-pen would be closed.

1) they don't care: beeing famous is more important (think about those people
who are not content with threatening but actually kill famous people);
2) the internet cannot be killed, no matter how badly you hit it. At worst,
you can discontinue some of its services for a while.

|Also, most of them are PC users/Windows users and that's
|what they use.

Which means they generally don't have a clue about how the internet works.



Sandro

 

[John Doe]

No thanks.

 

[John Doe]

If it's not open source, MS can monopolise the market.

Yup. Microsoft's dirty tricks would be exposed. And the exposed code would
allow other applications programmers to compete fairly.

That's why.

 

[David Candy]

Because people will sell it and get the money due MS.

If it's not open source, MS can monopolise the market.

Yup. Microsoft's dirty tricks would be exposed. And the exposed code would
allow other applications programmers to compete fairly.

That's why.

 

[Phil Da Lick!]

Because people will sell it and get the money due MS.

what a load of tosh.

 

[John Doe]

If all source code were exposed, selling Microsoft's source code would be a
noticeable copyright violation.

 

[Giuliano Colla]

If all source code were exposed, selling Microsoft's source code would be a
noticeable copyright violation.

But it works also the other way around.
Exposing the code would also expose Microsoft's copyright
violations. That's why I don't think they'll ever accept if
not forced by law.
In France, where to enjoy copyright you have to deposit the
source code, they've been convicted for piracy.

 

[Phil Da Lick!]

But it works also the other way around.
Exposing the code would also expose Microsoft's copyright
violations. That's why I don't think they'll ever accept if
not forced by law.
In France, where to enjoy copyright you have to deposit the
source code, they've been convicted for piracy.

I think I remember reading somewhere that some mickeysoft products have
allegedly got some open source software inside.