Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maxthon Web Browser Being Ported To Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    There is nothing HARMFUL about adding a proprietary piece of software in userland. If this was a driver or something kernel level then I would understand the aggravation, but even then, the average user as an individual will not take advantage of drivers being open source. But, software like drivers have a chain reaction of issues if something changes and breaks it. If closed-source kernel-level code is closed source, then we at at the mercy of the software owners to fix that code. While the average user won't bother fixing it, the point is SOMEBODY can. However, when it comes to userland software such as Maxthon, it's simply inconvenient if it breaks or doesn't work on some misc architecture. We don't NEED the software at all, and we're not obligated to support it if we don't want to. But telling userland software to fuck off is more counterproductive than anything.
    I am not sure if you need refresher on stuff like,.. DRM, trojans/backdoors, adware, trackers, rootkits, hidden exploits, crippleware, segfaults, inability to fork, no support for any custom configuration... with proprietary, user is left with binary blob and has to put everything piece of trust in it. But then unavoidably come stable ABI, stable libraries (old cruft), even more exploits based on it. To deal with (partially fake) security chaos come antivirus. And with them even more malware.

    When it comes to userland software such as Maxthon, that is already duplicated by open alternatives, there is simply no reason to accept it, except more variation - but at what price?

    Originally posted by scottishduck View Post
    Do you realise that open source is not a sign of security? Unless you personally check all of the code you cannot know it's secure and don't think for a moment that the "community" does this either, because they don't.

    Truecrypt, the software so many people trust to keep their data safe, provides binaries and this is what most people use when they use truecrypt. However, a team of security researchers could not find any means of reproducing the binaries that truecrypt provide and on top of that, found that the "Truecrypt Foundation" resides at a fake address and there's no information about who they are. Now add to this the recent revelations that most common encryption protocols were supposedly bypassed by NSA and GCHQ, makes for an interesting thought.

    So take a more considered approach when you talk about the "security" of open source.
    Good sir, you have managed to counter argument your own self...
    Checking source is easier than one thinks - there are automated tools to do that. Besides, if someone wants, he will check. But with proprietary (and usual encryption/obfuscation on the top), its nearly impossible just to check even with sufficient manpower, not even to correct.
    Last edited by brosis; 09-29-2013, 03:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      Yes it does if you want Linux to get into graphics business - design, publishing, print media etc... macs and Windows machines are prevalent on these industries because all the professional software is exlusively on Mac/Windows.
      May I interrupt you for a moment?

      The whole idea of Adobe CC is flawed. The only reason schools such as the one I visit are switching to it is money from the state/EU (also Adobe CC crashes too much on OS X, much more than CS5 did). Reality is that two quite big companies I personally know are switching away from it to Corel. And I believe other will do that as well. Adobe just committed suicide IMHO.

      My 2c...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        I'm pretty sure you're VERY wrong about that. Proportionally, windows has a lot more closed source software, but MOST open source (userland) software works on Windows. In fact, I've encountered several open source projects that are explicitly linux incompatible.
        I am pretty sure he is right, when opensource software in question is based on open components. Many explicitly linux incompatible opensource softwares are either
        - incompatible on license basis just to troll GPL,
        - are using vital components that are proprietary or licensed for certain platform and can't be implemented elsewhere (this is explicit disadvantage of closed source, mind you), or
        - have no sense of implementing on other platforms due to developers simply not interested in them (with port possible) or other strong alternatives present.
        I don't think I miss anything.

        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        Yes but WHY do you want that? Maxthon is free to use, just not open source. If the product is free to use, why do you personally care if it's open source? I understand the idea of having an entirely free OS (maybe you can't afford for paid alternatives) but what I don't get is why you demand open source when I'm sure you have never edited a single line of code from a well known program.
        First, Skype is also free to use and everyone knowns its history. Many care.
        Second, free is not as free beer. One does not use free OS because he can't afford paid alternative, in fact often one pays more for his freedom than when using closed alternative.
        Lastly, editing a single line of code is too trivial, you surely mean "submitted a patch" to a very well known program. Very well known programs tend to be supported, so your question is somehow self-interlocking.

        Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
        I don't know what universe you've been living in but linux is one of the most popular server OSes for almost the opposite of what you said. Corporations use linux, not because it's free but because linux is more stable, more secure, and less buggy than Windows. Linux audio is generally pretty good, the only thing I personally hate about it is configuring .asoundrc files, but pulseaudio is a way around that. As a PC platform, linux is still overall superior to Windows (as an OS), it just depends on how you have it set up and what hardware you decide to use.
        Corporations tend not to use linux, at least in vanilla form and they don't use it for security reason or absence of bugs - that are results of more grounding case why they use it. Linux and free software programs tend to be easier to fix/patch and saves them investments instead of reinventing or redoing whilst having less free "eyes". Thats primary case for corporate/community, free version / paid version tandems that most of sane people tend to hate, because it does not really work out.

        But I don't understand your own agenda of trying to dictate what uid313 has to think. You have right to have own opinion and to disagree, why not to allow someone have different personal opinion?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
          May I interrupt you for a moment?

          The whole idea of Adobe CC is flawed. The only reason schools such as the one I visit are switching to it is money from the state/EU (also Adobe CC crashes too much on OS X, much more than CS5 did). Reality is that two quite big companies I personally know are switching away from it to Corel. And I believe other will do that as well. Adobe just committed suicide IMHO.

          My 2c...
          They are essentially switching from one type of crap to another. Corel even today can't write correct SVGs, unlike Inkscape.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by brosis View Post
            I am not sure if you need refresher on stuff like,.. DRM, trojans/backdoors, adware, trackers, rootkits, hidden exploits, crippleware, segfaults, inability to fork, no support for any custom configuration... with proprietary, user is left with binary blob and has to put everything piece of trust in it. But then unavoidably come stable ABI, stable libraries (old cruft), even more exploits based on it. To deal with (partially fake) security chaos come antivirus. And with them even more malware.

            When it comes to userland software such as Maxthon, that is already duplicated by open alternatives, there is simply no reason to accept it, except more variation - but at what price?
            Like I said, I understand the desire for wanting open source kernel level stuff, or even just low-level stuff in general. But all of those problems you mentioned are what happens when you pick a piece of software from an unmotivated developer. If they're paid, you don't usually encounter those problems. Just because something is open source it doesn't mean it is automatically free of those issues you mentioned, because that means somebody has to fix it. Paid or not, assuming the developers care enough, closed source software would be MORE secure because it's flaws and/or secrets aren't revealed to anyone, and there's a DEDICATED team to fix reported issues. And on the note of motivated/dedicated developers, many open source devs are NOT motivated or dedicated because their work likely won't get them any compensation, so your point is basically just theory but not actually true.

            I'm all for open source software but people here can't pretend that closed source is generally bad. Open source has just as many flaws as closed source - much like wikipedia vs encyclopedia britannica.

            Comment


            • #36
              I know...

              Originally posted by brosis View Post
              They are essentially switching from one type of crap to another. Corel even today can't write correct SVGs, unlike Inkscape.
              Don't tell me I use Darktable/LuminanceHDR/GIMP/Inkscape combo and I couldn't be happier (well, I could, the only thing I miss is a true and full multicore/OpenCL support in all these so I could go back to AMD (from pure Intel ultrabook))...

              IMHO it's all only about hype, Linux and FOSS is on par when it comes to digital photography and vector graphics...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                Like I said, I understand the desire for wanting open source kernel level stuff, or even just low-level stuff in general. But all of those problems you mentioned are what happens when you pick a piece of software from an unmotivated developer. If they're paid, you don't usually encounter those problems. Just because something is open source it doesn't mean it is automatically free of those issues you mentioned, because that means somebody has to fix it. Paid or not, assuming the developers care enough, closed source software would be MORE secure because it's flaws and/or secrets aren't revealed to anyone, and there's a DEDICATED team to fix reported issues. And on the note of motivated/dedicated developers, many open source devs are NOT motivated or dedicated because their work likely won't get them any compensation, so your point is basically just theory but not actually true.

                I'm all for open source software but people here can't pretend that closed source is generally bad. Open source has just as many flaws as closed source - much like wikipedia vs encyclopedia britannica.
                Unmotivated development has nothing to do with proprietary or free software. Motivations can be different. Even if one takes basic major motivation - money, there is no explicit connection that it has to be proprietary. What exactly prevents someone to take money for development? We know many commercial and donation-based successful open projects. They all have dedicated team to fix issues. All the employees have a contract with project lead, regardless if project is open or closed. The only difference is that the employees of closed projects are heavy limited of what they can do. They, professionals, the only ones knowing possible advantageous paths, can't experiment away. They are just doing it for money and whole outcome is concentration of responsibility in owner hands. He can easily burn down the project, picking wrong choices - no one will be able to save it. No one can fork away or even try minor experiments unless allowed to do so. Talk about motivation killers.

                And why you mention security by obscurity. you know - it does not work. Specialists will crack their way regardless, what will be achieved instead is far less amount of external checks, bugfixes, modifications. Security by obscurity stops only profane and is not needed for opensource as it would be fortificated due to those attacks in the first place.

                Flaws: The owner of closed source will think flaws are not revealed, by in reality - he is the only one unaware of flaws that are misused. Like cracker injecting payload into original or binary code on author's server. It happened. Security? Insecurity and self-fooling.

                Secrets: I am sure, users do not really want to believe in those secrets? Or are these secrets to create proprietary one-way protocols to postulate binding and sub(or whole) monopoly to customers. All the secrets that are disadvantages to users. Proprietary allows to secretly embed and keep disadvantages and harm to user. Is that good? The only one secret left is implementation secret, that is better protected by patenting anyway - publishing it open to claim invention right.

                Explicitly, statement:
                And on the note of motivated/dedicated developers, many open source devs are NOT motivated or dedicated because their work likely won't get them any compensation, so your point is basically just theory but not actually true.
                is false, as majority of closed source projects go bankrupt and the developers are unmotivated due to company policy and payment. Overtime work, low payment and promises, and sweat-shop like policies today exist in majority of closed source.

                It becomes proprietary only when author/owner does not want to share the four freedoms (ie GPL, or more/less, if BSD). The lack of those freedoms results explicitly in less rights and options towards user. Still, regardless of model chosen, similar projects will face similar external challenges, so the decision mostly lies upon owner - even if he considers closed model to bring more advantages towards development, it automatically, always results in less advantages towards user. Besides, riding closed commercial is like riding a rocket - developers have to be paid, project has to introduce income (even when taking loans for start up) - this even more pressures the development and deviates original motivations of project leaders. They accept or go into compromises, they never thought possible. Those "secrets" have to be guarded, because most userbase will hold it for immoral or disadvantageous - and will cut the support. Are those "secrets" positive? With open model it will be no pressure, yet no possibility to create such secrets. Do the same hard work, sell it. Not acceptable to some owners, they want the "easy" way. They want easy money by dirty tricks, want to make users dependent and cut loan doing nothing, want the "secret" of the "added value" (I mean Snowden-like relevations) to bring them cash at damage to users, think they can do nothing, yet earn something, think its their property - yet customers must pay for it. So, per definition, closed source software is a lot worse than open from user perspective, and may be very disadvantageous to the owner. Proprietary is not bad, you say?

                Failure to organize and manage the challenges results in project failure, not the open/closed model chosen. Most of the closed projects without those "secrets", those who close down explicitly out of fear of loosing funding for fair work, can operate more efficiently, if opened. If they are planned to be needed and are needed for their work, what's the difference if this needed work is open or closed? Users with money - will pay for it. Users without money - will download from official site, instead from the illegal one. To funding - no difference. Projects with "secrets" however will face the dangers of going bankrupt. Obviously.

                Lets open up Maxthon, if they are fair. What do they have to hide? Trade marks? Design arts? Unique web engines? Something.. "secret"? If not, better just not touch it - by any means. Obviously. Do the users really need this added variation? Toss a some crap into the jar of honey,.. for added variation.

                You mention Wikipedia vs Britannica, but do you know Britannica was a lot worse than Wikipedia prior to it starting to copy-paste from the first? Of course, now they copy paste from each other, but both projects face same risks, yet Wikipedia is a lot more popular and a lot more neutral. Of course, Britannica may have paid money to some specialists to generate professional content ("advantage", for the lack of better word), but.. wasn't BSD rewritten as open exactly for this case? Aren't exactly those specialists interested in information exchange between alike and students and are eager to generate exactly same information on behalf of educating, whilst being paid by students - ANYWAY? Difference - they don't need to rewrite same over and over, but can built upon it. Direct profit for the supporters, better tasks for the specialists. So for what exactly one pays when purchasing Britannica? For helping it impose DRM and ownership upon human knowledge? Or just for bicycle reinvention / monkey work? Why can't Britannica open up, again?
                Last edited by brosis; 09-30-2013, 07:11 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
                  Don't tell me I use Darktable/LuminanceHDR/GIMP/Inkscape combo and I couldn't be happier (well, I could, the only thing I miss is a true and full multicore/OpenCL support in all these so I could go back to AMD (from pure Intel ultrabook))...

                  IMHO it's all only about hype, Linux and FOSS is on par when it comes to digital photography and vector graphics...
                  As far as I know, GIMP is limited to 8 bpp color depth.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                    As far as I know, GIMP is limited to 8 bpp color depth.
                    So? Edit gradients in Darktable, export with losless format, add some retouching in GIMP on top. Voilà, top quality printable photo. And my grades can confirm this

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Redi44 View Post
                      So? Edit gradients in Darktable, export with losless format, add some retouching in GIMP on top. Voilà, top quality printable photo. And my grades can confirm this
                      Not everyone edits photos.
                      Not everyone wants to use multiple programs or learn how to use multiple programs in their workflow.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                        Not everyone edits photos.
                        My post was only about photos and vector graphics.... If you paint then use Krita.... (Or MyPaint if you are FunkySTAR)

                        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                        Not everyone wants to use multiple programs or learn how to use multiple programs in their workflow.
                        You will have to do that even on Win/OS X. Well you will have to if you don’t want your work to sucks...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                          As far as I know, GIMP is limited to 8 bpp color depth.
                          High bit depth support has already been implemented in the 2.9.x dev branch. The dev branch is not the most stable ever but it does work, you just have to compile it yourself.

                          Krita also has had high bit depth support (up to 32bit float) as well as support for alternate colourspaces (CMYK, YCbCr, Lab, etc.) for several versions now. There's lots of features in Krita that are only being worked on in GIMP, such as dynamic effect layers, group masks, clone layers, vector layers etc. It's however not really designed for image manipulation like GIMP, it's more geared towards content production, drawing/painting and such.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                            Like I said, I understand the desire for wanting open source kernel level stuff, or even just low-level stuff in general. But all of those problems you mentioned are what happens when you pick a piece of software from an unmotivated developer. If they're paid, you don't usually encounter those problems. Just because something is open source it doesn't mean it is automatically free of those issues you mentioned, because that means somebody has to fix it. Paid or not, assuming the developers care enough, closed source software would be MORE secure because it's flaws and/or secrets aren't revealed to anyone, and there's a DEDICATED team to fix reported issues. And on the note of motivated/dedicated developers, many open source devs are NOT motivated or dedicated because their work likely won't get them any compensation, so your point is basically just theory but not actually true.

                            I'm all for open source software but people here can't pretend that closed source is generally bad. Open source has just as many flaws as closed source - much like wikipedia vs encyclopedia britannica.
                            I like how you completely ignore active malice. Especially if coupled with a motivated closed source developer

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                              As far as I know, GIMP is limited to 8 bpp color depth.
                              Correct me, if wrong, but thats 8bpp per channel - 24/32bit colorspace. Its same, what most graphics (non-RAW) formats support and most scanners are capable of. I agree, that's not *professional* grade, but its definitely not a show stopper or "no-go".

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Correct me, if wrong, but thats 8bpp per channel - 24/32bit colorspace. Its same, what most graphics (non-RAW) formats support and most scanners are capable of. I agree, that's not *professional* grade, but its definitely not a show stopper or "no-go".
                                Uhm, but Photoshop supports 16-bit bpp.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X