Eric S. Raymond Calls LLVM The "Superior Compiler" To GCC

[geearf]

It not a very difficult philosophical concept. Not giving something is different from removing something.
Example: "Giving 1$ to someone is bad, because you are taking 1$ from him compared to the situation where you give him 2$".
It's retarded. Giving 1$ is good, giving 2$ is better. But 1$ is still good. Giving software is good, giving software and sources is better, but software is still good. The base level, in each case, is giving nothing. You have to compare to that.

Well I compare to what software used to be, which was software + sources.
Also, in these days of PRISM and co software without sources is not good to me... so your example is not a great one.

[SystemCrasher]

And how does a rootkit being oss or proprietary makes it any more (or less) acceptable?

Very simple. Its just amusing how proprietary footpads could totally lack imagination.

Imagine system, where you, administrator, deliberately placed invisible traps. Thanks to rootkit technologies traps could be invisible and unexpected, not reported by standard OS tools, etc. Now attacker would break into system but there will be some catch: system will not do what intruder expects but rather monitor/intercept/subvert unrequested activity, alert admins and so on. Can you imagine you did unlink() to trash logs, it reported success but then rather alerted admin, took snapshot and initialized shutdown to minimize impact?

I do not see why it is fundamentally wrong to greet attackers with their own tools, this could be very nice showstopper for some badass .

[Marc Driftmeyer]

It not a very difficult philosophical concept. Not giving something is different from removing something.
Example: "Giving 1$ to someone is bad, because you are taking 1$ from him compared to the situation where you give him 2$".
It's retarded. Giving 1$ is good, giving 2$ is better. But 1$ is still good. Giving software is good, giving software and sources is better, but software is still good. The base level, in each case, is giving nothing. You have to compare to that.

It's $1 or $2. Currency symbol always before the numerical value.

[brosis]

It's $1 or $2. Currency symbol always before the numerical value.

Error: no arguments supplied.

[BlackStar]

It's $1 or $2. Currency symbol always before the numerical value.

Not so in the old continent: it's always 1? or 2?.

[erendorn]

Well I compare to what software used to be, which was software + sources.
Also, in these days of PRISM and co software without sources is not good to me... so your example is not a great one.

Well, don't use it. Nothing, nothing at all, is taken for you. If it is not good enough, you are free to refuse. Compare 2$ to 1? (assuming you live somewhere you cannot use euros) then. 1? is useless to you, but offering you 1? cannot be considered bad.
Also, software is written on a piece by piece basis. There's no such thing as "software used to be". You get a license on a specific part, not on the entire set of software ever written and ever to be written.

[SystemCrasher]

Btw, its not about taking something away from us. It is about denial of right of user to upgrade from consumer to maker/creator. I think it should be very basic human right and those who deny it are criminals, who should be held liable. Because they're doing very bad service to humankind as whole. There is simply no excuse for doing so.

[MoonMoon]

Btw, its not about taking something away from us. It is about denial of right of user to upgrade from consumer to maker/creator. I think it should be very basic human right and those who deny it are criminals, who should be held liable. Because they're doing very bad service to humankind as whole. There is simply no excuse for doing so.

No amount of proprietary software will keep you from learning programming, so this is just bullshit. And the very basic right of anyone producing something, be it software or physical products, is to dictate the conditions under which he will give it away. So, the real question is: Why do you think your right to get source to software produced by someone else (which actually is non-existent, you don't have such a right) would trump the rights of developers actually doing the work?

[brad0]

In an ideal world, we would have everything GPL. That's my views on it, so I don't really care one way or the other which it is.

I am glad I am not in that world. That is not ideal. It is batshit crazy.

[SystemCrasher]

No amount of proprietary software will keep you from learning programming, so this is just bullshit.

Bullshit hapens when you, say, want to learn something like low-level programming, e.g. early HW init ... and then figure out that this fucking CPU is not willing to run your code at all because it needs valid signature and you somehow do not posses right key, regardless to mumbling you're device owner. Then it turns out it is rocket science to figure out which hardware is willing to obey you and which is not - this is not told you at time you're buying device. That's world proprietary pests are building for us. "To stop piracy", "to prevent malware", "to spy on you from software you can't delete or replace" (err, last phrase shouldn't be here, forget it!).

[quote] And the very basic right of anyone producing something, be it software or physical products, is to dictate the conditions under which he will give it away. [/qoute]
Usually consumer rihgts laws mandate that properties of goods should be properly described. Somehow, DRM fucks aka "we want protect you so we placed these restrictions" do not bother self to describe restrictions in effect, effectively fooling and cheating buyers. Tell it loud and honestly: this device does not belongs to you and obeys manufacturer. Then ... good luck to sell it rather then lease it.

"Selling" programs is complete treachery most of time: it made to look like purchase, but if we take a look on license, it's often something like lease at most, or even like promise to be author's personal slave if user will take care to actually read stinky EULA and understand it. Somehow, proprietary fucks do not like to discuss or advertise these matters. Sure, their terms suck most of time and it looks like if they're well aware of it and getting nervous when opensource guys admit their terms are simply better. Hey, pests, time to eat some pesticides, isn't it?

So, the real question is: Why do you think your right to get source to software produced by someone else (which actually is non-existent, you don't have such a right) would trump the rights of developers actually doing the work?

First of all I think every buyer should have rights to know what he/she buys and who is really in charge. Something treacherous proprietary fucks do not dare to tell honestly most the time, pretending one who buys device or evne program is real owner. While it often not a case. Then, I think it is really harmful when one uses their rights to increase number of dumb. talentless, unskilled consumers rather than makers. This is not going to do anything good in long term for hmankind as whole. Yet, fucks who only want some extra $$$ here and now do not care about long tern consequences. I think it should be a crime.

Then, users may rely on device/program and certain functions. Also, ownership assumes certain expectations. I think those manufacturers who fail to meet these expectations AND fail to make it clear they have custom terms, fully listing restrictions and limitations, should be punished. This is similar to scam.

Also, digital devices are complex things and they could be used to cause harm.
If you think that manufacturer/sw author should have unlimited power ... just some things to think on:
- Should it be valid for mfr to conduct attacks on other computer systems using their device as base?
- Should it be valid to declare that device could spy and actually spy on device's owner?
- Should it be valid to steal all user files and maybe even try to declare them property of device mfr/malware author?
- Should it be valid for mfr to disable device or certain functions at their will?
- Should it be valid if mfr decides to do some real bitching and updates device so it starts making loud beeping at 3AM, without options to disable such "feature"?
- Should it be allowed for mfr to remotely put user's device to unsafe operation modes? What about intentionally exploding device by abusing LiIon cell?

So I do not think program authors and device manufacturers should have each and every right to do absolutely anything they want to. Their freedoms should end right where other's freedom starts. Somehow GPL is also about this and it seems to have fairly balanced view, unlike some other licenses.