Wow Wow Wow..
This is the biggest slap.. aah ..

Regards
Ujwal
nepbabu.cx wrote:
> Hi all,
> There seems to be a noise going down at the everestcensored blog.
> I wanted to share what I wrote :)
>
> ---------------
>
> "What a load of crap!!..from a cheapo!! you want everything to be Open
> Source and probably Free.. you FOSS maniac.. Softwares should never be
> Open Source as it beats the purpose.. because they will never be
> documented in a "
>
> This statement is coming from whom ? Bill Gates?
> This kind of statement are everyday remarks I see on Slashdot, digg etc...
> I find this to be a fallacy because it explicitly tries to compare FOSS
> to proprietary software and prove (without references and historical
> data) that proprietary is the way to go. But let me walk you through
> some of the key points about foss software. :-)
>
> First of all, if a programmer doesn't want to look at the source code,
> he/she ISN'T a programmer! Maybe they should altogether change their job
> to maybe Chef or something. Rather than being a SOFTWARE DEVELOPER.
>
> In open source world, code itself speaks as a  documentation. This is
> Bazaar style of development. This is what makes FOSS Programmer better
> than ANY propreitary programmer (this is a gross generalisation let me
> remind you)
>
> "specialized manner and most of the people who customize don't follow
> coding standards."
>
> Oh, you are now talking about coding standards ? haha.. Coding standards
> should be OPEN and PUBLISHED. What coding standards are you talking
> about? ISO? NIST? or that university level coding standards called
> "XP/Incremental development" or is it "Unified process"?  If a coding
> standard is local to a company, you can't expect that same level of
> standard amongst international open source developers. It'll by far be
> more sophisticated and well developed in the case of Open source
> software development. Beat me to it!
>
> "Firstly, it is not possible to understand design pattern and
> architectural style from codes. Codes are implementation of Design. "
>
> YES, you can understand design patterns et. al from codes. That is what
> REVERSE ENGINEERING is. Everyday, open source programmers have proven
> this! Open source programmers DO NOT, yes! DO NOT have access to source
> codes of proprietary systems (drivers, some binary blobs and
> compatibility layers like nvidia's display driver), yet they do REVERSE
> ENGINEERING solely based on blackbox, input-output bound executions
> using OPEN SOURCE Tools and methodology. If you care to look at the
> myriad of tools available to them, you'll know about it but no one can
> come to you and stuff it in your brain for you.
> [search terms, hexdump, pax, valgrind, strace, ptrace, gdb]
>
> "So when the Design Documents are not understood, its better to leave
> the development to the big boys.."
>
> Who are the big boys ? The propreitary system developers ? hahah.. These
> I find are baseless arguments based on a very small view of the open
> source by someone [it seems] who is not even .01% sure what open
> philosophy is.
>
> "Secondly, the only mechanism for hackers to uncover vulnerabilities is
> to perform black box testing.. if they had the code, think what kind of
> viruses they would be able to create?? There was a project some time
> back to create "
>
> Getting access to source code DOES NOT CREATE VIRUS!
> Getting access to source code instead provides more careful observations
> by thousand and thousands of people who test that software. In effect,
> that software becomes better in terms of stability. By the stupid
> argument you've made, if you care to look at the algorithms available
> for myriad of open source crypto, they are published and available to
> study and use. Yet, only time shows how strong they have been. There
> have been numerous bugs filed, patches released and the development just
> goes towards greater heights with 1000 and 1000s of prying eyes and
> eager programmers trying to break the system  and then share the
> results. Academics have long followed this way and it'll continue that
> way even if closed source company disagree. That is how we do in
> Gnu/Linux world. We get the source, compile it and make it to work for
> ourselves. If we find some bug, we try to file a bug and if we can,
> release a patch fix for everyone.
>
> "open source anti-virus program.. Some beta testers were able to create
> test viruses which the anti-virus was never able to detect.. because
> they knew the working of the AV.. think about it again!!!!"
>
> So, whats the point ? There are so many closed source antivirus
> companies developing software exploits, does that make them criminal?
> No! They are merely trying to foolproof their antivirus tools. If you
> look over at clamav project, you'll see that volunteers send in sample
> of a virus  which upon recieving are carefully tested against the latest
> virus database, they then merge it with the next release of virus db
> which means beneficial for everyone.
>
> Crackers, no matter what will always exist. The whole argument of
> avoiding cracker is impossible. In other words, software companies who
> try to prevent crackers are trying to make it harder&longer for crackers
> to crack it but this is something that depends on their strategy. That
> has no effect on open source world.  Internal workings of a system
> should be published, that way, an normal users knows how it works. And
> this is the purpose of USER MANUAL!
> Foss softwares are not the total solution but it is real solution to
> specific problems that exist today with proprietary softwares.
> Hope you get that right before you post "Foss maniacs" the next time
> without that touch of judgement and hey hope this also leads you to a
> path of enlightenment.
>
> Lastly, if you want to know how it all works, I invite you to join
> http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal
>
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
> Cheers.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
FOSS Nepal mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal

Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to