Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
Hi On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Amarendra Godbole wrote: There may not be security updates, but there may not be security issues in the first place. The only way to ensure this is to lookup the quality of developers' on that tool - actively maintained, but too many cooks may not be optimum from a security point of view. Consider the case of Linux kernel - clearly security isn't a priority, especially because they accept binary blobs left, right and center. World domination is. The security focus on Linux kernel needs to be improved but this is not because they are adding some binary firmware since security issues are not limited to firmware at all. Quite the contrary, all the firmware is being separated out over time and shipped as a separate tarball and most distributions ship firmware separately as well. That is the recommended practice. The real problem is the lack of security tagging in the changelog and not enough attention to systematic improvements but the situation is better than before. Rahul ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Mandar Vaze / मंदार वझे mandarv...@gmail.com wrote: Can you elaborate what moving with times means? Tools of the newer times make me no more productive than those of yesteryear, so I don't see much a point. It was a generic remark - may or may not apply in the context of mutt - hence the Disclaimer at the end of my original email Anyway, let me try to elaborate further. Since we are talking generic the situation may or may not apply in your case. When choosing a tool, I typically check when was the last active development. If my requirement is low enough - something that isn't updated in few years might also work for me now but when I need a security update, and no one is maintaining it, I am out of luck (I know, open source, fix it yourself, but honestly just because one has access to source, doesn't mean one has skills to fix) In this scenario - I might be better off with something that is actively being developed (Doesn't mean bleeding edge, cause it has different problems) That is what I meant by moving with times [...] There may not be security updates, but there may not be security issues in the first place. The only way to ensure this is to lookup the quality of developers' on that tool - actively maintained, but too many cooks may not be optimum from a security point of view. Consider the case of Linux kernel - clearly security isn't a priority, especially because they accept binary blobs left, right and center. World domination is. Contrast this with OpenBSD, which operates on a very conservative model of development, with accurate documentation to match (they pride themselves in having up-to-date and accurate documentation) - their manpages have code that can be copy-pasted as is, rather than having toy code with all sorts of fluffy disclaimers. OpenBSD still uses cvs, because it is mature, stable, and works for them. Oh yes, one can argue OpenBSD does not control the firmware on the network cards, which can be rogue. Definitely, but their bar of security is way high than what Linux accepts. If security is your priority, then maybe Linux is not the correct answer. If using a generic, out-of-the-box usable, and open source OS is, then probably stick with Linux. OpenBSD is just another example here, you can substitute it with your choice of known secure OS. I personally feel it is very important to decide where your priorities lie, and put enough effort into understanding, and then make a choice of tools/OS/whatever. On a lighter note - Original comment was in the context of feeling like part of museum. If you feel productive with your current set of tools, then you shouldn't feel ancient/part of museum/endangered specie. What am I missing ? [...] You are missing the fad, which essentially means you are missing nothing. Twitter, Facebook are all blown out of proportion for their actual usefulness, and end up being huge time-wasters. Think of it - how much time you spend on facebook/twitter/insert latest fad here as compared to a few years ago when these were not available? Now justify that time spent with the productivity quotient for yourself, and you'll have the answer. Twitter/Facebook are good to keep in touch with friends, but then when you overdo (as 95% of the populate, FB and Twitter ain't going high on the stocks just like that) you are actually decreasing the overall productivity of the populace in the name of social networking. Really, the sad situation is this - most new technology is fad these days, with moron Silicon Valley investors who cannot differentiate sh**, and the overall economy overspending on technology that brings you little benefit as compared to the amount being invested. Personally for me, I stick with the right tool for the job, haven't changed most of my tools in a decade, and haven't seen a decrease in productivity at all. Right tools are all that are required, not new ones (think of a hammer, now would you want a hammer that mails you a reminder that you need to hammer a nail?). ;-) -ag ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
Can you elaborate what moving with times means? Tools of the newer times make me no more productive than those of yesteryear, so I don't see much a point. It was a generic remark - may or may not apply in the context of mutt - hence the Disclaimer at the end of my original email Anyway, let me try to elaborate further. Since we are talking generic the situation may or may not apply in your case. When choosing a tool, I typically check when was the last active development. If my requirement is low enough - something that isn't updated in few years might also work for me now but when I need a security update, and no one is maintaining it, I am out of luck (I know, open source, fix it yourself, but honestly just because one has access to source, doesn't mean one has skills to fix) In this scenario - I might be better off with something that is actively being developed (Doesn't mean bleeding edge, cause it has different problems) That is what I meant by moving with times On a lighter note - Original comment was in the context of feeling like part of museum. If you feel productive with your current set of tools, then you shouldn't feel ancient/part of museum/endangered specie. What am I missing ? -Mandar ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 05:20:51PM +0530, Mandar Vaze / ? ??? wrote: If you feel productive with your current set of tools, then you shouldn't feel ancient/part of museum/endangered specie. What am I missing ? No I was not feeling ancient/museum/endangered. If you read my mail it was about a perception about people who use such platforms. The remark was in the context of mutt's %share being very low. If you ask me, I really don't care about usage % etc. Yes, I do keep reasserting my platforms for suitability for changing usage patterns, improvising for information management. If something necessitates so I'll change my platforms. But it has not happened in many years, though things done by me around the platforms keep evolving. Mayuresh ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Mandar Vaze / मंदार वझे mandarv...@gmail.com wrote: When choosing a tool, I typically check when was the last active development. If my requirement is low enough - something that isn't updated in few years might also work for me now but when I need a security update, and no one is maintaining it, I am out of luck (I know, open source, fix it yourself, but honestly just because one has access to source, doesn't mean one has skills to fix) Mutt does have activity. At least https://github.com/karelzak/mutt-kz has. Applications are as good as the design decisions which result in their development. If someone finds that that new fangled applications are not providing enough merit to switchover, the possible reason might be that the decisions of design and user experience are something that does not meet this user's requirement. That happens all the time and, there's not much achieved by boiling the ocean. -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay https://twitter.com/#!/sankarshan ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
On Jan 3, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Mandar Vaze / मंदार वझे mandarv...@gmail.com wrote: Fir appears a yesteryears' favorite now with mere 4.8% share. (I use mutt and feel like an endangered species... danger of being driven away to some corner of an archaeological museum, with no idea about my wrongdoing.) species doesn't become extinct (archaeological museum reference) due to their own wrongdoing Think dinosaurs :) In case of techie - wrongdoing could be not moving with times [...] Can you elaborate what moving with times means? Tools of the newer times make me no more productive than those of yesteryear, so I don't see much a point. It is interesting when people compare market share - I merely say different folks, different strokes! :-) -ag ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
Fir appears a yesteryears' favorite now with mere 4.8% share. (I use mutt and feel like an endangered species... danger of being driven away to some corner of an archaeological museum, with no idea about my wrongdoing.) species doesn't become extinct (archaeological museum reference) due to their own wrongdoing Think dinosaurs :) In case of techie - wrongdoing could be not moving with times Disclaimer : This is a generic comment, it is not a comment upon usage of mutt. Note : It is sad to have to put Disclaimer. But long time subscribers know that had I not included it, it would have resulted into a flame war. ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
Re: [PLUG] Linux Journal Readers' choice awards 2013
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 12:24:36AM +0530, Mandar Vaze / ? ??? wrote: appears a yesteryears' favorite now with mere 4.8% share. (I use mutt and feel like an endangered species... danger of being driven away to some corner of an archaeological museum, with no idea about my wrongdoing.) In case of techie - wrongdoing could be not moving with times More than time, it's just a preference divide. When I chose mutt, thunderbird, kmail, evolution, webmail all existed and I tried nearly all of them as well. Switching to mutt was a choice rather than old habit, which I have never resented. I definitely keep my setup evolving, where keeping with times means looking for better and better ways to manage the ever exploding information, reducing manual intervention to minimum possible level. For me, mutt (or for that matter a no of text applications) are a _platform_ rather than an application, on which I can build my own application fairly quickly. I don't insist this to suit everyone. It's a subjective matter and hence not a flame war. Mayuresh. ___ Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List
