tcpip | Recent Events, FOSS and Security, Gaming Personalities

Recent Events, FOSS and Security, Gaming Personalities

Somehow I neglected to mention in my last post two excellent events which I recently attended. First was John Foxx's Tiny Colour Movies. I shouted

dukeofmelbourne to the event as it was he who introduced me to early Ultravox some twenty years ago. It was excellent, an arthouse-style archive of movie fragments from disparate sources, combined with the Foxx providing backing music. The second was a more intimate affair, but one by a person who has probably affected more people indirectly; dinner with

arjen_lentz who regularly visits Melbourne to provide MySQL training and do more work for OpenQuery. As usual it was excellent technical and friendly conversation and I quite enjoyed the contributions by

laptop006.

Free and Open Source software is one of the areas where, it seems to me, the morally right policy is also the best technical approach. Widely reported, for example, has been a serious OpenSSL exploit which has affected Debian and Debian-derived systems (e.g., Ubuntu), which of course was widely discussed on Slashdot. Now despite the seriousness of the problem, it was found and patched remarkably quickly. Would this even have been discovered in a closed source model? Would the company holding the patents and copyrights admit the problem? Would they release a patch? With those questions in mind - and given the general usability of FOSS desktop UNIX-like systems, it never ceases to surprise me that people, every day, are still using MS-Windows and other closed-source solutions. It's morally wrong, and it's technically dangerous.

Over the years, I have realised the people who are attracted to roleplaying games are an interesting bunch. Many are people with either an incredibly systematic knowledge (it seems that every second sysadmin is a RPGer). Many (such as

patchworkkid,

artbroken,

drzero for example) are people of significant literary merit and talent. But some however are special and not in a good way. For example, one has to be a "very special individual", to start an abusive tirade because an observer comments that a regular gaming schedule might work better than an inconsistent one. Such a "special individual" would include Ian Bouch (yeah, top-posting, start from the bottom *sigh*). Congratulations Ian; I don't often condemn people on my journal for their personal behaviour but you sir, are an arsehole.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

While I'm not oblivious to the security issues surrounding closed-source operating systems, I must admit to taking some offense at the implication that it's morally wrong for me to support my family as a .NET developer. Limiting myself to only FOSS products would severely limit my earnings potential, and quite frankly would be irresponsible given my obligations to myself and others. I do what I gotta do, IOW.

That said, I'm equally distressed when I point out security problems with either code or application configurations and they're routinely dismissed by the PHBs as not worth fixing. (Sometimes I'll fix them anyway.)

The last thing I would suggest that is that a person developing software is engaging in something that is wrong (well, depending on the software). I am more referring to the idea ownership of ideas in general and more specifically in a security context. I do thing there is a problem involved in the production of critical information infrastructure without the opportunity for public testing.

There are two models, both of which I believe are fairly sound to resolve the conundrum economically. The first would be for temporary monopolies on the production of ideas to the point that the investment is recompensed and then have the product open to the public. The other would be to apply the same principle but to have the product open to begin with and with the economically appropriate recompense from the public purse (a problem with this of course is, without the adopting of some pretty strong safeguards, is that the model of recompense because quasi-political, rather than an economic relation).

I don't pretend this is an easy problem, but I do think it could be solvable.

I'm equally distressed when I point out security problems with either code or application configurations and they're routinely dismissed by the PHBs as not worth fixing.

That is a serious issue. The problem with Dilbert is that it's true.

The first would be for temporary monopolies on the production of ideas to the point that the investment is recompensed and then have the product open to the public.

Indeed, this seemed to be the original idea behind patents--before they were corrupted by the political process.

I'm not too crazy about the government getting involved in compensating people for their IP, of course (and not just for the reasons you mention), but I do agree that solutions exist. The biggest motivation would come from open competition in the market, but I think we're sadly past that for computer desktops. I also don't have much confidence in the technical acumen of the average computer user to properly secure their desktop systems, whether they're using Windows, Mac or Un*x. Once you introduce a layer of visual abstraction to improve usability, you open up countless possibilities for security compromises. And no amount of secure open-source software will prevent some idiots from writing their password on a sticky note and pasting it to their monitor. ;-)

Indeed, this seemed to be the original idea behind patents--before they were corrupted by the political process.

*nods* But the corruption was also inevitable.

I'm not too crazy about the government getting involved in compensating people for their IP, of course (and not just for the reasons you mention), but I do agree that solutions exist.

I think there is as well, although I am yet to see it fully documented. It would be an awesome paper to write tho'.. the brainstorming involved would be great fun.

And of course, once written I rather suspect it would be adopted and probably quite widely..

And no amount of secure open-source software will prevent some idiots from writing their password on a sticky note and pasting it to their monitor. ;-)

For that your username is the appropriate solution (even if I prefer to at least start with a foam version thereof) ;-)

I must admit to taking some offense at the implication that it's morally wrong for me to support my family as a .NET developer.

Something I really should have mentioned originally is the distinction between moral principles and situational ethics. Principles are the relatively easy thing, ethics are are more difficult contextual application where an appeal to a higher principle may necessitate a breach of a principle.

The classic example (used by Kant, iirc) was a person asking for refuge in your home, saying they are being chased by a lunatic. You grant them refuge and a few minutes later, quelle surprise, a lunatic bearing a bloody axe comes knocking on the door. "Did person X come in here?" they inquire.

Now according to a moral principle it is wrong to lie to the axe-wielding lunatic. However, you have reasonable suspicion that if you answer honestly, they will engage in the greater moral crime of applying the axe to the skull of the poor person holed up in your dwelling. So ethically you lie, on the basis of reasonable appeal according to context.

Now despite the seriousness of the problem, it was found and patched remarkably quickly.

You've got to love a system where the fix for an OpenSSL exploit issue is... *drumroll* apt-get update ;-). The same command you'd be using normally anyway to collect security and other software updates.

Would this even have been discovered in a closed source model?

Possibly. The source might have fewer eyes looking, but, the people looking are doing it for a living and their livelihood depends on their being dilligent.

Would the company holding the patents and copyrights admit the problem?

I think you might be mistaking the slow going of a giant effective monopoly for standard behaviour at all proprietory firms, large and small. Larger companies have all the turning circle of a battleship. Smaller companies are more nimble.

With those questions in mind - and given the general usability of FOSS desktop UNIX-like systems, it never ceases to surprise me that people, every day, are still using MS-Windows and other closed-source solutions.

Most people out there will use the UI they're comfortable with, especially if it took them a while to learn it in the first place. That's the profile of your average (non-techy) office computer user. They'll also have this or that app they can't live without. Add the two together and they're never going to contemplate moving.

That's why I think the Linux desktop is a bit of a pipe dream (it's been the year of the Linux desktop for how many years now?) and why ReactOS is such an exciting prospect. It's Windows, GPL and without the bloaty extraneous cruft.

It's morally wrong [...]

At some point, even a FOSS programmer wants a job where his skills will help him pay the rent. Donations are irregular and won't cover it.

Relying on support contracts for your FOSS software has problems: (a) The aim of a good programmer is to make your software intuitive and bug-free enough that the users shouldn't need support, and, (b) programmers hate doing end user support.

That's the paradox of FOSS, really. It needs proprietory software development contracts around in the system to keep their FOSS programmers in a financial position where they can keep programming for free on those FOSS projects they're interested in.

I think you might be mistaking the slow going of a giant effective monopoly for standard behaviour at all proprietory firms, large and small.

Hmmm... I did consider that but considered the behaviour more appropriate not to the size of the company but the way that information is held. Not to say that that large companies do have a slow turning circle. Indeed, one of their main strengths is stability.

(Although Ralph Nader's famous book "Unsafe at Any Speed" does come to mind in this discussion).

What you say about the desktop user interface is very true as well, which is why each incarnation of MS Windows has been less and less of a success for the end user (remember the end-user wails when MS-Windows 2000 was transformed to the new XP interface? and now - technical considerations aside - with Vista?).

At some point, even a FOSS programmer wants a job where his skills will help him pay the rent. Donations are irregular and won't cover it.

Sure. Many FOSS projects are sponsored by large companies as a result (IBM and Novell are two that immediately come to mind).

The model we discussed with

arjen_lentz was the "skim off the top" model, which I think does have a degree of economic legitimacy. Basically value-add to an existing OSS project, make it worth your while in recompense, and then make it public. Indeed arjen pointed out that many organisations he ecounters are insisting on use of FOSS.

The model we discussed with [info]arjen_lentz was the "skim off the top" model, which I think does have a degree of economic legitimacy. Basically value-add to an existing OSS project, make it worth your while in recompense, and then make it public.

Ah, I wish I shared your optimism ;-). What's most likely to happen is the FOSS project eats its own: new participants notice that great add-on and cherry picks its functionality as their new contribution to the original project.

Indeed arjen pointed out that many organisations he ecounters are insisting on use of FOSS.

I suspect the success/failure of that strategy will depend on the industry you're in (ie, how specialised the software is). It'd work great if you're in software development, a real estate clerk needing plain jane office apps, etc. Good luck if you're in mining, oil and gas, accountancy or graphic design ;-).

Ah, I wish I shared your optimism ;-). What's most likely to happen is the FOSS project eats its own: new participants notice that great add-on and cherry picks its functionality as their new contribution to the original project.

That indeed is a risk; however there is very good incentives in releasing a good product into the public domain, as it encourages others to contribute to the development.

I suspect the success/failure of that strategy will depend on the industry you're in

Absolutely. I am very fortunate to be involved in the sort of work I am as result. The arts is probably one of those industries where open source content is perhaps not the best methodology, although I do notice many do so - or something similar by disposition (e.g., Cort Doctrow, Nine Inch Nails etc).

Overall, I think that the world is moving towards a variety of differing licensing structures (GPL, Creative Commons etc) which are orientated towards an FOSS model as a general trajectory.

Asshole Personality Disorder.

Nice!

One of my favourites is this great winner of the Ignoble Prize.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1999, Vol. 77, No. 6. ] 121-1134

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

I swear you can't make shit like this up.

This ties in beautifully with that old Alexander Pope quote about the Pierian spring. The effect is palpable in real life: The university sophomore is perhaps the most omniscient being in the universe.

There is an interesting trajectory.

At first people are incompetent and unware of it it.

Then they drink from the spring.

Some think that they are then competent! But they are still unaware of their incompetence.

Others, recognise their incompetence and try to improve their abilities with a sense of doubt and humility.

Knowledge is only truly gained by those who, at every step of the journey, questioned themselves on whether they are possibly wrong.

OK ... If that linux president guy isn't socially inept then just what is his problem?

I'm not sure whether being extremely intelligent and a fairly hard worker counts as a problem, although in some circumstances it can be. At worst one can say he has a short fuse, which is a matter of temperament, and can be quite picky and sometimes about the wrong things. His mind does operate at a fairly intense level for long periods of time, and many people can find that tiring. He occassionally gets matters of historically fact only "kinda sorta" correct.

Most of the time his knowledge and logic is interesting, insightful and with practical import.

I'm also fairly sure he doesn't mind me making these comments in the least ;-)

Nobody has a perfect personality, but at least some people are sincerely trying to make themselves better people; more honest, more considerate, more thoughtful of the feelings of others.

The antithesis is those who engage in antisocial behaviour and when asked for a reason for their behaviour say they were doing it "for fun", are the real problem.

Not only are they aware that their behaviour is wrong, but they deliberately and wilfully continue to engage in that fashion.

That, in my considered opinion, is the true definition of an arsehole.

Did you ever consider that he wouldn't do it 'just for fun' if he cared what you thought and do you think that he would do it to people that he didn't consider to be a 'pompous arsehole'?

Antisocial is a rather strong term when he only engages in such behaviour with people he dislikes, plus it doesn't seem to be a daily event. In fact I could categorically say that he has not engaged in such a tirade of e-mails since he left your Church of Gaming, some 12 months plus ago. Hence I would say the said behaviour is not so much antisocial but a focused and consistent view of you and your friends.

I can say this with authority as He is I.

You really do need to get over yourself and find a more productive use of your time.

Did you ever consider that he wouldn't do it 'just for fun' if he cared what you thought and do you think that he would do it to people that he didn't consider to be a 'pompous arsehole'?

If you don't care for a person's opinions, it is best to ignore them.

If you do care, you respond with a sense of common and civil politeness, even if you think they're pompous; and do not pretend for a moment that just that because a person appears to be dignified, stately and respectful that they are in fact just being ostentatious - the behaviour could be genuine and indeed it is far preferable to assume that it is.

It is possible to express one's opinion fully without engaging in the sort of comments and behaviour better suited to those who lack a good response.

Engaging in abuse is for "fun" is an example of arsehole behaviour, regardless of the context or whether or not you even like the person or not. It is respecting the person as a human with the right to respect and dignity equal to your own.

You really do need to get over yourself and find a more productive use of your time.

I will let my achievements and the respect of my many and dear peers be the judge on whether I use my time effectively and productively.

I suggest you consider what you are doing with your time.

It may help you become a better person.

WTF ...?

*shrug* Some people don't like you. Sometimes the same people are rude about it.

Sometimes the same people see polite expressions that recognise that all people (regardless of any perceived foolishness) are deserving of a modicum of respect and dignity is being "pompous".

And yet, deep down, I suspect they know that they're PONA and their poor behaviour towards others is an example of their own social ineptitude.

Seriously, even taking out the ethical idea of simple courtesy, who would want to be seen in now multiple public forums engaging behaving like, as the link properly describes, as an arsehole?

Ian Bouch, that's who.

Maybe he'll get over it one day, and lift himself out of PONA status.

> Some people don't like you.

That's ok I don't like me either.

That sir, is usually a sign of a person who wants to improve themselves.
:-)

"It is respecting the person as a human with the right to respect and dignity equal to your own."

Read: It is about respecting the person as a human with the right to respect and dignity equal to your own.

It's a tough line sometimes. I try to be tolerant of all, but, I have a tough time being tolerant of the intolerant ;-).

Amen to that brother... I mean, we can't forget Mosley Jones. Heck, on his very first post on aus.politics he was threatening to assault someone.... Then for the next two years he ranted on about homosexuals being kiddie fiddlers. He was not the sort of person that it was easy to be civil towards (and many times I certainly failed the test of making a polite response to him). Obviously not everyone is in the same ballpark as that but...

There was that old USENET saying which is quite apt: "Don't wrestle a pig in shit, you get covered in shit and the pig enjoys it".

When one has a disagreement I consider it best to state one's case in a forthright but civil manner. If they respond in a manner that is threatening or with the language best suited for the lower-high school football team, then simply point out that they actually haven't posted anything of substance and, if it is a public forum, that they are probably improving their reputation among people who matter.

Fortunately such people usually end up friendless or surrounded by people who don't really respect them anyway.

Just a small question for you, which gaming group actually has female players? You may wish to ask yourself, if you do not have female players, why this is so! And if you did in the past, how did you manage to drive them away, if you are so socially ept?

Given the severity and commonality of flaws in (early, especially) builds of Windows, it's almost a miracle the Internet is still running, seeing how that is by far the most common client OS and makes up a reasonable proportion of server OSes.

When something seems to be almost a miracle, I look for other causes.

I'm not going to claim that there's any sort of moral high ground to be had in the sort of IP protection that goes on for closed-source type companies, but I do feel that for being the brightly lit, golden-walled house on the hilltop, Windows has done an amazing job of handling security.

The miracle of the Internet working is almost entirely the responsibility of UNIX-like operating systems, not MS-Windows. Whether you look at DNS servers, web servers or mail servers the overall majority of packets will go through a UNIX-like machine, particularly those with specific security focuses; OpenBSD and Red Hat Enterprise Linux are too that come to mind.

I'll will grant you that MS-Windows has had some serious improvements in the matter of system vulnerabilities (especially from XP to Vista) and, after many years of utter chaos, Windows 20008 Server is a product that is getting close to be a viable web-endabled OS. But for most people it's a case of too little, too late.

Just for the sake of argument, is it reasonable to say that this particular source of flaws wouldn't exist in a closed-source world because an ignorant downstream developer can't break an upstream's product in such a way?

But such flaws could exist yet we would never possibly never find out - although with a large company which is supposed to have sophisticated error-checking you would hope that would never happen.

I do see the argument that there can be a stronger vetting program in a project rather than a full "anyone can commit" method. For example, Drupal has a lot of people developing it, but very few people who have commit access to the project. This seems to ensure that the code has both the advantages of open source development but also with a good vetting method.

(Continued):

In contrast, the debates and arguments over these issues have been known to polarize distro communities, lead to absurd forks, and generally fragment the user base of the distro. These concerns do not translate well to the interested outside observer (i.e., potential user), who has never been asked to consider the moral implications of their operating system or office software. While they may be curious about FOSS, individuals in this group are much more likely to wonder why its easier to get WMV support for Ubuntu than it is for Fedora, and, if they encounter Fedora first (and require WMV), might simply swear off altogether under the mistaken assumption that all distros are equal...because whoever heard of moral computing?

Having arrived at the end of this missive, I've realized that I probably could've just written "Mainstream users don't get moral computing" and conveyed what I meant. ;) I don't think the moral considerations that affect Linux development translate well at all into the Microsoft/closed-source world, and I think they may have actually helped slow FOSS adoption. My conclusion seems a bit weak for what I thought up at the beginning, but I think I'll stop here and see if you respond. ;P

I don't think the moral considerations that affect Linux development translate well at all into the Microsoft/closed-source world, and I think they may have actually helped slow FOSS adoption.

Very insightful. It matches quite well with any historical sociology of moral revolutions which basically comes down to a revolution in intersubjective judgements. The initial uptake can indeed be very slow because it does require such a radical change in thinking. (e.g., "Women? Voting? Who ever heard of such a crazy thing!").

However if the argument can successfully deal with a real or perceived problem which cannot be resolved under the mainstream value system the rate of change can be exponential (especially with a dedicated cadre of moral revolutionaries). I think ultimately this is Richard Stallman's chief argument against "open source" rather than "free" software. For Stallman this isn't about something that is just technically better; this is also about changing values.

tcpip,

I homed in on this post as something interesting when I saw you say: With those questions in mind...it never ceases to surprise me that people, every day, are still using MS-Windows and other closed-source solutions. It's morally wrong, and it's technically dangerous. I'm going to table the "technically dangerous" bit, but I think you've hit on something very important when you define the use of closed-source software (specifically Windows) as "morally wrong."

Upon consideration, I think FOSS users can be thought of as generally belonging to at least one of three camps. Placing oneself in one of these groups does not exclude membership in the other two, and some people (including you, I think) are a member of all three. Economic FOSS users are those people and companies who use open-source software because they believe doing so makes financial sense, delivers a competitive advantage, or both . Members of this group can be users (IT departments, individuals, etc) or developers, and the corporate-backed efforts of companies like IBM or Sun would also fall into this category.

Next we have what I'm calling the Philosophers. Users in this group may or may not think FOSS is the best economic decision, but they put enough of a premium on the ideas, goals, and overall position of FOSS to use it even in situations where it may not be the best financial choice. A simple example of this group would be an individual who buys an OEM system with Vista pre-installed. Instead of using Vista, he deletes the OS and loads a Linux distro of his choice, even if the distro in question requires substantial configuration tweaking in order to run properly on his hardware. Put another way, this is the person who is willing to sacrifice a "reasonable" amount of time, energy, and in some cases, functionality, in order to have an FOSS-based system.

Finally, there are the Moralists. For this group, FOSS solutions aren't just a preference, they are a component of moral living. Some members of this group will view the situation more practically than others, and may accept the use of closed-source code as a necessary evil, but for the more "devout" members, anything less than absolute devotion represents ideologically unacceptable compromise. Richard Stallman is, I think, an excellent example of an extreme Moralist.

Having defined my terms, I'll actually say something. ;)

After reading your original post and considering the issue, I think that there's a definite tension between Economic and Moralist developers/users that actually ends up benefiting the closed source (i.e. Microsoft and Apple) camp. I throw Apple in here, by the way, because while the OS X kernel may be open-source, Apple's overall design methodology is, in my opinion, as closed-source as it gets.

Microsoft solutions don't ask any uncomfortable questions (with the possible exception of "Where the FUCK is your license key, user BitTorrent79?!") and they don't attempt to turn one's computing preferences into a referendum on personal morality. People all over the 'Net debate Vista vs. XP, but no one asks whether one solution is spiritually or ideologically purer than the other. Even when we bring Apple into the picture, such debates are muted, and tend to be anchored in economic terms (MS is a monopoly!) rather than moral ones.

That is an excellent response. Anyone would think that you write IT articles on a regular basis or something :-)

I particularly congratulate you for making the clear and unambigious distinction between philosophy and morality. Due to the machinations of academic history there is an assumption that the two belong in the same discipline. This is certainly not the case; morality is a subset of philosophy in the same was that science or law or art is a subset of philosophy.

That comment made, I also think that the position of Apple is really worth exploring, as they are trying to do different things at different times, and may become very unglued as a result. As you have mentioned, the Apple OS X kernel is *nix-like, which includes all the technical benefits that come from the open-source side of things, but the rest of it is a proprietary as one can possible imagine.

Ultimately they're trying to be a bit like the *nix world, free and open source model and they're also trying to be a in the Microsoft world, that is make a play for monopoly profits (Apple too is monopolistic; just a smaller one for Apple products).

In their attempt to have the best of both worlds, I cannot help but think they might end up getting squeezed in the middle.

And yes, I do fall into all three camps :-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Recent Events, FOSS and Security, Gaming Personalities

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Moral principles and Situational Ethics

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Brilliant reference.

no subject

no subject

Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

Re: Just for Fun

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Part II:

Re: Part II:

no subject

no subject