full-disclosure - [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <41237C26.7000901@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: [OT] Re: lame bitching about xpsp2

joe wrote:

>>If only a #define statement were copied they wouldn't 
>>be obligated to disclose it's source.
>>    
>>
>
>I did not say that the only use was a #define, what I said was that would be
>enough to get MS to document it if they didn't otherwise outright own the
>rights. If you pick up a #define straight out of someone else's file without
>change, you are borrowing their work. It is small, but you are still
>borrowing. Someone may come looking because they may think it is more than a
>#define especially if the define betrays functionality not publicly
>documented. Not saying that is the case here so try not to read into what I
>am trying to say other than acknowledging use of someone else's code can
>occur even if it is some small piece, even if they aren't legally required. 
>
>  
>
Understood - but your point was still incorrect.

You're showing here that you really don't know exactly what was from 
what source.  I, personally, have no problem with that.  It's not a 
crime.  My only question is why try to confuse things and make the point 
that the Win2k TCP/IP stack is not derived from BSDs code when you, in 
fact, can't say either way?


>>The existance of an alternative does not make the 
>>alternative readily available.  You need a readily 
>>available alternative to prove your point, and right 
>>now that doesn't exist. 
>>    
>>
>
>I would say this is a pretty poor comment on our current position. The fact
>that you had issues getting what you wanted from where you wanted doesn't
>mean alternatives are not readily available.
>
>  
>
OK - put your money where your mouth is.  Pretend I'm a consumer.   I 
have 2000 USD to spend and want a good PC with a good warranty with 
GNU/Linux on it.  Find me a link to a major OEM that will ship me a PC 
within those specs with decent hardware and a generally recognized name 
(Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM...). 

The PC must be listed as a desktop system and must be easy to find.

That's your assignment.  That's the way that you can prove your point, 
and it's the only way. 

If the situation is as you claim it is, that should take you no less 
than 3 minutes.  The clock is ticking...

>>The only problem I see there is that the BSD people 
>>didn't have the foresight to license their code under 
>>the GNU GPL
>>    
>>
>
>I think this could only have hurt its use and deployment.
>
I suppose... if you count code taken from *BSD and added to proprietary 
projects, then I'd agree...  I don't personally count that as 
deployment, though.

> Many large businesses do not like GNU. 
>
Ignorance will do that.

>Many people don't like it. 
>
Ignorance will do that.

>I don't like it. 
>
I think you're seeing my pattern.  :)  (It's not meant as a personal, ad 
hominem attack.  Ignorance is OK.  Admitting that it is the case is the 
first step to solving the problem.)

>I will never use GNU code within my code, I will rewrite what I need from
>scratch if I need it badly enough. I won't share my source, I tried, it
>turned out to be more pain than it was worth. 
>
I'm curious what you did that was so difficult.  Adding source code to a 
package is not particularly difficult. 

>I will use GNU licensed
>software because I like some of the stuff out there but I would use it even
>if it weren't GNU. I don't see why I should have the right to look at the
>source in order to use software. I am using the software by my choice, no
>one forces me to sit at a computer.
>  
>
Yawn... take take take take... what's so wrong with giving back after 
you take?

>>They've already been declared a monopoly.
>>    
>>
>
>This one always made me chuckle. The whole thing is based on the concept
>that there is no commercially viable alternative to Windows. 
>
No it isn't -- haven't you been reading?  This is a BS lie about the 
litmus test for declaring a company a monopoly.  It's a widely held 
misconception.  Market power is what's important, not the presence of 
alternatives.  That's what the law says.

If you don't like that the law says that, don't whine to me about it.  I 
can't change it.

             -Barry