Posted on 08/15/2003 10:30:34 AM PDT by HAL9000
Not at all. I'm trying to avoid a "bait and switch" definition where "best" shifts from a measure of technical merits to one of sales prowess in order to turn your claim into a tautology.
"Best" is a very simple thing to recognize and comprehend whether on a golf course of in the field or computers and computer software....
The quality of computer software is not as one-dimensional as a golf game. If you really believe that "best" is so very simple to recognize, can you tell me who the "best" baseball player is? How about the "best" musician? Or how about the "best" airplane? Or the "best" automobile? And if you believe success is normally the result of quality, do you really believe that the best car (in terms of quality) is the most successful car? Hint: The Pinto sold very well. So did the K-Car.
unless, of course, the person trying is a moron.
I'm not trying to be a moron but I may be arguing with one.
No it wasn't because GNU code is not Linux code. js1138 specifically mentioned Linux code. GNU code can be used with different kernels, such as Mach and Hurd. Linux can be used with different userland code, generally BSD derived. The two are no more the same than Windowns and Office.
Perestroika would be a better description.
Oh dear, the old "Linux is communist" troll. Now you've not only outed yourself as a MS shill, but a stupid one at that.
I don't see where Bush2000 claimed that trojans were inserted into code on FTP.GNU.ORG. Treating GNU's claims with skepticism isn't the same thing as claiming that trojans were inserted.
But the way this discussion is going for you, I can understand why you'd like to erect a less formidable straw man.
Yeah, a mirror. You do know what a mirror is, right?
And I suppose that MD5 sums from the authors of the programs would be unacceptable to you too, right?
Then he's welcome to check for himself. Or he can produce some evidence that indicate that the FSF post lacks truthfulness.
Or he can continue to spew groundless accusations.
Gee, I wonder which one will happen?
The fact that the server was compromised, and the fact that the intrusion went undetected for 5 months is evidence enough that GNU lacks the competence to be blindly trusted.
Is the latter a "lite" version of the former?
Sort of. Outlook Express comes with Internet Explorer and is a POP3 (Post Office Protocol 3) e-mail client and a NNTP (newsgroups, such as Usenet) client. That's basically it. And it is free.
Outlook comes with MS Office and can be a POP3, IMAP, or MS Exchange e-mail client. It also has a contact manager, appointment scheduler, and other things - more on the line of a PIM (Personal Information Manager). But no newsgroup reader. And it is not free (must by MS Office - and I think you can buy Outlook by itself - or you could at one point).
For reading standard POP3 Internet e-mail, there is not too much difference between Outlook Express and Outlook. The big differences come into play when you are running MS Exchange as your e-mail server - then you need Outlook.
I use O.E. as a newsgroup reader and usually use Outlook for e-mail and I've never personally had a problem. They have both had bugs, the biggest being the automatic execution of scripts and attachments, which was fixed a while ago. I keep up to date with Windows Update and Norton Anti-Virus, which has e-mail protection, and I don't open e-mails from senders I don't know or e-mails with attachments that are not expected.
Outlook Express has been the propogator of viruses and I would agree that it is mostly Microsoft's fault. But I also lay some blame on the people who (1) don't run Windows Update and (2) don't use anti-virus software. If you are going to run Windows and going to be connected to the Internet, you've just got to do these things.
And I also lay blame on the friggen buttwipes what write the viruses - nobody ever seems to get mad at them for some reason and I can't figure out why.
I didn't claim that GNU code was the same thing as Linux. What I did was correct your misleading statement...
The hacked site wasn't "the Linux development servers," it was the Free Software Foundation FTP site. It houses no Linux core source code, only code for GNU userland tools.
What you failed to tell js1138 and everyone else was that FTP.GNU.ORG is indeed home to important Linux code. Especially GCC, the C compiler that is used to create binaries for the Linux kernel and most server apps like Apache, OpenSSL, Perl, etc.. That's pretty important core Linux code.
GNU code can be used with different kernels, such as Mach and Hurd.
...And, if a trojan had been inserted into GCC, then Mach and Hurd kernels would have been affected.
Albeit slowly, perhaps you're beginning to realize the size of the bullet that may (or may not) have been dodged here.
Linux can be used with different userland code, generally BSD derived.
BWAHAHAHA! The vast majority (>99%) of Linux distributions are GNU/Linux. Torvalds uses GCC. Spin that.
The two are no more the same than Windowns [sic] and Office.
Again, you're spouting misleading and incorrect information. Microsoft Office isn't used to build Windows binaries. It isn't a compiler.
I've heard that testosterone injections will cure that.
ROFLMAO! :-)
But the fact the the RPC/DCOM bug has been in Windows for about 8 years means nothing, right?
I see that now you're adding "deflect and change subject to Microsoft" to your spin routine.
I don't blindly trust Microsoft, either.
At the very least, I wouldn't make a fool out of myself trying to protect Microsoft from bad press - like you're trying to do for GNU.ORG.
I didn't claim that you did. js1138 did and I corrected him. And then you butted in with a smear on GNU code. If your intent was to correct my statement, you might want to work on your delivery. If your intent was to smear OSS, your delivery was right on.
What you failed to tell js1138 and everyone else was that FTP.GNU.ORG is indeed home to important Linux code.
One more time, since you seem too stupid to understand it. I'll try small words this time.
GNU code is not Linux code.
Linux distributions usually use GNU code, but Linux isn't the only user of GNU code.
FreeBSD used GNU code.
Debian, a Linux distribution, has an option to install BSD userspace code instead of GNU code.
GNU code, while important, is not Linux.
Get it yet?
..And, if a trojan had been inserted into GCC, then Mach and Hurd kernels would have been affected.
Care to tell me why?
The vast majority (>99%) of Linux distributions are GNU/Linux. Torvalds uses GCC. Spin that.
Today. That could change tomorrow.
Again, you're spouting misleading and incorrect information. Microsoft Office isn't used to build Windows binaries. It isn't a compiler. Fair enough. Let's say Windows and Visual C++ then. Still the same story. Related, yet different products.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.