Posted on 08/15/2003 10:30:34 AM PDT by HAL9000
I didn't imply that. Perhaps the linux kool-aid has left you bitter and paranoid. :-) Try going cold turkey, and re-read.
However, your post that said:
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.
... implies that this is some benign ftp site with no bearing on the linux kernel, which is both "inaccurate" and "misleading".
Although your post would have us believe that we should "keep moving, nothing to see here.", GCC is one of the most important aspects of Linux - It's used to compile the kernel, and therefore it can effect the kernel executable regardless of whether the kernel source is hacked. Therefore, a trojan inserted into GCC could have wide-reaching and terrible effects. GNU.ORG was VERY LUCKY that this inside hacker lacked the necessary skills to embed a trojan payload into GCC.
However, none of this did happen, and waving the FUD flag doesn't change that fact.
GNU.ORG was VERY LUCKY that this inside hacker lacked the necessary skills to embed a trojan payload into GCC.
There you go again.
OMG! With a little more skill ANYONE could hack GCC! OMG!
The process of having MD5 sums available and widely distributed allowed the FSF to determine whether anything had been trojaned. If it had been, it would have been detected and replaced.
The reason that we can move on, instead of having to shut down the site and change it's name, is that there was a process in place to minimize the damage from such an attack.
I didn't say that GCC was hacked. I merely posted the truth - that a hacked FTP.GNU.ORG had the potential to affect core linux and server apps.
And it was obviously necessary to point out that your attempt to sweep this under the rug (the opposite of FUD) was "inaccurate" and "misleading".
But you didn't say that it wasn't either, leaving room for questions in the minds of people that read your post. And this is in spite of the fact that gcc is known not to be hacked.
That would be like me saying, "TheEngineer was seen driving in the general direction of 29th Street, a place known for it's street-walking hookers," while knowing that you were headed to the grocery store.
And it was obviously necessary to point out that your attempt to sweep this under the rug (the opposite of FUD) was "inaccurate" and "misleading".
Only obvious to you. The FSF hack has been well-publicized, as has the results of the investigation. It doesn't need you to cheerlead it, especially if you're only going to tell part of the truth.
Telling half of the truth, especially when it has the tendency to be a smear job, is no better than flat out lying.
I didn't imply that it was hacked, so why would I?
Your original post bears repeating:
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.
You didn't mention that GNU houses GCC. Telling half of the truth, especially when it has the tendency to be a sales job, is no better than flat out lying.
Yes, you did. Which I have pointed out to you. And you seem to be in denial about it.
You didn't mention that GNU houses GCC. Telling half of the truth, especially when it has the tendency to be a sales job, is no better than flat out lying.
The post that you refer to was a response to js1138's post, where he erroneously indicated that the hacked site was the Linux development server. It was not, I said so, and then you jumped in.
The reason that I didn't mention GCC was because I the original discussion was about core Linux software.
Spin all you want, but GCC is not Linux and the conversation was about Linux. GCC is a GNU tool. The Linux kernel is usually compiled with GCC, but it isn't mandatory. The Linux kernel can be compiled with CC (the BSD compiler,) the Intel compiler (and often is on new Intel platforms such as Itanium and Xeon,) Borland's C compiler and various other proprietary C compilers. Once GCC came into the conversation I did post a link to the entire story, unlike some other person.
The facts of the matter are:
You changed the direction of the conversation from Linux to GCC
You told only the bad part of the story and left the implication hanging that something might be wrong with GCC.
I merely filled in the rest of the story (the part that you convieniently left out) and admonished you to tell the whole story next time. For some reason, this bothers you.
Well, flipping the light on bothers cockroaches too, but I can't help that either.
No I didn't.
"Star Wars Mind Control" doesn't work on me. But I have heard that it works on "the community" when Richard Stallman makes his decrees.
Look, I wrote what I wrote - and it was 100% true. Attempts to take what I wrote (which everyone can read) and decide what I really meant (but didn't say) are just futile spin attempts - just like your original inaccurate and misleading post:
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.
Bush2000 predicted that "the community" would brush this one off with a "move along... nothing here to see". I just didn't think it would happen so fast.
"Usually"??? That sounds like inaccurate and misleading spin again. 99.99% (or greater) warrants an "almost exclusively".
Intel's C++ Compiler costs $399 per seat plus $199 for each of Intel's performance libraries. It's not open source. And yet you'd have us believe that the "linux community" cheapskates go out and buy this? They wouldn't... Stallman wouldn't allow it.
You changed the direction of the conversation from Linux to GCC
GCC, GNU and linux are inseparably intertwined. GCC is used almost exclusively to build the kernel. It's what Linus uses. You can't spin it away.
Pure sophistry at its very worst.
"Best" is a very simple thing to recognize and comprehend whether on a golf course of in the field or computers and computer software.... unless, of course, the person trying is a moron.
No other company can match their innovation and innovation is recorded in profit as a function of ROI amd market share....
Only the bewildered, the computer illiterates, and the uninformed say they are just zeros...
Now it is true that they aren't at the top in every field...yes..but for what most people use they are a mazarati race car in the hands of simpletons who can't use it properly.....
People love to complain but simply don't understand how the mechanism of the software on their computer works....trying to play a Steinway piano without any music lessons
But....Have a nice day
Not once have I said that what you said wasn't true.
What I did say was that what you intentionally left out gives your statements a different spin.
You know, when you take the stand in a court of law, there's a reason that they have you swear to, "Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
It's that "whole truth" part that you seem to be a little fuzzy on.
The BSD cc compiler is free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-freedom. I've used it several times to build linux binaries. Even the kernel.
And yet you'd have us believe that the "linux community" cheapskates go out and buy this?
Would RedHat or SuSE go out and buy it? Yes, they would.
They wouldn't... Stallman wouldn't allow it.
You've just outed yourself as an anti-open source troll.
Back under your bridge.
ROFLMAO! It's hilarious to watch you squirm.
Let's review your post again...
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.
Obviously, what you left out gives your message a different spin. And obviously, that is inaccurate and misleading. It's much more accurate with my addition...
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. [... like "gcc", the C compiler used to build the kernel and used to build most major server apps like Apache, etc...]
Factual information is just too easy to come by to be papered over by spin, half stories, and false reassurances from "the community".
You windows apologists are really lucky that none of these worms that are still out there feeding on windows users hasn't really been as destructive as they could be. It would have been really easy to make this worm attempt to infect computers for a few days and then fdisk the hard disk. If the virus writer had been smart enough to put an entry in the hosts table for the microsoft update site that pointed to 127.0.0.1, most windows users would have not been able to get the patch. It was also really stupid for the virus to force a reboot, as that was a telltale clue that something was amiss. If a reboot was necessary, it should have just waited until the user rebooted on his own as is an extremely common occurrence on windows boxes.
Like I said, y'all have been extremely lucky that the virus writers didn't really intend widespread damage.
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.