but seems like the everestUNCENSORED has CENSORED the message, nepbabu's message doesn't appear there.. have a look.. http://www.everestuncensored.org/archives/opinion/000529.html
if they have really deleted this message, this is gross!!! On 7/28/07, Shishir Jha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Probably the article in the everestuncensored was a result of threat that > the closed source programmers are feeling from their counter part - the open > source. And I totally agree to nepbabu's answers to their stupid queries > > Good one, hope they get the message too > > On 7/28/07, Ujwal (RUBBOT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Wow Wow Wow.. > > This is the biggest slap.. aah .. > > > > Regards > > Ujwal > > nepbabu.cx wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > There seems to be a noise going down at the everestcensored blog. > > > I wanted to share what I wrote :) > > > > > > --------------- > > > > > > "What a load of crap!!..from a cheapo!! you want everything to be Open > > > > > Source and probably Free.. you FOSS maniac.. Softwares should never be > > > Open Source as it beats the purpose.. because they will never be > > > documented in a " > > > > > > This statement is coming from whom ? Bill Gates? > > > This kind of statement are everyday remarks I see on Slashdot, digg > > etc... > > > I find this to be a fallacy because it explicitly tries to compare > > FOSS > > > to proprietary software and prove (without references and historical > > > data) that proprietary is the way to go. But let me walk you through > > > some of the key points about foss software. :-) > > > > > > First of all, if a programmer doesn't want to look at the source code, > > > > > he/she ISN'T a programmer! Maybe they should altogether change their > > job > > > to maybe Chef or something. Rather than being a SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. > > > > > > In open source world, code itself speaks as a documentation. This is > > > Bazaar style of development. This is what makes FOSS Programmer better > > > than ANY propreitary programmer (this is a gross generalisation let me > > > remind you) > > > > > > "specialized manner and most of the people who customize don't follow > > > coding standards." > > > > > > Oh, you are now talking about coding standards ? haha.. Coding > > standards > > > should be OPEN and PUBLISHED. What coding standards are you talking > > > about? ISO? NIST? or that university level coding standards called > > > "XP/Incremental development" or is it "Unified process"? If a coding > > > standard is local to a company, you can't expect that same level of > > > standard amongst international open source developers. It'll by far be > > > > > more sophisticated and well developed in the case of Open source > > > software development. Beat me to it! > > > > > > "Firstly, it is not possible to understand design pattern and > > > architectural style from codes. Codes are implementation of Design. " > > > > > > YES, you can understand design patterns et. al from codes. That is > > what > > > REVERSE ENGINEERING is. Everyday, open source programmers have proven > > > this! Open source programmers DO NOT, yes! DO NOT have access to > > source > > > codes of proprietary systems (drivers, some binary blobs and > > > compatibility layers like nvidia's display driver), yet they do > > REVERSE > > > ENGINEERING solely based on blackbox, input-output bound executions > > > using OPEN SOURCE Tools and methodology. If you care to look at the > > > myriad of tools available to them, you'll know about it but no one can > > > come to you and stuff it in your brain for you. > > > [search terms, hexdump, pax, valgrind, strace, ptrace, gdb] > > > > > > "So when the Design Documents are not understood, its better to leave > > > the development to the big boys.." > > > > > > Who are the big boys ? The propreitary system developers ? hahah.. > > These > > > I find are baseless arguments based on a very small view of the open > > > source by someone [it seems] who is not even .01% sure what open > > > philosophy is. > > > > > > "Secondly, the only mechanism for hackers to uncover vulnerabilities > > is > > > to perform black box testing.. if they had the code, think what kind > > of > > > viruses they would be able to create?? There was a project some time > > > back to create " > > > > > > Getting access to source code DOES NOT CREATE VIRUS! > > > Getting access to source code instead provides more careful > > observations > > > by thousand and thousands of people who test that software. In effect, > > > that software becomes better in terms of stability. By the stupid > > > argument you've made, if you care to look at the algorithms available > > > for myriad of open source crypto, they are published and available to > > > study and use. Yet, only time shows how strong they have been. There > > > have been numerous bugs filed, patches released and the development > > just > > > goes towards greater heights with 1000 and 1000s of prying eyes and > > > eager programmers trying to break the system and then share the > > > results. Academics have long followed this way and it'll continue that > > > way even if closed source company disagree. That is how we do in > > > Gnu/Linux world. We get the source, compile it and make it to work for > > > > > ourselves. If we find some bug, we try to file a bug and if we can, > > > release a patch fix for everyone. > > > > > > "open source anti-virus program.. Some beta testers were able to > > create > > > test viruses which the anti-virus was never able to detect.. because > > > they knew the working of the AV.. think about it again!!!!" > > > > > > So, whats the point ? There are so many closed source antivirus > > > companies developing software exploits, does that make them criminal? > > > No! They are merely trying to foolproof their antivirus tools. If you > > > look over at clamav project, you'll see that volunteers send in sample > > > of a virus which upon recieving are carefully tested against the > > latest > > > virus database, they then merge it with the next release of virus db > > > which means beneficial for everyone. > > > > > > Crackers, no matter what will always exist. The whole argument of > > > avoiding cracker is impossible. In other words, software companies who > > > > > try to prevent crackers are trying to make it harder&longer for > > crackers > > > to crack it but this is something that depends on their strategy. That > > > has no effect on open source world. Internal workings of a system > > > should be published, that way, an normal users knows how it works. And > > > this is the purpose of USER MANUAL! > > > Foss softwares are not the total solution but it is real solution to > > > specific problems that exist today with proprietary softwares. > > > Hope you get that right before you post "Foss maniacs" the next time > > > without that touch of judgement and hey hope this also leads you to a > > > path of enlightenment. > > > > > > Lastly, if you want to know how it all works, I invite you to join > > > http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal > > > > > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ FOSS Nepal mailing list foss-nepal@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
