, 2003-10-15
The open-source community should abandon its piecemeal approach to securing Linux-- and soon.
Expand all |
Post comment
A series of misconceptions
2003-10-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Looking like donkey's
2003-10-16
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Looking like donkey's
2003-10-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
New Editorial Direction for SF?
2003-10-16
Al Franken (1 replies)
Al Franken (1 replies)
New Editorial Direction for SF?
2003-10-16
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
R u sure u r not a donkey yourself?
2003-10-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Wil-E-Coyote bridge design
2003-10-21
DWilliams (1 replies)
DWilliams (1 replies)

but anyway....
What Hal is pointing out, basically, is that evolution rules our ever changing OS world, regardless of update/patch implimentation practice. Doing it right the first time is a great concept for RIGHT NOW fixes, but does little for long term development.
Many have talked about this for a long time, that if it were not for hackers, OS development would never happen. This is what makes open source so amazing. It is, even in it's most confrontational newsgroups, a friendlier world than that of MS.
The factioning of Devolopment avenues and the marking of territory with icons such as Beastie or Tux, or even that limp window thing, identifies with preference, not marketing. It only identifies with marketing if YOU let it.
By moving to industry standards, do we inhibit progress? YES, but to a point. When comparing OS to hardware, you have to keep in mind the Horse, the cart, and load. It is this three layered approach that will keep us thinking, not the two layer that Hal is actually describing.
We cannot make the horse and the cart one item, bound by standard. We need flexibility to inspire development. It is this inspiration that makes our open source world remarkably flixible and enjoyable.
When talking about "hacks", I suspect Hal is refering to the security life. If not for the hacks, development is not spurred. The inspired often sit, dreaming, discussing, and then are stung in the butt, BAM, now they have a reason to bring their dream to life, if nothing more than to say "I told ya so."
This is, and must be a never ending cycle. Why? Easy, because you, I, or anyone can't think of it all, and if we can, then we ARE the donkeys behind. It is the humility of our community that keeps us in check, not the arrogance. It is the arrogance of those who close their world to only their developers that defines just what is a donkeys butt.
All said, I like the article Hal, it is the exact example of how our community works. If this were a MS forum, I would fully expect to get served papers for pointing out freedom.
Axe
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/191/23193#23193