Re: Blocking Gmail ads
2008/5/15 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh@gmail.com>:
> On 14/05/2008, Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> wrote:
>> So you want to have access to the sourcecode od the boardcomputer of a
>> BMW?
>
> That would be nice. I already bought the car, I should know how it
> works, and I should be able to take it to any mechanic (or coder) to
> get it fixed, not just to the original manufacturer, or I should be
> given enough information to fix it myself if I'm so inclined to learn
> about its inner workings.
It's that attitude that brought about the recent openssl issue. I'm
not disagreeing with you, Jordi (actually I agree) but we should be a
tad more trustworthy when modifying something complicated developed by
engineers for a very specific purpose. And a tad more reluctant to get
our own hands dirty.
> Cars used to be like this when they had
> fewer software inside them; mechanics enthusiasts could work on their
> cars and modify them or upgrade them to their heart's content. I
> already bought it, it's mine!
I put a 351W and a T-5 in an '88 Tbird that came with a 2.3 turbo
fourbanger. I know very well what to modify, and how. And I know when
not to. The problem is, that many people don't know where to stop, and
get themselves (and others) into trouble.
http://dotancohen.com/eng/thunderstang.php
>> But you kbnow, that ANY modification in the Electronic or Software
>> will invalid the right to use the BMW public.
>
> That's because our laws are wrong, not because it's inherently
> problematic to modify source code.
That's because the vehicle will be used on a public motorway, possibly
endangering other civilians on the motorway. Also, it possibly
interferes with polution controls.
>> Access to the sourcecode will be a security hole...
>
> Oh, please. You actually are trying to make me believe that security
> through obscurity is a good idea? If I were to modify the source code,
> I could make my car blow up and it's a good idea to keep stupid users
> away from it?
I don't buy this one either. Access to the source code will _prevent_
security holes. Only Ballmer would have you believe differently.
> Freedom to modify code also means freedom to shoot your own feet. I
> demand the freedom to self-mutilation! :-)
Ah, but you forget the responsibility _not_ to harm others. Modding
your BMW might just do that.
>> OH, Airbus is using Linux too... So, do you want to have access to the
>> sourcecode because you are traveling with an Airbus?
>
> In fact, I believe it is available. It has to be anyways, according to
> the GPL. There is no ASP loophole (I assume you are referring to the
> inflight entertainment computers that passengers can use during some
> flights).
Where in the GPL does it state that the applications running on Linux
must be open source. The OS is open source. The inflight entertainment
application running on top of it may or may not be.
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Reply to: