Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

linuxfr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#31

Post by javanix »

blub wrote: post #24
javanix wrote: post #22

Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head. For someone who is not a native English speaker, Linus really has an awesome way with words.

He doesn't have a way with words unless "being rude" now means "having a way with words". Furthermore, his statement is logically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect): the sense of right and wrong is a general human trait, independent of race or culture. It can be altered by nurture, but it transcends it. One can very well use it as an argument for why somebody else should or should not do something. e.g: One shoul…

Well, by Linus' definition I would say this sort of attitude falls directly under "sanctimonious dick-head".

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#32

Post by Luyt »

The interviewer states, citing Lennart Poettering:

"Linux is the focal point of all Free Software development"

...which is of course bullshit (pardonnez-le-mot ;-). Look at all the open source applications and servers that are developed nowadays. Look at the BSD projects! Free (as in Freedom) Software is not confined to the linuxsphere.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#33

Post by blub »

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #29
blub wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't have a way with words unless "being rude" now means "having a way with words". Furthermore, his statement is logically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect): the sense of right and wrong is a general human trait, independent of race or culture. It can be altered by nurture, but it transcends it. One can very well use it as an argument for why somebody else should or should not do something. e.g: One shoul…

> the sense of right and wrong is a general human trait, independent of race or culture. If you're talking about the fact that every culture has notions of right and wrong, yeah sure. If you're saying that what is right and what is wrong is universal and not cultural ... Well where to begin Some of thoses traits are shared amongst most cultures (Murder is wrong, incest is wrong), but even there there are exceptions (…

I'm saying that the notions of right and wrong come firstly from our human nature, secondly from our society and so on. Last in this list is ethics as personal preference or "something private" as Linus likes to call it.

And even if it does vary wildly in current cultures, there is such a thing as a sense of morals that we can combine with rational thought to reach a fair solution. The fact that culture A considers ritual murder ok fails this morals + rational though test.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#34

Post by galactus »

blub wrote: post #24
javanix wrote: post #22

Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head. For someone who is not a native English speaker, Linus really has an awesome way with words.

He doesn't have a way with words unless "being rude" now means "having a way with words". Furthermore, his statement is logically incorrect (the best kind of incorrect): the sense of right and wrong is a general human trait, independent of race or culture. It can be altered by nurture, but it transcends it. One can very well use it as an argument for why somebody else should or should not do something. e.g: One shoul…

You are being downvoted only because you are criticizing the god-like-status Linus Torvalds.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#35

Post by jrockway »

tzs wrote: post #28
javanix wrote: post #22

Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head. For someone who is not a native English speaker, Linus really has an awesome way with words.

"Dick" is a common nickname for people named "Richard". Considering who is most well known for making ethics arguments in the FLOSS world, could Linus be perpetrating a pun here?

Probably not.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#36

Post by dkarl »

So the first and the very negative answer is that I absolutely despise the people who try to push the GPL as being about "ethics". I think that's absolute bullshit. Why? Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head.

Good lord, so we're supposed to take an interest in ethics privately but never speak about it publicly? Almost everything I believe about ethics comes from processing other people's ethical ideas, and the same is true for Linus, I'm sure. I personally don't think less of anybody who uses an MIT or BSD license instead of the GPL, but I do think less of Linus for declaring ethics to be an unsuitable topic for public conversation, simply because he can't stand to hear people disagree with him or disapprove of him.

Not to mention he is a brazen hypocrite. He broadcasts his opinions about other people's behavior, calls them dickheads, and says he despises them, because it's inappropriate for them to talk about how other people should behave. Sorry, Linus, it's hard to be more of a sanctimonious dickhead than when you're calling someone else a sanctimonious dickhead.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#37

Post by jrockway »

smanek wrote: post #10
pmjordan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-signed certificates don't prevent MITM attacks on connecting unless you've transmitted the certificate securely out-of-band and installed it in the client's browser. (which practically never happens with sites on the open internet) They only prevent tampering with the connection once it's established. The browser should jump up and down when encountering such a certificate as it's exactly how an attempted MITM a…

Granted, it doesn't provide as much protection as a cert signed by a trusted CA - but it's still far more protection than plain HTTP, right? e.g, Firesheep wouldn't work I don't know if browsers do this, but in principle they could even notify the user on certificate change, so the MITM would have to be on the first connection to a site.

Firesheep would work.

The attack is more involved than just openly sniffing packets. You need to poison the DNS cache on the victim's machine, so that facebook.com resolves to you. Or, you need to poison the ARP cache, so the victim machine thinks that you are the router. These are both easy to do, though, and once you've done that, then you are a man that's in the middle, and MITM attacks are easy under those circumstances.

"ettercap" is a program to automate this technique to spy on SSH, HTTPS, etc. Works quite well.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#38

Post by burgerbrain »

dkarl wrote: post #36

So the first and the very negative answer is that I absolutely despise the people who try to push the GPL as being about "ethics". I think that's absolute bullshit. Why? Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head. Good lord, so we're supposed to take an interest in…

Has Linus ever claimed to not be a dickhead? Quite the opposite I believe....

Gotta say though, I do agree with his point. People who cram their ethical systems down other peoples throats are dickheads. Am I automatically a dickhead myself for calling people out on this? So be it, I can live with being a dickhead to that degree.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#39

Post by burgerbrain »

goldmab wrote: post #27
wladimir wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the warnings are only shown once. Once you import the self-signed certificate into your keystore, it never bothers you again (unless the certificate changes). This is the right workflow you should follow with self-signed certificates, it is similar to SSH. You need to accept the certificate once. After manually verifying it is the right one, you're even more secure than trusting on a CA...

It's a usability problem. Firefox (at least 3.x) does a full-on freak-out if the cert is untrusted, despite the fact that the site is no more unsafe than an unencrypted website. Your statements about what should happen are only true if you are requiring encryption for everything that you do. On the web, it's assumed (although most people don't actually know this) that your information is not secure unless you see the…

Ah, but HTTPS with unsigned certs are less secure than plain old HTTP.

Or more accurately, for all intents and purposes they are exactly as secure, but carry an unearned sense of security. Unjustified senses of security are a very very dangerous thing.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#40

Post by dkarl »

burgerbrain wrote: post #38
dkarl wrote: post #36

So the first and the very negative answer is that I absolutely despise the people who try to push the GPL as being about "ethics". I think that's absolute bullshit. Why? Because ethics are to me something private. Whenever you use it as an argument for why somebody_else should do something, you're no longer being ethical, you're just being a sanctimonious dick-head. Good lord, so we're supposed to take an interest in…

Has Linus ever claimed to not be a dickhead? Quite the opposite I believe.... Gotta say though, I do agree with his point. People who cram their ethical systems down other peoples throats are dickheads. Am I automatically a dickhead myself for calling people out on this? So be it, I can live with being a dickhead to that degree.

The perception of "cramming" is Linus's problem. The concrete complaint he makes (before his blanket statement that ethics should never be discussed publicly) is that people "push" the GPL as being "about 'ethics.'" Well, that is nothing about Linus, it is about the GPL, so he can't even claim it's personal. Plus, it's a reasonable opinion to have, especially since the person wrote the GPL did so to promote certain ethical considerations. It is Linus's fault that he is so sensitive that he can't abide somebody having an opinion that the GPL has an ethical side to it.

Then he goes on to say, "I really want to point out that it's not that the license is somehow ethical per se." So it's okay for him to have and express an opinion on that question. The hypocrisy is really thick there.

And here's the question that prompted that response: "Do you agree that there is an ethical content in the GPL?" Hardly a pushy question, and the interviewer practically apologizes before he asks the question. So no, there is no cramming, there is just a person who is extremely sensitive on an issue and responds to a polite question with an insulting rant about civility. There is nothing cool about that. He isn't dropping his brilliant technical judgment on an unsuspecting noob who will be better for it in the long run. It's just unpleasant behavior to no useful end.

Post reply on HN