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

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#41

Post by goldmab »

burgerbrain wrote: post #39
goldmab wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly what I said. But if the browser doesn't show any indication that it's secure, the problem doesn't exist. The way some browsers behave, there's a very strong implication that a website with a self-signed cert is more likely to result in your information being stolen than a website with no encryption. And that's not true.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#42

Post by burgerbrain »

dkarl wrote: post #40
burgerbrain wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion (with regards to the GPL even!) and I'm sure that if you honestly look at yourself, you'll find you are too.

All this said, he's literally just saying that people who cram the GPL onto other people because it's more "ethical" are dickheads. As far as I can tell, he's not doing that himself, and he's not attempting to imply that the questioner was doing it either. Rather, he just isn't kidding himself, and recognizes that the reason the question is being asked is because there are certain "high profile" people who have made it a full time hobby to do such cramming. He wishes to make it clear that his reasons for using the GPL are purely pragmatic, not quasi-religious.

To be honest, at this point it really just seems like you are attempting to be contrarian.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#43

Post by naner »

benhoyt wrote: post #23
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.

At least it's clear what he's saying, but I was surprised at this -- it puts Linus well and truly in the postmodern camp. He says ethics are completely relative and personal. (Which of course is not the case: if I try to kill someone, the cops aren't being "sanctimonious dick-heads" when they stop me.) Anyway, all this is off topic, but I was just surprised at Linus's relativism when he seems so "absolutist" about ma…

He says ethics are completely relative and personal.

No. He did say ethics were personal but ethical relativism was not even hinted at. Those two ideas are not interchangeable.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#44

Post by burgerbrain »

goldmab wrote: post #41
burgerbrain wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly what I said. But if the browser doesn't show any indication that it's secure, the problem doesn't exist. The way some browsers behave, there's a very strong implication that a website with a self-signed cert is more likely to result in your information being stolen than a website with no encryption. And that's not true.

If the browser (or even the URL that got the user there) even so much as shows the string "https", that is a form of positive feedback. The only responsible way for a browser to act is to give a strong negative feedback, to more than offset any potential positive feedback.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#45

Post by javanix »

galactus wrote: post #34
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…

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

No, he is being downvoted for calling people who disagree with the following logically 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.

That sounds a lot like most theology I've heard, and I suspect that the HN crowd is not one that puts a whole lot of stock in theology.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#46

Post by goldmab »

burgerbrain wrote: post #44
goldmab wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I said. But if the browser doesn't show any indication that it's secure, the problem doesn't exist. The way some browsers behave, there's a very strong implication that a website with a self-signed cert is more likely to result in your information being stolen than a website with no encryption. And that's not true.

If the browser (or even the URL that got the user there) even so much as shows the string "https", that is a form of positive feedback. The only responsible way for a browser to act is to give a strong negative feedback, to more than offset any potential positive feedback.

Chrome (in some situations, I forget which) puts the "https" in red and strikes it through. The implied message: this is HTTPS, but it's broken or bad.

The important thing here is that a browser can do something like this without interrupting something that the user actually cares about with an annoying message. Annoying messages are bad.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#47

Post by aliguori »

blub wrote: post #33
Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

Even within a single culture, it varies widely. Just in the US, look at the opposing views toward capital punishment.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#48

Post by DisposaBoy »

benhoyt wrote: post #23
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.

At least it's clear what he's saying, but I was surprised at this -- it puts Linus well and truly in the postmodern camp. He says ethics are completely relative and personal. (Which of course is not the case: if I try to kill someone, the cops aren't being "sanctimonious dick-heads" when they stop me.) Anyway, all this is off topic, but I was just surprised at Linus's relativism when he seems so "absolutist" about ma…

And the cops aren't there to stop you based on ethics. In fact, they have no right to stop you on ethics.

EDIT(oops accidentally pressed send), anyway...

They're there to stop you based on applicable laws, the minute you start to base such things on ethics is the minute you become vigilante.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#49

Post by galactus »

javanix wrote: post #45
galactus wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, he is being downvoted for calling people who disagree with the following logically 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. That sounds a lot like most theology I've heard, and I suspect that the HN crowd is not one that puts a whole lot of stock in theology.

If I understood right, he is just saying that moral capacity is innate. This seems to me pretty obvious.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#50

Post by burgerbrain »

goldmab wrote: post #46
burgerbrain wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the browser (or even the URL that got the user there) even so much as shows the string "https", that is a form of positive feedback. The only responsible way for a browser to act is to give a strong negative feedback, to more than offset any potential positive feedback.

Chrome (in some situations, I forget which) puts the "https" in red and strikes it through. The implied message: this is HTTPS, but it's broken or bad. The important thing here is that a browser can do something like this without interrupting something that the user actually cares about with an annoying message. Annoying messages are bad.

Annoying messages are good when it is vital that the user be annoyed (read: informed).
Post reply on HN