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

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#51

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#52

Post by edw »

I'm always struck by how down-to-earth and pragmatic Linus is, compared to a lot of the Linux peanut gallery. One thing in particular made me very happy: He sees Linux as a Unix, and not some "Unix-like" operating system.

(Yes, let the lawyers and marketing droids point out that "UNIX" is a trademark of the Open System Group and that no Linux distribution has been registered as comformant to the Single Unix Specification, but that doesn't change the reality that Linux is a Unix.)

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#53

Post by zurn »

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #30
benhoyt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To reiterate, even if murder is universally considered as being wrong, other issues such as property, copyright, profit and a lot of other things are treated extremely differently in different cultures. So it's as easy to find something we all mostly agree on (murder) than something we all mostly disagree on (property). Also taking the murder example is quite dishonest. Linus wasn't talking about murder issues. He wa…

He's a US citizen now so it's called targeted killing when it's not wrong :)

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#54

Post by dkarl »

burgerbrain wrote: post #42
dkarl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

Not, not really, I just accept that there are people out there expressing opinions about how I should live and that there's no way for me to shut them up. "How many times do I have to express my opinion before those dickheads stop expressing theirs?" is a natural feeling when a controversy drags on longer than one feels it should, but it is counterproductive to express that feeling as if it were an argument. (Also, personally, I don't think the free software ethic is something that ought to go away, even if I don't follow it myself.)

There are undeniably people who do what can only be realisticly described as "cramming" their ethics systems.

Most controversies include some number of unpleasant people. If we let that affect how we respond to polite questions from polite people, we become part of the problem. If you said something to me about the U.S. occupation in Iraq, would it be constructive for me to respond by complaining about the conduct of various people who have expressed similar opinions?

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#55

Post by riffraff »

Raphael_Amiard wrote: post #30
benhoyt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To reiterate, even if murder is universally considered as being wrong, other issues such as property, copyright, profit and a lot of other things are treated extremely differently in different cultures. So it's as easy to find something we all mostly agree on (murder) than something we all mostly disagree on (property). Also taking the murder example is quite dishonest. Linus wasn't talking about murder issues. He wa…

FWIW, even killing people is/was considered acceptable: if the victims have property X where X varies between having the wrong race, being the firs born girl, being physically impaired, being sentenced to death, being a sacrificial offer and plenty more.

Re: Linus Torvalds Interview for LinuxFR

#56

Post by [deleted] »

jrockway wrote: post #37
smanek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 circum…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN