So there's been one article that is mildly (to put it nicely) critical of rms about the ShellShock exploit and this guy blows a gasket calling thousands of people clueless assholes?
He needs to grow up.
Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
51–60 of 107 posts
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to say, it's ironic that weev is feeling offended by mild criticism though. Given he ran the GNAA to deliberately offend , it seems a little rich that he is so upset.
You're missing the point. The GNAA is built to offend worthless parasites who contribute nothing to the world. Social justice whiners, socialites, et al. Such garbage deserve no respect. Stallman is the antithesis of worthless parasitism. Stallman spent his entire life selflessly giving to the world, and the world gave him nothing but disdain in return. He's truly a prophet, like Diogenes or Ezekiel. He deserves resp…
How is a "socialite" and "social justice whiner" different from "free software whiner"? Idiot.
Also, RMS is a socialist if you read more of his writings. So you should go die.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#53I stopped reading at, "a__holes".
Mr. Auernheimer needs to learn to write like an adult if he wants to be taken seriously.
This is plain garbage. An adult is not necessarily seriously and nobody needs to learn to "write like an adult".
There are more "adults" using the internet then _placeholder_ and nobody ever told me I should take the internet seriously.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that then an argument against using free software? If the best way to have secure software without being a security expert is to use proprietary software, then that is what we should encourage. FOSS advocates make the opposite argument that FOSS is more secure because there are more eyes on the code.
Proprietary software gets compromised all the time. In serious ways. A simple example is the sheer number of bank websites which get taken down, and then we all yell at the guy who discovered it to absolutely not disclose it for fear of prosecution. The point is, when FOSS software has a bug, there's no small set of developers who are responsible. It's, in some small way, collectively all our faults. Like in the case…
> Proprietary software gets compromised all the time.
All software gets compromised, all the time. Compromise rate has a lot more to do with the number of users than whether that software is open or proprietary.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#55What does Shellshock have to do with RMS? RMS didn't author Bash. And I can't see any Shellshock related RMS bashing. So why the angry post?
The Guardian seem to have chatted to RMS as the most prominent advocate of free open source software.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#56So is it wrong to criticize bad code for being bad if it was written by Mother Theresa? I think that if code is bad, it should be pointed out. Some will take it as bashing. Doesn't matter. We all want to run well written, secure software. When you're getting exploited, it doesn't matter if the code was written by a saint.
What you're missing here, is that bash wasn't the software with an error. It's like you use ice cubes for building a house, observing your house is melting and then blaming the developers of ice cubes for making such horible building blocks. Ice cubes were never meant to be used to build houses with.
Nobody knew BASH enumerated every environment variable and - depending on its content - maybe evaluated part of it for immediate execution.
It wasn't documented and it wasn't expected. It's not part of the expectations people have for a POSIX shell.
In your metaphor, it's more like the ice cube manufacturer has been making brick-shaped ice cubes and selling them through building suppliers, and they've been widely used as a building material for many years and the ice cube maker has never said anything about the slight risk of it melting at room temperature.
What you're arguing is that bash is not and was never a solid POSIX shell.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you're missing here, is that bash wasn't the software with an error. Is the FSF wrong for issuing a statement which says A major security vulnerability has been discovered in the free software shell GNU Bash. The most serious issues have already been fixed, and a complete fix is well underway ? I think you missed the news that there's a bug in bash. And if you're making the argument that bash should've not bee…
Think of it this way. Say that a car manufacturer builds a car for city driving and doesn't warrant or recommend it's use for off roading. However it just so happens that the car is tough enough that it makes a good offroader anyway and soon people start to buy the car for the express purpose of offroading even though the manufacturer does not recommend this use. Some time later it becomes apparent that there is a we…
Except the FSF never said anything like "Please don't use bash for CGI, it's not secure enough". If they had, then they would have to recognize that bash is not secure enough for other uses as well.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you're missing here, is that bash wasn't the software with an error. Is the FSF wrong for issuing a statement which says A major security vulnerability has been discovered in the free software shell GNU Bash. The most serious issues have already been fixed, and a complete fix is well underway ? I think you missed the news that there's a bug in bash. And if you're making the argument that bash should've not bee…
Think of it this way. Say that a car manufacturer builds a car for city driving and doesn't warrant or recommend it's use for off roading. However it just so happens that the car is tough enough that it makes a good offroader anyway and soon people start to buy the car for the express purpose of offroading even though the manufacturer does not recommend this use. Some time later it becomes apparent that there is a we…
Except that, in a world where Unix systems are almost exclusively used to handle network traffic, that off-road usecase should probably be considered the default. They've been selling city cars in a country that doesn't actually have any paved roads.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mr. Auernheimer needs to learn to write like an adult if he wants to be taken seriously.
Stopping reading because someone said something offensive is not an adult behaviour, so the irony here is palpable. Read the fucking article.
The problem is not being offensive but being childish. The vocabulary used gives you a hint about the level of arguments you are about to read, and if you read the rest of the article, you realize that the author of the post is indeed quite immature.
Re: Dear clueless assholes: stop bashing bash and GNU
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well. blip because it'll be fixed and we'll move on. It's not a game changer, it's a (major and very problematic) temporary annoyance.
I have to say, it's ironic that weev is feeling offended by mild criticism though. Given he ran the GNAA to deliberately offend , it seems a little rich that he is so upset.
weev's fame and notoriety is based on not only offending but also direct harassment, often of people who could not fight back. He's a classic bully & troll, and his opinions on this matter cannot be taken seriously.