Jeff writed:> On Fri January 25 2008 02:39, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:
Brian Raiter writed:
I won’t presume to speak for the average user, but one of the reasons
I use Unix is because the absence of worms and viruses that plague the
system,
That IS pragmatic, but why not choose some other random criterion
for deciding whether or not a hopeful program gets to cavort in
the Elysian Fields of your ubuntu box?
That’s hardly a random criterion. To anyone who does serious work with a
computer, it’s an extremely important criterion.
Maybe, but we’re talking about games, remember?
I think my point still stands.
RF
Just because it’s extremely important for those who do serious work doesn’t
mean it’s unimportant to those who only play games. I don’t imagine game
players relish having their machines trashed or personal data stolen.
On the other hand, different strokes… It’s your machine. Let us know how the
game plays. Just keep in mind that the author of the game is someone whose
emails I never see because they are (for reasons I won’t go into here)
deleted at my ISP’s mail server. You might want to look through the SDL
mailing list archives for the last 5 or 10 years for ahem “messages” posted
by this individual and decide for yourself if you’d want him to, as you put
it, “cavort” in your computer.
JeffOn Sat January 26 2008 15:24, Rhythmic Fistman wrote:
That’s hardly a random criterion. To anyone who does serious work with a
computer, it’s an extremely important criterion.
Maybe, but we’re talking about games, remember?
I think my point still stands.
It’s not so much that proprietary software does trash your system, as that it can, and it can a lot more easily if you can’t look at the code for yourself and determine it’s safe. (On the other hand, how many people actually do that? I only ever look at the code for something if I’ve already noticed that there’s a bug in it and I don’t want to wait for the developer to fix it themselves.) But considering that Linux does a much better job of sandboxing applications than Windows, I’d tend to agree with you that this is mostly an irrational fear. Mostly. No security is perfect, afterall.
Paradoxically, Linux’s strength is also a weakness in this area. Because it’s inherently a very secure system, there hasn’t been all that much in the way of security software (antivirus, etc.) written for it. (The small user base doesn’t help either.) So if something does go wrong, you’ve got a heck of a time setting it right again.
I don’t get your argument. Your claim seems to be that proprietary
software, by its nature, will trash machines or steal data, which
certainly
isn’t typical. (You’ll have to provide some good evidence along with
that
big claim). Another claim of yours seems to be that propriety software
isn’t or shouldn’t be used for “serious work,” which is also easily
refuted.
It can, and is being used for serious work every day.
Open-source (“Free”) software is great, but there is no need to attach
any
sort of religious zeal with it… It makes people say irrational
things.
Free software does have considerable, specific benefits over propriety
software, but your claims do not rationally embody those benefits.
Chaz
PS- If I didn’t trust the author, I wouldn’t run it whether it was Free
or> proprietary.
I don’t get your argument. Your claim seems to be that proprietary
software, by its nature, will trash machines or steal data, which certainly
isn’t typical.
That wasn’t my claim at all. Either you misunderstood or I didn’t make myself
clear.
My point is that running binaries from a source you have no reason to trust
and indeed may have reason to be wary of is dangerous, and no sensible person
would do so.
Another claim of yours seems to be that propriety software
isn’t or shouldn’t be used for “serious work,”
I never made that claim.
Open-source (“Free”) software is great, but there is no need to attach any
sort of religious zeal with it…
Please, let’s not bring in that old religious zealot straw man argument.
There’s nothing at all religious about being cautious or using common sense.
Think Godwin’s Law and try to avoid jumping to conclusions.
PS- If I didn’t trust the author, I wouldn’t run it whether it was Free or
proprietary.
I agree.
JeffOn Sat January 26 2008 19:45, Charles McGarvey wrote:
If you make “it” become “having source code available” (because that’s what
we were talking about), it reads:
Inaccurate translation. I use Mathematica, for example, and I don’t have the
source code. But I trust Wolfram to not intentionally muck with my computer.
This discussion was about running a binary from someone whose integrity,
IMHO, is questionable. Not essentially different from opening an email
attachment from someone you don’t know.
Either way, my “religious zeal” assertion is hardly a straw man;
Yes, it is. You make inaccurate assumptions about the other person.
it’s an accurate
description of the type of people trying to argue Free software via
irrational arguments.
No, it’s not. That argument says “anyone who disagrees with me is irrational”.
You are again making unwarranted assumptions. The world isn’t all black and
white.
This discussion is getting increasingly off-point for the SDL mailing list. If
you can’t reason about, instead of just react to, what I’ve said, then as far
as I’m concerned this thread is over. If you wish to continue a rational
discussion, please contact me off list.
JeffOn Sun January 27 2008 09:10, Charles McGarvey wrote: