[gentoo-amd64] Re: MAKEOPTS values for Athlon 64 X2

[Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>]

"Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> posted
200701181712.53640.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de, excerpted below,
on  Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:12:53 +0100:

> So much text from you, but where is the 'I was wrong, sorry'?
> 
> Even if nvidia should have recognized the bug as a serious problem the
> moment it was reported, they delivered the bugfix in 3 month, 3 days
> after they got informed that it was security problem.  And they did not
> 'cover it up'.

If I am demonstrated to be wrong, I say it, but it hasn't happened here. 
It WAS a security vuln, and as any such unhandled crash from native code,
they should have treated it as a potential security vuln from the moment
the found it until it was fixed or proven otherwise.

As for time to a fix, the point is, regardless of how long it actually
took, if the software master (see the sig) has respect for his users and
makes source available, any user can either create a fix or arrange for it
to be created.  As it happens, in something that widely used, precisely
/because/ the source is available, a decent share of such bugs (which we
both agree happen in all non-trivial software) in the FLOSS community are
fixed in rather LESS than "three months, three days". However, that's
beside the point, since any user of such software who thinks such bugs
aren't being turned around in a timely enough manner can arrange for a fix
themselves, or simply apply a patch if someone else has already done so. 
Since it was slaveryware, that option wasn't available and a slave subject
to master NVidia's whims and decisions on timing, unable to take their own
needs and priorities into consideration and arrange for a fix sooner if
they thought necessary, is /exactly/ what the users were. 

What if NVidia had taken a year to come out with a fix?  What if they
decided it wasn't worth their trouble and never came out with a fix?  If
it's Free software, there's an alternative, should the user wish to avail
themselves if it.  With slaveryware, that's exactly what the user is, a
slave to the whims of the software's master.  I make it a point to no
longer be a slave to the whims of the masters of the code I run.  That
doesn't mean you have to, it just means I do.

As for using the term slaveryware in my posts... You don't tell me how I
feel about the software I believe is slaveryware and label it so in my
posts, and I'll not insist you call it slaveryware in yours.  After all,
if you find my choice of terms offensive, you don't /have/ to read them. 
There /is/ this thing called a killfile, should you find it necessary to
use.  Call it heavenlyware in yours if you wish.  Deal? =8^)

(Oh, and backing someone into a corner by demanding an apology doesn't
tend to be a very effective way of actually getting one.  Let's not make
this too personal, and agree that we /can/ disagree.  It's not as if the
world comes to an end because of it, after all. =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list