O Linus Torvalds, criador do  núcleo do sistema operacional Linux, concedeu uma excelente entrevista  para o Simple Talk. Equilibrado e profissional como de costume, muito lúcido, Linus fala sobre os problemas causados pelas atuais patentes na área de software, Microsoft e sua relação com softwares open source, Ubuntu e o futuro do Linux. Vale a pena mesmo ler essa entrevista e acompanhar o trabalho de Linus.

Clique aqui para ler a entrevista.

To anyone that has not heard of the pwnie awards you should know that (at least in my opinion) it is all very light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek humor. Quite honestly, it is probably the closest we will get to a comedy component of what would otherwise be just a huge gathering of security geeks. To that, I applaud the guys that put it together and run it.

Yes, we poke fun at vendors...

Yes, we give awards to people that can't accept them... (I'd love to see someone from the "mass-0wnage" category get on stage and claim responsibility for the storm worm)

...but in the end I think its mostly just to unwind after a week of pretty serious brain-info-cramming.

So, I have mixed feeling that Linus got lumped into the "Lamest Vendor" response. On one hand I totally understand and agree with where he is coming from and on the other, I think it is a bit of a cop-out. Here is the quote:

"So I personally consider security bugs to be just "normal bugs". I don't cover them up, but I also don't have any reason what-so-ever to think it's a good idea to track them and announce them as something special."

Security problems are bugs. Regardless of which way you slice it. That buffer overflow or memory corruption is essentially something a programmer missed somewhere, whether it be in syntax or error checking - leading to an immediate crash, or a slightly more benign problem with the algorithm they developed for a problem that leads to unintentional memory leaks or a host of other issues. In the end, someone forgot something and there needs to be a change in the code to correct it -- otherwise known as a "bug."

Here is where I find issue though... security vulnerabilities *are* a special class of bugs and that has to do with consequence. From Linus's perspective his goal is to have a 100% functioning system in 100% of situations, so a security bug is just simply a problem that must be corrected to get as close to that goal as possible.

And here is where I make my point:

Lets take an example of an airplane. In one instance you have a problem or a "bug" that causes all hydraulic systems on the plane to fail and causes the aircraft to crash. In another instance you have a similar problem that causes the sweet, old woman in aisle 4 to not be able to recline her seat all the way while in transit. Certainly someone could not look at those and say "well, they are both just bugs that need to be worked out." One is obviously going to have more impact as a whole than the other...

There is a lot more to this discussion... probability of such an event occurring, the impact when it does -- and a host of other mathematical and philosophical discussions that consulting companies have been trying to figure out and monetize (unsuccessfully) for years. But we won't get into that here...

In the end I hope for a couple things... A) That people will not blow this award up into a big "us against the kernel devs" war of words... B) that Linus and the kernel dev team will realize the importance of classifying these bugs and prioritizing them higher (or at least letting us know about whats going on a little more) and C) that Linus, the kernel dev team and all other developers realize how difficult we *know* it is to write solid code, how much pressure they are under to meet deadlines (and how a lot of companies don't care about how good it is as long as it works) and how much we just want to separate the good developers from the bad to make everyones lives a little easier...

here is what I am just dying to know...what do you think? personally, i don't find his comments very christian, (i believe he called them "masturbating monkeys) but I do find his words poignant and quite funny.

opinion time: we all know Linus has the platform and definitely the audience for statements like these, but does he have the right?

Linus Torvalds, the creator of the operating system phenomenon Linux, tells the story of how he went from writing code as a graduate student in Helsinki in the early 1990s to becoming an icon for open source software by the end of the decade.

In a missive on the Linux kernel developers' mailing lists Thursday, he called OpenBSD fans "masturbating monkeys" who focus on security "to the point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them." Today in the same venue (but quoted from a different site because ... well, that's where I found it first), he poked fun at Digg users: "PS. And to get wider distribution for this message: Digg users - you're all a bunch of Wanking Walruses. And you can quote me on that." That got him 1071 Diggs ... or over 400 less than the OpenBSD comment received.

Wanking Walrus ... gods, don't let Mark Shuttleworth hear that or he'll use that for the April 2009 release of Ubuntu.

Vi segnalo un bel flammone (la news è apparsa anche su Slashdot) in cui Linus Torvalds espone il suo pensiero circa bug, security bug e mondo che ruota attorno alla cosiddetta sicurezza informatica.

Lo scambio di mail è piuttosto lunghetto e mi permetto di riassumervi il Linus-pensiero che trapela da esse (spero di non tralasciare qualcosa di importante... ^^ ).

Il padre del PinguinoOS:

• non vede la necessità di essere prolisso nei changelog del kernel quando si parla di bug di sicurezza. In altre parole vorrebbe evitare di aggiungere informazioni così esplicite da permettere a qualunque script kiddie in circolazione di fare una ricerca con grep in un changelog, trovarci dentro un codice di exploit, copiarlo&incollarlo per attaccare macchine a destra e a manca;
• afferma che un bug "di sicurezza" è un bug come tutti gli altri e va sistemato ("fixato") esattamente come tutti gli altri;
• detesta che qualcuno, trovando un bug "di sicurezza" passi per eroe mentre chi lo sistema non goda di altrettanta fama;
• non vede di buon occhio il mondo della cosiddetta "sicurezza" reputandolo come un qualcosa orientato/legato alle pubbliche relazioni;
• ...

Tuttavia credo che il top lo raggiunga con la frase seguente che mi permetto di non censurare, per non rovinarvi il sorriso (o la rabbia). :P

NOTA: data la presenza di alcune paroline "non troppo carine" nella citazione qui sotto, forse è meglio se metto il bollino: siete avvisati... :P

Security people are often the black-and-white kind of people that I can't stand. I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating monkeys, in that they make such a big deal about concentrating on security to the point where they pretty much admit that nothing else matters to them.

Premetto che concordo sul fatto che, benchè siamo nell'era di Internet ossia dei computer interconnessi, i cosiddetti bug di sicurezza, non siano per forza più importanti di altri bug "comuni" e quindi li si debba per forza trattare come "primi della classe".

Trovo inoltre ridicola quella specie di smania generalizzata di scoprire (senza nemmeno fixare, magari) un qualche bug "di sicurezza" per acquisire lo status di "ben conosciuto esperto di sicurezza" (sbaglio?).

Detto cioò, devo però ammettere che apprezzo lo sforzo di chi cerca e, se può, fixa un qualunque tipo di bug, compresi quelli "di sicurezza". Quindi la frase sugli sviluppatori di OpenBSD mi pare un po' ingenerosa (e un po' troppo offensiva per poterla passare come la solita "boutade"/sparata-ad-alzo-zero di Linus), anche solo per il fatto che uso quotidianamente il "loro" pargolo OpenSSH e lo trovo fantastico.

Probabilmente Linus voleva semplicemente restituire pan per focaccia alle frecciatine nemmeno troppo velate di de Raadt su Linux (anch'egli notissimo per lo scarso senso di diplomazia)...

Ciao. :P

Artikel asli bahasa inggris dari sini(Linus) & sini(Dmitry).

Di situs aslinya terjadi perdebatan sengit antara Linus Torvalds dengan Dmitry Kakurin.

Berikut adalah hasil transalasinya:

Linus:

C++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.

C++ adalah bahasa yang parah. Hal ini bertambah parah dengan fakta bahwa banyak programmer yang tidak memiliki standar menggunakan C++, kalo boleh jujur saya katakan bahwa jauh lebih mudah menghasilkan sesuatu yang tidak berguna dengannya(C++). Sebetulnya, bahkan seandainya C tidak dapat melakukan apa-apa, tetap saja programmer C++ akan tersingkir. Itulah alasan terbesar untuk menggunakan C.

In other words: the choice of C is the only sane choice. I know Miles
Bader jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
to the conclusion that any programmer that would prefer the project to be
in C++ over C is likely a programmer that I really *would* prefer to piss
off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.

Dengan kata lain: memilih C adalah satu-satunya pilihan yang sehat. Saya tahu Miles Bader pernah bercanda dengan mengatakan "to piss you off", tapi itu memang yang sebenarnya. Saya berkesimpulan bahwa programmer yang lebih menyukai mengerjakan proyek C++ dibanding C itu benar-benar programmer yang saya lebih suka dia pergi, jadinya dia tidak datang dan mengacaukan proyek yang sedang saya kerjakan.

C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

C++ benar-benar membuat pilihan desain yang sangat... sangat... buruk. Anda akan memulai dengan fitur library tanpa variasi yang "manis" bawaan, seperti STL dan Boost dan juga omong kosong lainnya yang bisa "menolongmu" untuk memprogram, tapi malah menyebabkan:

- Banyaknya rasa sakit saat omong kosong tersebut tidak jalan(dan siapapun yang mengatakan padaku bahwa STL dan terutama Boost adalah stabil dan portabel hanyalah omong kosong yang bahkan tidak lucu)

- Pemrograman abstraksi model yang tidak efisien dimana selama dua tahun kamu akan menyadari bahwa ada abstraksi yang tidak begitu efisien, tapi seluruh kode mu bergantung kepada semua model objek di sekitarnya, dan kamu tidak bisa memperbaikinya tanpa menulis ulang program mu.

In other words, the only way to do good, efficient, and system-level and
portable C++ ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
basically available in C. And limiting your project to C means that people
don't screw that up, and also means that you get a lot of programmers that
do actually understand low-level issues and don't screw things up with any
idiotic "object model" crap.

Dengan kata lain, satu-satunya jalan untuk melakukan dengan baik, efisien, dan level sistem dan C++ yang portabel berakhir dengan membatasi dirimu dengan semua hal yang pada dasarnya ada di C. Dan membatasi proyek mu dengan C berarti orang itu tidak kacau, dan juga kamu akan melihat banyak programmer yang benar-benar mengerti masalah-masalah low-level dan tidak mengacaukan pemikirannya dengan omong kosong "objek model" idiot itu.

So I'm sorry, but for something like git, where efficiency was a primary
objective, the "advantages" of C++ is just a huge mistake. The fact that
we also piss off people who cannot see that is just a big additional
advantage.

Jadi maaf saja, tapi sesuatu seperti "git", dimana efisiensi adalah tujuan utama, "keuntungan" dari C++ hanyalah satu kesalahan besar. Fakta tersebut juga membuat kami mengusir orang yang tidak bisa melihat tambahan keuntungan yang begitu besar.

If you want a VCS that is written in C++, go play with Monotone. Really.
They use a "real database". They use "nice object-oriented libraries".
They use "nice C++ abstractions". And quite frankly, as a result of all
these design decisions that sound so appealing to some CS people, the end
result is a horrible and unmaintainable mess.

Jika anda menginginkan sebuah VCS yang ditulis dengan C++, bermainlah dengan membosankan. Sungguh, ia menggunakan "real database". Ia menggunakan "library berorientasi objek yang manis". Ia menggunakan "abstraksi C++ yang manis". Dan sebetulnya hasil dari semua keputusan desain-desain ini terdengar begitu menarik bagi beberapa orang, dan hasil akhirnya adalah mengerikan dan kekacauan tak terkendali.

But I'm sure you'd like it more than git.

Linus

Kemudian jawaban dan bantahan dan Dmitry Kakurin:

As dinosaurs (who code exclusively in C) are becoming extinct, you
will soon find yourself alone with attitude like this.

Sebagai dinosaurus(yang cuman menggunakan C secara eksklusif) yang akan punah, anda akan segera menemukan diri anda sendirian dengan sikap seperti ini (sombong - frozen_x).

Measuring number of people who contributed to Git is incorrect metric. Obviously C++ developers can contribute C code. But assuming that they prefer it that way is wrong.

Dengan mengukur banyaknya orang yang berkontribusi kepada Git adalah pengukuran yang salah. Jelas developer C++ bisa memberikan kontribusi kode C. Tapi mengasumsikan bahwa mereka lebih menyukai hal itu adalah kesalahan.

I was coding in Assembly when there was no C. Then in C before C++ was created. Now days it's C++ and C#, and I have never looked back. Bad developers will write bad code in any language. But penalizing good developers for this illusive reason of repealing bad contributors is nonsense.

Saya sudah pernah koding dengan Assembly sebelum adanya C. Kemudian dengan C sebelum diciptakannya  C++. Sekarang dengan C++ dan C#(C Sharp - frozen_x), dan saya tidak pernah melihat ke belakang. Developer yang buruk akan menulis kode yang buruk dengan bahasa apapun. Tapi menghukum developer yang baik untuk alasan yang dibuat-buat ini adalah tidak dapat diterima.

Anyway I don't mean to start a religious C vs. C++ war. It's a matter of beliefs and as such pointless. I just wanted to get a sense of how many people share this "Git should be in pure C" doctrine.

--

- Dmitry

Bagaimanapun, saya tidak ingin memulai perang "religius" antara C vs C++. Ini adalah masalah kepercayaan dan tidak berguna. Saya hanya ingin tahu berapa banyak orang berbagi tentang doktrin "Git seharusnya hanya menggunakan C saja".

--

-Dmitry

Setelah mbaca ringkasan debat di atas pandangan gw terhadap Linus rada berubah, disamping gw emang ga' terlalu suka Linux(Just Windows or Apple ^^). Kesannya Linus itu programmer yang "konservatif" yang ga' bisa menerima modernitas dan menganggap hal baru merusak prinsip-prinsip lama.

Tapi mungkin juga dia ngomong kayak gini karena kapasitasnya yang semua orang tau(meskipun ga' perlu sampe ngerendahin C++ dan penggunanya). Kalo yang ngomong orang awam yang belum pernah ngebuktiin dan menghasilkan apa-apa mungkin akan lain ceritanya, mungkin udah dicerca abis kayak salah satu thread di forum ini.

Hmmm... Gw jadi penasaran gimana tanggapan Bjarne Stroutrup(pembuat C++) tentang diskusi ini. Tunggu az kelanjutannya, insya Allah. Baik tanggapan langsung maupun tidak langsung akan di post di sini, sekali lagi insya Allah.

Frozen X note: O iya, maaf kalo nerjemahin bahasa Inggrisnya acak kadut, kalo misalnya kesalahannya masih bisa ditoleransi dan ga' mengubah latar belakang atau jalan cerita harap di abaikkan ya. :oops:

Pentru multa lume cuvantul "Linux" suna a ceva misterios, ceva care e folosit doar de informaticieni si hackeri experti.Nimic mai neadevarat,  Linux-ul din ziua de azi este destul de asemanator cu sistemul operativ Windows®, asta in ceea ce priveste aspectul grafic. Este adevarat ca Linux este un pic mai complex decat  Windows®, dar odata probat o sa ramaneti incantat de prestatiile pe care vi le ofera. De ce sa folositi Linux? Imi trec prin minte o gramada de motive din care o sa amintesc doar cateva:

• Pretul. Totul este gratis, orice program se poate descarca sau instala cu un coste zero. Este ideal pentru a fi folosit in scoli sau universitati cu un mare numar de calculatoare datorita costului redus care il presupune instalarea si intretinerea sistemelor Linux.
• Securitate. Este mult mai sigur ca si Windows®, aproape ca nu exista virusi pentru Linux iar putinele "gauri" de securitate care se descopera sunt reparate foarte repede.
• Stabilitate. Cand o sa folositi Linux o sa vedeti ca sunt foarte rare cazurile in care acesta se blocheaza, dovada ca in ziua de azi 80% din servidoarele web din toata lumea folosesc Linux ca plataforma, iar mari companii ca IBM, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Novel, Oracle il folosesc in sistemele lor.
• Compatibilitate. Se poate instala pe o mare varietate de hardware: computere personale(PC, MacIntosh si PowerPc), telefoane mobile, computere de buzunar, videoconsolas(XBox, Play Station 3, Play Station Portable, Dreamcast...).
• Upgrade. Linux se misca foarte repede, nucleul este deja la versiunea 2.6 si se inbunatateste constant pentru a suporta hardware nou.
• Personalizare. Mii de programe, aplicatii, gadgeturi sunt disponibile gratis pentru a face Linux sa arate asa cum vrei tu.
• Utilizeaza putine recursuri. Ruleaza bine pe calculatoare vechi, nu are nevoie de hardware foarte performant, pentru a-l proba puteti sa folositi vechiul calculator care zace aruncat intr-un colt.

Pentru cei care nu au vazut inca Linux in actiune:

Cool, nu?

Daca v-am starnit curiozitatea si vrei sa simtiti pe pielea voastra ce inseamna Linux puteti sa va descarcati un LiveCd , va recomand Knoppix pentru usurinta cu care recunoaste hardware sau Gentoo pentru flexibilitatea care o ofera.

Ce este un LiveCd? Un LiveCd nu este altceva decat o distributie Linux functionala 100%, fara a fi nevoie de a instala nimic in calculatorul in care il probam. Avem nevoie doar de un calculator care poate boota de pe un cd(majoritatea pot). LiveCd-ul foloseste memoria RAM a calculatorului pentru a instala un "hard disk virtual" care emuleaza un hard disk normal. Nu va fie frica sa probati in orice calculator, cand o sa-l restartati totul o sa fie exact ca inainte, LiveCd-ul nu modifica nimic din configuratia originala.

Acelora care vor sa incerce o instalare reala le recomand sa inceapa cu Ubuntu, o distributie cu instalare grafica si care vine cu un desktop foarte complect si usor de folosit.Succes!

Linux-2.6.26 include anche novità sul versante hardware: oltre all’ingresso di un driver migliorato per web-cam UVC troviamo infatti anche una versione aggiornata del Direct Rendering Manager per schede ATI e Intel (con supporto iniziale all’accelerazione 3D su schede ATI R500), modifiche per supportare in maniera migliore l’OLPC e una prima implementazione di 802.11s (reti wireless mesh).

Il changelog in versione “umana” è disponibile su KernelNewbies.org mentre l’annuncio ufficiale di Linus può essere letto su LKML.org.

[via: phoronix.com || ossblog.it]

2. Un amic, plecat în State la muncă pentru două luni, se simte rău acolo. Suferă de depresie albastră. Îmi e milă de el, cum îl pot ajuta?

3. Un amic, plecat în Anglia la muncă, nu a rezistat. Nu îmi pare rău de el. Cum nu îl pot ajuta?

4. În Finlanda, Raikkonen e zeu. Linus Torvalds, nefiind extrem de spectaculos, nu se pune cu băieții cu ochi albaștrii. Speed sells...

5. În Quebec, anul trecut nu a fost nici o crimă. De curând, românii, se pare că nu vor mai avea nevoie de viză pentru Canada. La cât de liniștiți sunt chebecoazii, oleacă de sânge proaspăt nu o să le strice activitățile culturale intense și plicticoase din cele 10 luni de iarnă pe an.
Români, vitalizați Canada. Canada, pământ românesc.

Visto l’andazzo è possibile che venga rilasciata almeno un’altra release candidate prima della versione finale, il cui arrivo è previsto comunque entro poche settimane. L’annuncio di Linus è disponibile su KernelTrap.

[via: ossblog.it]

*La última, tomando en cuenta el año y dependiendo del punto de vista, no parece tan loca...

Fuente: Lalo's Web

I really like this list of the top-ten Linus Torvalds' quotes, as compiled by Computer Business Review. Linux is Linux in large part because Linus is Linus: A strong personality but disarming and approachable.

That latter attribute plays out in my top-two favorite quotes:

Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100 mph.

And...

When you say, "I wrote a program that crashed Windows," people just stare at you blankly and say, "Hey, I got those with the system, for free."

Classic.

But, I'm still a beginner when it comes to C++. I did lots of object oriented programming with Turbo Pascal 5.5 and later, back in the '80s, but since then, it's been a diet of pretty much strictly C.

One thing I'm finding to be a bit odd about C++ is all the little things it does behind the scenes. Mainly, constructors, and destructors, and esp. the copy constructor, which isn't exactly behind the scenes -- you may have to write it, without being explicitly told that you need to write it. For instance, if your object contains pointers which get allocated at certain points, and deallocated in destructors, well, if you want to use the STL containers, e.g. vectors, or maps, or what have you, then you had better write a copy constructor which allocates those pointers in the copy, and copies the contents of those pointers. This was a bit of a worrisome eye opener. In C, you're used to being in complete control of memory allocation. The compiler won't allocate anything for you automatically, or deallocate anything for you automatically. So, you know, if you've got an allocation problem, it's because of something you did. With C++, there are these implicitly called constructors and destructors, which, I'm sure, once you get used to them, are fine. But, in the mean time, I've got this nagging doubt: Am I aware of every implicit allocation and deallocation, and how they all interact? I feel much less confident about the correctness of my program. About 1000x less confident. I don't know what I don't know.

It also strikes me that this object oriented model imposes a penalty in complexity. For example, in C, it is easy to add "helper functions" to decrease the complexity of any given function -- basically pulling some middle part of a function out and making it its own separate function. In C++, this is more difficult. You generally have to add a new member function, perhaps private, change the header file, etc. It feels like a much bigger change than corresponding change made in C. A bigger lift, more effort required.

Also, code reuse -- in its simplest form -- is discouraged by C++. In C, since functions aren't so tightly coupled with the data structures they work on, as they are with C++, it's generally easy to take a chunk of code from a C program and re-use it, in cut-n-paste fashion, in another C program. If you try this with C++, you find that you have to either, extensively edit the function, including the interface, in order to extricate it from the class within which it resides, or b) find that it relies on other classes to such a degree that trying to reuse it requires that you suck in all these other (for your new purposes) unrelated classes and header files in an ever exploding network. At this point, you realize the C++ code you're really trying to reuse is useful only as pseudo code to use as a guideline in your own re-write of the code. Now, I can hear all the C++ programmers whining that code reuse shouldn't be about cutting and pasting. I've got Donald Knuth on my side though:

I also must confess to a strong bias against the fashion for reusable code. To me, "re-editable code" is much, much better than an untouchable black box or toolkit. I could go on and on about this. If you’re totally convinced that reusable code is wonderful, I probably won’t be able to sway you anyway, but you’ll never convince me that reusable code isn’t mostly a menace. -- Donald Knuth

Also, I've noticed that about half the complexity of the program seems to be artificial, invented complexity introduced by the language. You spend a lot of time trying to figure out how you're going to model the problem -- even a simple problem -- in C++, as objects, etc., designing interfaces, etc. -- all this complexity is invented complexity which is added on top of the intrinsic complexity of the problem which you're trying to solve.

Maybe it's my long years of C programming which have biased me, but I find myself agreeing with Linus Torvalds: Here's an interesting google search: Linus Torvalds c++

Edit to add: And, I have seen enough C++ across different platforms to know that STL, the "standard" template library, and Boost are anything but standard. C++, despite being nearly 20 years old now, is a very immature language, by which I mean, the basic features, and the basic libraries C++ programs depend on, are still, even today, in a state of flux. Imagine, if in C, "#include <stdio.h>" could not be depended on. Imagine if some vaguely esoteric language features, like say, the "?" operator, was not universally present? Imagine if the preprocessor kept changing how it handled the #define macro. That's a bit what like C++ was like just two or three years a ago. It is getting better, but it's really still not there. C++, despite being nearly 20, still acts like an 11 year old, a child. You can't depend on it.

Edit again: I should add, none of my recent experience with C++ has made me regret the (admittedly over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek) joke which I invented some time ago. It goes like this:

I don't think the guy who invented C++ knows the difference between "increment" and "excrement."

Akhir-akhir ini anak-anak mahasiswa dah mulai sering browsing alamat yang aneh2 (ni dari segi pengamatanku sebagai asisten lab.). Aneh maksudnya di sini adalah suka nyari situs yang berbau hacker-hackeran… hehehehhehe.. down sana sini soft untuk nyerang jaringan, soft bobol pass (semacam keylogger g2 deh…). Dan yang paling apes, mereka dah berhasil bobol accountku di fs.. (huuu… ketahuan dey?!?!). Dengan niat gak jadi paranoid banget, akhirnya aku ganti user id dan passwordnya (gambar nyeleneh). Huff… untung ja punya banyak mail sana sini. Jadi back up doang, gak dipublikasikan. Biasanya mail ini ku gunakan klo ku mo jadi member sebuah situs dan musti login menggunakan mail. Nah, kerasa banget punya mail back up. Mumpung gratisan.. hehehehehe…

Back to the topic…
Truzz akhirnya aku berpikir bahwa itu adalah cara mereka untuk mencari jati diri, salah satu sarana ekspresi diri, dan dengan tetap membiarkan mereka seperti itu (tanpa niat menjerumuskan mereka), aku yang musti ngejaga keamanan dataku. Jangan sampai mereka mengetahui accountku di Yahoo.. (banyak eR Ha eS nya). Nah, karena hal-hal itu akhirnya aku mencoba untuk bermain di Linux tepatnya Fedora 7. Hmm, namanya newbie, banyak bingungnya. Sedari kenal komputer, bawaannya yah microsoft mulu.

Sekarang lagi belajar akses Linux. Emang seeh, dulu sempat belajar tentang Linux, cuman gak terlalu diperhatiin, yang diperhatiin adalah jam dinding di tembok atas kepalanya Pak Sophi.. hihihi.. kapan berakhir pelajarannya. Sekarang, jadinya musti belajar dari awal lagi. Tetep semangat!!! Yang disenengin dari coba di Linux adalah c anak-anak itu belon dapet cara bobol password di Linux.. hohohohohohoho... untuk sementara, dataku aman nyaman tenan...

Huff..

Linus Torvalds, consultado sobre el título que le gustaría recibir cuando Linux domine el mundo entero respondió “Pingüino Emperador o Cabeza de Alfiler".

Barr preguntó a Torvalds cómo se sentía al escuchar a la gente decir que “Linux es feo". Al respecto, señaló que “Esos serán los primeros en ser enviados al paredón cuando llegue la revolución. Ahí veremos si siguen creyendo que Linux es feo cuando estén llenos de agujeros de bala".

Ante la pregunta “¿Si Linux es tan grandioso, cómo es posible entonces que tenga un TCO (iniciales en inglés de Costo Total de Propiedad), mayor que Windows?", Torvalds respondió que “Supongo que al decir TCO te refieres a “Totally Cool Operation" (algo así como “Operación Totalmente Relajada").

Barr aventuró la siguiente pregunta: “¿Es usted más listo que Bill Gates?", ante lo que Torvalds respondió: “¿Bill qué?.

“He oído que Linux causa cáncer. ¿Cuántas horas a la semana es posible usarlo sin que haya riesgo de contraerlo?", preguntó Starr, y la respuesta de Torvalds fue “Es una sucia mentira. Además, se trataba de pruebas con ratas y nunca se ha probado que ocurra con humanos".

La única pregunta que consideró “demasiado extraña" para responder fue si Linux funciona con la distribución Red Hat (...)

Linus Torvalds es el creador del kernel (núcleo) del sistema operativo GNU/Linux, a menudo llamado simplemente Linux.

"A mucha gente todavía le gusta Solaris, pero estoy compitiendo activamente con ellos, y espero que mueran." (Febrero 1, 2005)

"Brevemente: «di no a las drogas», y tal vez no terminarás como la gente de Hurd." (2001)

"El manejo de memoria del PowerPC puede ser usado para asustar niños pequeños" (1995)

"Me gustaría decir que sabía que esto iba a pasar, que todo es parte de un plan para dominar el mundo."

"Mi nombre es Linus, y yo soy tu dios"

"Realmente, no estoy tratando de destruir a Microsoft. Ese será tan solo un efecto colateral no intencionado." (2003)
Fuente: Entrevista en The New York Times.

"Sabes que eres brillante, pero querrás comprender lo que has hecho dentro de dos semanas". (1995)

"Si compila esta bien, si arranca es perfecto."

"Si piensas que tus usuarios son idiotas, sólo los idiotas lo usarán."
Fuente: [9] Desktop architects - Printing dialog and GNOME

"Si todavía no te gusta, está bien: Es por eso que soy tu jefe. Simplemente sé más que tú." (1996)

"Sólo los débiles hacen copias de seguridad en cintas: los hombres de verdad tan solo suben sus cosas importantes a un servidor ftp, y dejan que el resto del mundo las replique." (1996)

"Solo por diversión."
Refiriéndose a las razones para haber creado un núcleo para el sistema operativo GNU.

"Un número infinito de monos usando el emacs de GNU nunca escribirían un buen programa." (1995)

"Yo no habría tenido que crear Linux si no hubiera habido ninguna demanda contra BSD a principios de los 90. No habría sido necesario."
Fuente: Revista SoloLinux

Fuente: Opinión todo desde mi perspectiva

Enlace: Frases célebres de Linus Torvalds

Linus Torvalds himself went on record last year about how much GNOME sucked and how unprofessional it was, I guess he never saw this:

Is it a Mac? Is it Windows? Is it the bastard child of both of them?

(and yes, I'd love some motor oil in my tea while I'm eating my bread, I'm sure I'll enjoy KDE much better after that)

OK, if it's professional to have all that crap on your computer, if it's professional to rewrite your toolkit every few years and make all apps written for it incompatible with the new version, and require all the libraries from the last version too, and then ship the thing with half the programs written for your last toolkit, then yeah, freaking brilliant.

Did I mention it Krashes? A lot?

KDE used to stand for "Kool Desktop Environment" (seriously), I would say thats because it looks like a 12 year old designed it, but that would disrespect 12 year olds, and I'm just not that kind of person.

Seriously, I tried KDE 4 on Kubuntu and OpenSuse 11, now anything Ubuntu makes is already pretty broken anyway, but I really expected Suse to at least try to make some kind of a desktop out of it, but KDE 4 was equally heinous there too, Konqueror Krashed on me I don't know how many times just trying to get to the OpenSuse wiki to get their one click drivers that turned out to be not so one click, and clicking on the file to download Krashed Konqueror again, but it wasn't just Konqueror, everything is about as stable as a troubled child on cracK, I had to remind myself several times that I was not on Windows Vista, actually Windows Vista is faster and more stable than anything is likely to be after installing KDE 4 on it.

But it's not just the slowness, it's not just the instability, it's not just that it's unprofessional, it's that most of the applications just suck too...

AmaroK: Puhleeze, give me Banshee.

Kopete: Tell it to remember your password, and KWallet will pop up and ask for your password to grant Kopete access to your password, the latest Yahell shenanigans break Kopete so you'll only see about 1/3rd of your online contacts, try logging in with Kopete and Pidgin side by side and see what happens, yeah I know Pidgin doesn't support webcam, but the great thing is that Kopete will pop open a window making you think it's gonna work, then won't let anyone connect, I keep aMSN around cause ironically, Microsoft is the only IM provider that doesn't break Linux/3rd party functionality.

Konqueror: Brain damaged web browser that usually fails to render websites, it's gotten a little better though, at least version 4 doesn't totally hose XBOX Forums and allows me to log in, provided it doesn't crash on the way, still fails to log into my online banking site, even though IE, Firefox, and browsers using the Webkit engine have no trouble at all.

Why does it open binary files that were clearly meant to be downloaded with Kate? (the text editor)

When you change that, why does it open DEB and RPM files with the archiver utility and not the package manager?

Better yet, why does it assume you want to automatically open everything you download? Instant security hazard, just add KDE?

Konqueror has doubled as a file manager for years, just like Microsoft Internet Explorer used to, now they install a second application alongside it called Dolphin, that also is a file manager.....am I missing something?

Does this mean I can uninstall Konqueror and get a real web browser? Nope, Konqueror depends on other KDE packages, wow, thats a shock...

Plasma/Oxygen: Like totally gives you Kompositing support, dragging down performance of EVERYTHING and offering you none of the plugins that Compiz Fusion does for GNOME, oh yeah, and Compiz doesn't turn your Core 2 Duo/Geforce 8 Into a Pentium 90 Mhz.

Yeah, you can get Firefox, but without Qt bindings, it looks like ass.

Konversation, IRC client, can't remember what servers and rooms you want to be in, and instead of being like Xchat, you get to manually join several servers and dozens of rooms.

After using it for 20 minutes, you will never want to see the letter K again.

And will someone tell me what this is?

This screenshot cannot encapsulate what is so evil, aggravating, and mind-numbingly stupid about this menu.

First of all, there's too damned many entries.

Second, it stays the same relative size whether you have a 13" monitor, or a 30", forcing you to do all your work in a little bitty box.

Favorites and Recently Used wouldn't be necessary if they kept a sane, navigable number and type of menu entries, like GNOME does, where you can actually remember where things are and what they're called. (What? No search? But I'm sure it had a K in it. No! Not Kinit!!! Stupid piece of....GAH!)

Although not shown, Favorites brings up your default applications, which in KDE includes Konqueror, which has never been my favorite anything, KDE is even writing Dolphin (think I mentioned that), that works like GNOME's Nautilus file manager, heh funny that...

Red Hat is pretty bipolar, either that or they just pander to both KDE and GNOME camps:

Even though their GNOME edition rocks, I'm not going near KDE again with a 10 foot poking stick, seriously, but they have to slander the Fedora GNOME Compiz settings, I'll put the excerpt here:

"While Compiz and Compiz fusion provide a lot of whiz-bang eye candy, the configuration utilities for them are difficult to use and there is not much integration with the desktop environment. Kwin has grown its own composing manager, as has Metacity, so for now it may be best to leave Compiz to prototype and experiment with new plugins." -http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2008/05/14/fedora-9-and-the-road-to-kde4/

My thinking on this is that Red Hat is throwing a tantrum because Compiz was created by their biggest rival, Novell, and that they're killing two bird with one stone by sucking up to the KDE camp, and anything that replaces Compiz, even Kwin, the insipid little resource draining device masquerading as KDE's compositing manager.

Anyway, I can issue a rebuttal here:

Yeah, thats a brainer man!

What's funny is that Compiz is much more than mere eye candy, it actually has no effect on video gaming, and a positive effect on desktop performance, even on pretty minimal hardware, and yes that is the basic Compiz manager in Fedora, yes, Red Hat's Fedora, and it has quite awesome default settings, there's a compiz-settings-manager package if you want to complicate the hell out of it, but there's no reason to.

The KDE team can keep putting lipstick on their pig, but in the end, there's no place like GNOME:

If Linus Torvalds wants to call me an idiot for just wanting my computer to work, yeah, slap a dunce cap on me, just don't make me use KDE.

http://electoral-vote.com/

Che c'entra con MINIX, il famoso sistema operativo basato su un'architettura a microkernel?

Semplicemente gli autori di MINIX e di electoral-vote.com sono in relatà la stessa persona: il professor Andrew Stuart Tanenbaum, celebre per la polemica microkernel/kernel monolitico avuta con Linus Torvalds, il creatore di Linux.

La cosa interessante del sito, oltre la celebrità del suo autore che nel sito si firma "The Votemaster", è che sembra sia stato particolarmente preciso nelle previsioni nelle elezioni del 2006 azzeccando 33 senatori su 33 (!), quotidianamente aggiornato con i nuovi sondaggi che escono mano a mano che le elezioni si avvicinano.

Per la cronaca al momento (8 giugno 2008) Barack Obama è in grande vantaggio (287 su John McCain a 227), ma la campagna elettorale deve ancora iniziare e il sito è utile per seguire passo passo la sua evoluzione.

PS: "GOP" sta per Grand Old Party, il soprannome del Partito Repubblicano negli USA, "Dem" ovviamente per Partito Democratico e "ties" sono gli stati in bilico.

It took a long time, however, to find a worthy replacement and then equally long to get around to the non-enviable task of migrating my repository (which consists of my entire home directory). A few months ago, however, I took the leap and migrated my entire repository to Git (which actually was surprisingly simple to do and without any hitches at all). After using Git for a while now I can only conclude that all the features that initially attracted me to Git work flawlessly. It's distributed revision control system, where a working directory is a full-fledged repository with complete history and full revision tracking capabilities, not dependent on network access or a central server (in contrast to Subversion where you only checkout the revision you are asking for sans history), is incredibly useful particularly when working without network access (which I tend to do a lot). It's is fast (even large commits are a matter of fraction of a second), the repository is small (the size of my repository went from 16GB under Subversion to less than 7Gb in Git - go figure), and merges are a breeze.

Yet another priceless piece of software from the wetware of Torvalds.

Como nos recuerdan en Barrapunto no es la primera vez que Linus es candidato a este premio cuyos criterios para elegir a los ganadores han sido algo polémicos.

El artículo en el diario asturiano, con algunos errores que no merecen la pena mencionar, aquí.