forcefsck

I wish I could up-vote you a thousand times.

Stallman is much more respectful and polite to a person who was neither of them to many.

So many see Steve Jobs as just a success story, fitting so well to the "american dream". They miss the fact that his success comes in expense of our freedoms.

To all who rant about Stallman's statements. Is it really so important to be politically correct (act according to taboo's, be pretentious, neutral or even just trendy), instead of being sincere and tell the raw truth as it is?

Simple and to the point. Couldn't agree more.

"Democratic" governments with good deals for their oil companies and bad deals with their people.

Anonymity as "Anonymous Coward", someone on the internets with zero credibility said you were a bad student. Thanks to google super search powers, I know who you are, I'd certainly never hire you.

Anonimity as "Certain Nickname on g+". Nobody knows his real name, but everybody knows his avatar and nickname and his real religious/political views. He has a certain credibility based on past facts. When I find hin irl, I'll kick his ass for insulting my believes.

No anonimity, as we "know exactly who he is". He always posts about mainstream music and funny catz. He is a joy, always contributing positively in our community.

You made a decision that it hasn't worked (yet). It doesn't necessarily mean that it was a/the wrong decision, only one without the expected outcome. You are only 20, really, you are still just a kid, it's kind of offensive for older guys like me to hear you say you're so depressed. Like the rest of us, you will make some steps in your life that will lead you to a dead end and you will have to go back and start over again. You are stressed now? Wait until you have a wife and kid and risk more than your lifestyle with your decisions.

Decisions that don't work out great are not bad. Decisions that harm other people are bad, like suiciding, killing or stealing. And have inmind that people that support you through whatever, are your real friends.

Quiting your job might mean that you have guts or that you are naive. In both cases, you are too young to blame and you have a lot more to try out before your life ends.

> I think it's pretty telling that tablet computers have existed for ... what, 15 years? And that tablet computing didn't take off with consumers until iPad.

What is pretty telling is that although the first versions of apple's products are inferior in comparison with contemporary alternatives, and more expensive, people still rush to buy them because Jobs' face is in their advertisement. That was his charisma.

It's no secret that Jobs was a terrible boss, treating inhumanly his employees. He did exploit his friendships (duh). He used patents extremely to not let any room for other innovators of his time to have a chance on creating something better or more competitive. And he certainly knew that his products were made from children working all day in Chinese factories, but of-course that didn't matter much to him.

Vanity was clearly his drive. His goal was not to change the world or provide a better user experience, whatever happened there was just a side effect from his desire to be the "I win everything suckerz" guy.

And despite all this, you start a rant because Stallman expressed his opinion for Jobs sincerely and not in a politically correct way. Whatever criticism you have for FSF, it is a truly positive force on this planet. For what was the true influence of Jobs, that is very debatable.

> but the computers I have used, the smartphone I own, the tablet I will eventually get, the world I will live in 20 years from now, probably would not exist if it wasn't for Steve Jobs.

This is such an overstatement. What makes you so sure that Jobs had a positive influence on the world? You can't tell if in his absence something better would evolve. Not all his ideas were originall nor all the inventions were his own. And more importantly, neither was a better world his goal.

I see him more as a vanity figure and his contribution way overestimated. Sorry, if you had an image o Jobs running in a green forest along side with unicorns and rainbows, my opinion differs.

yes?

> No, this was a feature. It had been safe in the days of static libraries, it became a problem when the LD_something family of variables was introduced.

So? Still a bad design in the telnetd's part. If it wasn't LD_ variables it would have been something else eventually.

> So there definitely exists a family of exploits that rely on bypassing the usual checks on LD_PRELOAD (_and_other_similar_variables_)...

Yes, ofcourse, every issue of environment mishandling would lead the exploiter to utilize LD_PRELOAD, it's the easiest but not the only way. Even without LD_PRELOAD, those bugs would still be a liability for compromising security or normal operation of the system. And just like any part of any OS, ugly bugs will come up now or then.

But it is far too much to compare the casual use of LD_PRELOAD to the brain damaged/stupid handling of dynamically loading libraries Microsoft's Windows have. Actually, LD_PRELOAD is a needed feature (eg. for binary package distribution) that at least provides one layer of protection, it is the opposite of blindly loading any library found in non system folders.

So, again, the exploit was that a telnet session was exporting environment variables. LD_PRELOAD_PATH was just a way to take advantage of the telnetd exploit, which might not be the only way. I think that naming it "The LD_PRELOAD_PATH exploit" is just misguiding.

The thing is that someone has to execute some code to change it, and if so then malicious code has already been run. By then it is irrelevant if LD_PRELOAD_PATH will be used or not. If I trick you into running 'rm -fR *', does that count as an exploit?

Except that LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not a type of exploit and shouldn't be mentioned as such.

This is my QotD today.