The parable of Yelm
Posts: 440
Once upon a time, and far far away, there was an industrious village of gossips, called Yelm. The villagers of Yelm loved to laugh--- especially at each other. All the inhabitants of Yelm lived in gaudily painted little cottages, built by a handful of traditional cottage makers.
But not all was well in the village of Yelm. The village was being terrorized by a band of rapists and thieves. Every night, the villagers went fearfully to bed, and every morning, they heard new reports of the latest outrages. Soon some estimates suggested that one home in ten had been robbed--- or worse. The worst thing of all were the rumors which hinted that the victims of these crimes became zombie slaves which did the bidding of the gang of thieves.
Now, the most common type of cottage, made by the Guild of Bill, had pretty windows, which had the odd feature that they could not be locked. The worried villagers protested: maybe the rapists were getting in that way? But the Guild laughed at their fears. "Don't worry, they said, the Emperor of our cottage industry knows more than you do, and He has proclaimed that there is absolutely nothing to worry about!". But still the rapes continued.
Bye and bye the Guild introduced a new type of cottage which featured attractive floor to ceiling picture windows, which in fact were sliding glass doors. But these too could not be locked. Some of the more outspoken villagers dared to ask: "Shouldn't these sliding doors have locks?" But the Guild snorted in disgust, saying "Oh, shush! Trust us, we know far more than you do about these matters!" The Guild instructed the villagers to purchase charms made cheap and sold dear at the Market of the Bill. "Hang these little charms from your eaves and they will protect your home", they declared--- "as long as you buy new ones every day", they added.
But still the rapes continued. Some villagers hinted darkly that it seemed to matter little whether one was robbed by the rapacious thieves or scammed by the Guild: the end result was still that the victims lost everything.
Another type of cottage, much less common, was made by a carpentry cooperative, known as the Secret Brotherhood of Tux. The villagers who had purchased Tux homes regarded themselves as the only inhabitants of Yelm with any sense, and they laughed long and loud at the laments of the victims of the gang of thieves. The brotherhood stoutly declared: "Our homes have no windows--- no rapists can harm us!" But bye and bye it became clear that Tux homes were not in fact immune.
Some Tux members wondered: our cottages have no windows, but they have doors aplenty; surely these doors should have locks?" But the other Tux members laughed, saying, "Locks! Schmocks! We have no windows--- therefore we need no locks!"
Soon the desperate victims declared their intent to burn their own pillaged cottages in order to break the zombie hex, and to purchase new homes from the close-knit Clan of Steve, But the Guild of Bill and the Brotherhood of Tux sniggered derisively, knowing any cottage was now too expensive for these newly impoverished homeless villagers of Yelm.
One victim crept up a nearby hillside and prayed to gods in which he did not really believe, pleading with them to save the village before it was too late. Far below the villagers looked up and saw the kneeling supplicant in silhouette against the setting sun. Poking each other's ribs, they laughed at this strange sight.
I am seeking information; does that make me anti-open-source?
Posts: 440
Hi, GreyGeek,
I have responded in the "Hacked or Paranoid" thread to your comment on my post there. I am too depressed by what I read here and there to keep up the parable--- I apologize to those who have apparently been enjoying our brief foray into creative fiction--- but I guess I am glad that at least I have finally gotten someone's attention.
Obviously, we have gotten off on the wrong foot, and since I really do need some help (and I suspect I am not the only one) from people like yourself, I'd like to start over if you are willing, and to start a meaningful dialog.
First, it is pretty obvious from your own parable that you suspect me of being a Microsoft operative. I don't know how I can possibly disprove that to everyone's satisfication, but I expect that a bit of clarification will dispell this suspicion, at least for (how ironic!) the less paranoid members of this forum.
I am not employed by Microsoft and I don't know Bill Gates. I am acquainted with some people who work for Microsoft, but this certainly does not mean that I am a mouthpiece for any person or organization. In fact, I am not. I have never worked for Microsoft, for Bill Gates, or (as far as I know) for anyone or anything closely associated with him, and I can't forsee any circumstances in which I ever would do so. No-one has paid me (or will pay me!) one cent to write anything in this forum (or any other such). And if I have left anything out of this litany of denials, it is only because I have overlooked something, not because I am trying to parse my words. I hope this will suffice to convince most readers than I am not acting as mouthpiece for anyone or anything, although I do see myself as speaking out on behalf of befuddled home users everywhere.
In fact, my security concerns, which I already explained as briefly as possible in the other thread--- not the first time I have tried to summarize them in this forum, incidently--- are genuine concerns, and not, I think, as unreasonable as you seem to have assumed.
As for my "suspiciously" deficient patriotic fervor: you apparently guessed, correctly, that unlike many in this community, I am not particularly anti-Bill. I am aware that he does seem to be responsible for a deplorable coorporate culture of plunder and rapine at Microsoft, and that many people who know him quite well seem to regard him as semi-monstrous, but I also have the impression that marraige and fatherhood have mellowed him, and I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of his recent social initiatives. I do think I understand why so many in the open-source community are so suspicious of possible hidden motives in his charitable activity; as the aformentioned Balmer incident currently in the news shows, the Empire that Bill Founded continues to habitually engage in deception, manipulation, intimidation, and so on.
While I am neither particularly anti-Bill or pro-Bill, it would probably be fair to regard me as anti-Microsoft; in fact, since I don't allow Microsoft products near my machines (as far as I can easily ensure, anyway), I am probably much less willing than most here to bow down to Redmond. But I am not rabidly anti-Microsoft either; if Microsoft ever showed serious signs of adopting a less nasty corporate culture, I at least would probably be cautiously receptive to overtures from Redmond to the open-source community. (Again, speaking as a linux user who is constantly trying to learn more about my linux system, not a programmer or developer.) Yes, they certainly spoiled things pretty quickly in their "partnership" with SUSE, not to my surprise or yours, but Microsoft will probably be around for quite some time to come, and a decade down the road they might really be ready to adopt a less confrontational attitude toward the world outside their coporate campus. My own belief is that eventually, Microsoft must either be part of the solution, or else they will go under, possibly dragging down much of the InterNet with them.
As a matter of fact, I see some possibilities for convergence between the open-source and commercial software communities: I suspect that eventually Microsoft will be forced to adopt open-source operating systems, and to move toward making their profits through customized system maintainance and other services, perhaps even using a model something like the project Duval is working on.
You write "there is only one door on a Tux cottage, and it is controlled by the lock called 'login'". I think this is gravely misleading! I wish it were true that linux had precisely one potential security loophole (weak user login authentication), but of course, anyone who has read a book on linux security knows this is not true, particularly for those home users who wish to experiment with something like serving up a searchable database!
You write "Tux cottage builders had no secrets", and indeed, the openness of open-source is enormously attractive to me; in fact, this is the single biggest reason for my strict aversion to Microsoft operating systems. Nonetheless, while I acknowledge that no-one here is actively trying to keep me clueless, in the end, if I can't get the help I need to learn what I think I need to know, the end result is still a lack of user empowerment, in terms of understanding and responsibly maintaining my own system.
"No cottages of the Tux members had been broken into". Oh come on, please! We all know that this is simply not true. In fact, I have encountered users in this forum who were willing to briefly describe how their (badly secured) server running SUSE or whatever at Corporation X was cracked, and the large and professionally maintained (Red Hat linux) systems I mentioned in my other post have certainly been cracked.
I guess my little parable was too cryptic. For the record, the "doors" I had most in mind included things like security loopholes in poorly written cgi scripts, SQL injection, buffer overlows, and so on, not user login authentication.
It probably spoils the fun to try to explain my parable, but since it has been misunderstood more badly than I expected, perhaps I should explain that I often see members of forums like this one jeering at those foolish Windows/Vista users, which I tend to find disturbing, since I doubt that all Windows/Vista users are really fools, and I'd prefer to see a more concerted effort in the linux community to entice more of them into at least installing dual-boot systems. More to the point in this context, rather than railing against Windows users who have, through ignorance, allowed their machines to become zombies, on a scale which at times seems to adversely affect everyone who uses the InterNet, I think we should recognize that we are all in this together, and home users should be trying to help one another fight the good fight against the black hats, rather than quarrelling over the respective demerits of their own least favorite operating systems.
I feel that the linux community would win (and keep!) more recruits by making a much greater effort to provide really good and up-to-date documentation, since open-ness is of little value to most users if they cannot understand what they are seeing without help. All I am saying is that I would like to see myself and other non-foolish (yes?) but concerned users get the help they need to learn more about their own systems and how to realistically assess their own security needs (and other maintainance issues like apt which can impact the usability of their system).
Far from attacking individuals like myself who seek answers to reasonable security-related questions, the open source community should explicitly recognize that in the Age of InterNet, a critical part of civic responsibility is properly maintaining your own home computer system, and the community should be doing everything possible to ensure that at least linux users can do that without imposing an undue burden upon the average user, or even upon users like myself who require some extra security precautions! Currently, it is not--- the reason I know this is that I have put forth considerable effort to educate myself, but I have not received sufficient help here and elsewhere to make much progress.
We shouldn't view this as a war of propaganda, or perhaps more to the point: yes, of course there is good reason to believe that Microsoft pays people to post trolls or misinformation in forums like this one, but surely the proper response of the open-source community cannot be "counter-trolling" or "linux disinformation"! Surely the whole point of the open-source movement is that good information benefits everyone. All I am pleading for is more good information--- good documentation, up-to-date distro-specific tutorials in things like installing a reasonably secured box (e.g. IDS and other precautions), and so on. I add a plea to all open-source developers: I often want to use your stuff, but you almost never provide me with enough documentation to do so!
It seems to me that telling "lies of our own", e.g. by claiming that no linux box has ever been cracked, not only is not in the best interests of the open-source movement, it runs against the spirit of open-source and it tends to suggest that Microsoft is succeeding in dragging at least some open-source proponents down to its own level of deception and disinformation.
And if the only answer to my questions here is mockery, that constitutes a victory for those who wish to keep users ignorant, not a win for the open-source community!
feheeszeno
RE: I am seeking information...
Posts: 519
There is a difference between "seeking" information and planting DISINFORMATION, even in parable form.
--
GreyGeek
Does this thread represent a victory for the Evil Empire?
Posts: 440
Well, GreyGeek, if that is your attitude, then one can only wonder if the Linux community will fall into disarray as members accuse each other (falsely, in this case) of secretly working for the dark side. For the record, I utterly reject your accusations and find them offensive, but since it seems you are unwilling to take my word for it that my intentions are honorable, I am willing to abandon our sad little dispute.
Does anyone here have any more positive comments? I would certainly hope it would be apparent to some of you that I made some good points--- or at least some thoughtful comments! Jon duQ? drlizau? AdrianTM? Anyone?
For the record, I am more than willing to accept correction if I have truly misstated the facts, but I would need to see something more convincing than namecalling.
feheeszeno
[mod had on] Let's not
Posts: 4077
[mod had on]
Let's not discuss people and their character/intentions in this forum. Let's keep it focused on MEPIS and technical issues. Thanks.
[mod had off]
--
Check out MEPIS Wiki: www.mepis.org/docs
The LIES of Yelm
Posts: 519
But at the Forum of Tux it was quickly discovered that those who claimed to be Tux and were claiming that Tux cottages had many secret doors and the doors had no locks were, in fact, "Tux Evangelists" hired by the Guild of Bill to plant DUF among the Tux members.
For indeed, Tux cottage builders had no secrets. Their factory was always open for public inspection and putative users could examine the quality of materials and workmanship and satisfy themselves that the bricks did not contain straw, and the roofs were corrugated steel, not compressed PR memos. In fact, if they wanted to help build cottages they could! They also learned that there is only one door on a Tux cottage, and it is controlled by the lock called "login", and the cottage owner has the only keys to it. Talking among themselves they discovered that contrary to the rumors no cottages of the Tux members had been broken into. Such rumoers were just more DUF from Bill.
About the time the rumors of shoddy workmanship in Tux Cottages was dispelled, the Guild of Bill began marketing a new cottage. Many suspect that the rumors and the new cottage were related. Buyers quickly found out that the new cottage required asking the Guild for permission to watch TV and limited the stations that could be tuned in. Even worse, while the cottage has a very pretty exterior the residents were restricted as to when they could take a bath and how hot the water could be. Those who chose to live in cottages made by the Guild of Bill noticed that they had less money for their own needs because a larger majority of their income was spent on their brand new cottages repairing leaky roofs and windows, and replacing locks on doors, or the doors themselves. Frequently the cottage had to be rebuilt from the ground up, often with the loss of everything inside.
A long time before Bill's Guild got so big a fellow called Steve saw a demo of a very beautiful cottage and set his clan to work making a copy of it for sale. He hired Bill to build the cottage from the plans he had borrowed from the isle of Palo Alto. But, while working on Steve's cottage Bill started making copies and selling it under his Guild. Soon, Steve's cottage industry began to wane while Bill, not known for being a law-abiding fellow, cut corners and laws and civil behavior to create the largest Guild the world had seen.
One day Steve, while touring the village, noticed some cottages made by members of the BSD Fellowship of Berkeley, a very small but skilled set of carpenters who didn't care that folks copied their designs but didn't pass back information on fixes or improvements, unlike the Brotherhood of Tux, which demanded that other carpenters who used the Tux cottage shared their modifications and improvements. This probably explains why the BSD Fellowship cottages have gradually diminished in number are fewer are being built eac day. Steve saw that the BSD cottage was about equal to the Tux cottage in quality and security and so he created his new cottage using the BSD plans, but building them only on development sites which required the purchase of the land the cottage sat on. With that huge increase in income Steve built a huge nest egg for himself. This probably explains why fewer cottages from the Clan of Steve are sold -- they are too expensive!
But, Bill had no concerns. He lived in a mansion that costs millions more than the cottages he sold, and he whiled away his time giving interviews about his charitable works, while he used those funds to lure more unsuspecting people into his cottages.
--
GreyGeek