Code concerns spark attack on Linux for being subversive
It was a case of deja vu last week when the open source software movement was accused of being some kind of communist plot to overthrow America.
The accuser was Dan O'Dowd, chief executive of Green Hills Software, a firm whose embedded operating system happens to be threatened by Linux.
'Every day new code is added to Linux in Russia, China and elsewhere throughout the world. Every day that code is incorporated into our command, control, communications and weapons systems. This must stop,' Mr O'Dowd said in a press release last week.
The release noted that two of the biggest embedded Linux firms - LynuxWorks and MontaVista Software - had development centres in the Cold War capitals of Beijing and Moscow.
This is not the first time Linux has been described as a foreign pinko conspiracy. Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer once famously described Linux as having 'the characteristics of communism'.
Comparing Linux to a dangerous, subversive and legally questionable Trojan Horse, Mr O'Dowd dug out a 20-year-old misquote from Unix author Ken Thompson: 'You can't trust code that you did not create yourself. No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code.'
Mr Thompson's actual quote was: 'You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code.'
Note the missing parentheses.
What Mr O'Dowd neglected to mention was that when Ken Thompson installed his backdoor in the Unix operating system, he was working at Bell Labs, long before open source software had been conceived of.
So it looks like we will all have to learn to write our own operating systems, because nobody can trust closed-source corporate coders either.
One of the many reasons peer-to-peer file-sharing networks continue to stay in business is the inexplicably high price of legal downloads. Although it is hard for Asian shoppers to find an online download service willing to accept their custom, most download services charge about US$0.99 per track. Considering that this often ends up costing more than a physical album, downloading makes no sense whatsoever. But a report in The Wall Street Journal last week said that record companies still considered the price too cheap. Without citing any sources, the paper reported that the five major music companies were planning to increase download charges to between US$1.25 and $2.49. So a 12-track album would download for $29.88, and it would cost around $25,000 to fill an iPod.
And they have the nerve to complain when people download songs for free.
It is always nice to have a public relations expert on hand to advise on how to deal with press releases. Last week, an outfit named Maximizeworld sent us a plea on behalf of their client, saying: 'Kindly pass below press release to your editorial broad and see whether we can get free exposure'.
Unfortunately, our editorial broad is on maternity leave right now, so VTech will have to go without their free exposure.
Some time this week, AOL will announce the winner of a Porsche Boxter. Nothing unusual about that, but this particular Porsche used to belong to a habitual spammer. AOL won the car in a lawsuit against the man, and decided to raffle it to the company's users. Here in Hong Kong, we still have no recourse against the horrible junk-mailing hordes. If we did, probably the best we could hope for is an office in the taxpayer-subsidised spam haven of the Tech Centre in Kowloon Tong.
