installing a P2P phose client just for chatting ? IRC is basic, works very well even on very slow satelite link without causing congestion. And at least it doesnt depend on some thirdparty Services,the servers are under our control. Roger Am 6 Oct 2008 um 16:15 hat Roman Hochuli geschrieben:

* Silvan Gebhardt wrote: let's meet in a pub ;)

Salut, Roman, On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:15:47 +0200, Roman Hochuli wrote: Nah. IRC is ubiquitous, that's it. If you want something geeky, there's ICB or SILC. Tonnerre

I'd suppose joining the channel #swinog ;) And yeah, Skype is great. Overblown Software with free NSA Trojan Horse plugin </kidding>. Boris.

Peter Keel wrote: agree. Skype is bad, big security hole, closed source... just ugly like windows... don't use it :-) of course skype is great for simple users because it finds a way out of nearly every secure network! all good systems (linux, os x, etc.. ) offer an IRC client out of the box... :-) and there are a lot of free and opensource clients for windows out there as well... bests Marco

Peter Keel wrote: You don't use Cisco's or Junipers? How do you use the Internet actually? Or for that matter, did you actually really get that BIOS source of your computer and that of the video card etc etc? And of course, with Open Source: did you check every single line of the source, and that of the compiler, and all the tools that that was made with etc etc etc? Ah, indeed you didn't, thus please don't claim that "Open Source" is "more secure" because you have the source, because it is impossible to check. Some people like A, some people like B. Some people like irc.swinog.ch, some people like Undernet/IRCnet/EFnet/.... whatever floats your boat. Greets, Jeroen

Salut, Per, On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:38:56 +0200, Per Jessen wrote: You should read the more recent publications on the subject. The idea that this actually happens is a pure illusion. I think that the advantage of Open Source does indeed lie in the fact that you have the ability to fix things yourself, and that, whatever you start, you have a large pool of preexistent code you can build on. And the ability to learn from it etc. Tonnerre

Salut, Attila, On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:31:10 +0200, Attila Kinali wrote: <de>Sag ich nicht, selber suchen.</de> Tonnerre

I guess it's not about "Fixing" but also expanding small example: I use a extension to my gnome panel called "SSH Menu" I can add hosts which it opens me a ssh session in a terminal just by clicking on the menu entry. now I wanted to expand that to include RDP Sessions - okay - took the code, and have it rewritten. so that IS actually an advantage! and I did not have to consult the developers at all, I just checked out the code Per Jessen schrieb:

Open does not implicitly mean crap and closed also don’t mean automatically good... Actually I'm sick and tired of discussions regarding opensource as most of the time they just flame up (as here). My 2 cts: Use whatever you want, have your idea about it, but don't try to convince others about what is right or wrong. I have my idea about it and if someone what to know more he can contact me offlist. Have a nice day :-) Daniele -----Original Message----- From: swinog-bounces(a)lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2008 14:33 To: swinog(a)swinog.ch Subject: Re: [swinog] open source illusions Silvan Gebhardt wrote: And there is your illusion, as you will want to stay up-to-date, and as such, you will have to get the new version (because it is cooler, or actually because it contains so many security fixes because the code quality is really really bad, which is the case in a lot of projects), and then you find out that getting your cool little fix into their code is most likely not going to happen, unless you can persuade them really well or take a long time campaigning for it, and then they change the API or complete structure of the code and you have to redo your change, for small changes that might be fine, for larger ones, you are basically peeped. Better then to pay the closed source folks and let them do it, as they will also maintain the changes for yo. Greets, Jeroen No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1665 - Release Date: 10/6/2008 5:37 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1665 - Release Date: 10/6/2008 5:37 PM This e-mail, any associated files and the information contained in them are confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error please notify the originator and delete the email immediately. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. E-mails to and from the company are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful business practices. Any opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the company. The company does not conclude contracts by email and all negotiations are subject to contract. We make every effort to maintain our network free from computer viruses but accept no responsibility for any viruses which might be transferred by this e-mail.

Hello! Am 07.10.08 14:33 schrieb "Jeroen Massar" unter &lt;jeroen(a)unfix.org&gt;rg>: Each day I work with Open Source and Closed Source tools and applications. Usually I see commercial software coming with a better usability and OpenSource with better stability and performance. The major advantage for OpenSource is the visibility of the code - no code monkey is able to hide 20 years old buggy crap when he needs to provide the sources. Believe me, this is a great motivation for a lot of coders out there ;-) Even more, when you pay licenses host or by CPU, which means today _per_core_, why should a commercial software supplier optimize their binaries? Even simple tasks like using a commercial compiler instead of gcc, which gives 10-100% additional performance, is often not done as the compiler costs $1000 extra - compare this with the several hundred thousends the scoftware company usually earns per year... Beat -- \|/ Beat Rubischon &lt;beat(a)0x1b.ch&gt; ( 0^0 ) http://www.0x1b.ch/~beat/ oOO--(_)--OOo--------------------------------------------------- Meine Erlebnisse, Gedanken und Traeume: http://www.0x1b.ch/blog/

Hoi Beat, On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:07:45 +0200 Beat Rubischon &lt;beat(a)0x1b.ch&gt; wrote: I've never seen 20y old code in any OSS project (ok, i've never bothered to look at such old projects), but i know more than one project that contains crap code that is 10y old and nobody dares to touch it, because nobody fully understands it. So that argument is pretty much void ;-) Anyone who has ever written more than a few lines of C code knows that gcc is crap... unfortunately, it's the best compiler out there. The comercial compilers usualy segfault at every second file of my favorite compiler testbench, commonly known as FFmpeg. Well, at least Intel did a good job of fixing most of their bugs, but it took them years. How long it will take sun to fix their compiler, which is even worse is anyones guess. And i'm not yet talking about compiler that emit incorrect code. Attila Kinali -- If you want to walk fast, walk alone. If you want to walk far, walk together. -- African proverb

* Marc Balmer wrote: [...] actually indent(1), a program to indent and format C program source bears a copyright from 1976: * Copyright (c) 1976 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. 32 years. And still useful. And this is the oldest copyright I could find in an operating system (OpenBSD) that still ships today. (usr.bin/indent in OpenBSD, for those who care) [...]

Salut, king of the huns, On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:40:13 +0200, Attila Kinali wrote: WFM with SUNWcc on sol10u5. Tonnerre

Salut, Per, On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:01:24 +0200, Per Jessen wrote: Being a member of the security scene, I write patches for Open Source software almost every day. And what about you? Tonnerre

Salut, Per, On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:41:47 +0200, Per Jessen wrote: So let me summarize. The fact that we all can fix things and only a few people do it means that the argument of being able to fix things is a weak argument. The fact that we all can prove the source code and _noone_ does it makes it a strong point. Thanks for enlightening me. Tonnerre

* on the Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:01:24PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote: We've found bugs in just about everything we use. FreeBSD kernel, libc, apache-modules, pdns, nfs, and so on. And we fix them if we have the source. We're not involved in any of those projects. Cheers Seegras -- "Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin "It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier

Salut, Marco, On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:47:41 +0200, Marco Fretz wrote: Maybe you noticed already, maybe not, but in reality, Open Source communities tend to care a lot about marketing. This is why they try to disguise security patches as "performance enhancement" - oh wait, that was Apple. But indeed such things happen, in large amounts, even in the Open Source world. Tonnerre

Hey, Ihsan, On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:53:28 +0200, Ihsan Dogan wrote: Not by themselves, but you can get that support through other means, either from a distributor like Red Hat or Univention or from a solutions provider like us. Tonnerre

maybe your not aware but skype is a p2p tool, servers just exists for the directory, or the gates .. so wiretapping is just possible on the gate while calling a PSTN partitiant. but as we allready heard most using skype, the possibility of badmans communication will stay P2P to confuse the wiretapping system, say in every conversation a bunch of triggerwords like: C4, bomb, nuclear, gaz, dynamite, cäsium, blow up... or whatever getting in your mind. Roger Am 8 Oct 2008 um 7:15 hat Peter Keel geschrieben:

Steven.Glogger(a)swisscom.com wrote: yes, IRC is old-school. it's just great, coding own bots, irc clients, etc... lot of possibilities. Skype is like MSN Messenger, just another ugly overloaded communication tool. if I have to choose between skype and MSN, it's MSN, because there are a lot of opensource and freeware alternatives to the bad Live Messenger from Microschrott, ah Microsoft... :-)

roger(a)mgz.ch wrote: try it again :D

Am 7.10.2008 9:32 Uhr, Marco Fretz schrieb: Well, it might be ugly, but at least it works in almost every situation. Ihsan -- ihsan(a)dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/