[rc5] Re: Availability of Bovine source code
confed2 at sssnet.com
Sun Nov 9 23:59:04 EST 1997
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:24:23 -0500 (EST), Chris Arguin wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, Thom Davis wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:27:35 -0500 (EST), Jason Boyles wrote:
>> > The only reason I'm not participating in Bovine is because the
>> >source is not freely available. No one is privy to my spare cycles
>> >unless they're honest enough to show me their source code.
>> But then that leaves the Bovine code open to hacking and such things. If they are willing
>> gaurantee that it does not conflict with what I would ask, then that should be good
>Yes and No. I think that with the new version, the distributed.net
>definition will be of a protocol. Since multiple, independent projects
>are supported, it will become a matter of each group to decide if they
>want to distribute source.
>Of course, that does leave the option for some dishonest user to find a
>way to cheat (for example, with the rc5 project to just return
>immediately saying it tested all blocks). There is little benefit to this
>sort of activity, but that has never stopped anyone before.
That's basically what I'm saying....No, I'm not going to hack it, your not going to but they
guy next door might think that if he hacked it to no matter what that it sends the blocks with
his address and then sent to several hundred people and they used it..........................
>> Do you run ANY commercial software that has OPEN SOURCE code? No! but if you ask
>> a particular question they will answer it.
>Well... A lot of us are Linux users. Many (most?) Linux machines run 100%
>free software (ok... maybe 99.9%, with Netscape). But that is a bit
>unusual, and maybe makes us see things differently.
No, not most, I run OS/2 and have seen a lot of the OS/2 mailing list users posting in here,
but I don't want to get into that one <VBG>
>Besides, the reason why the source isn't available with commercial
>software is because they want to sell it, and make more products based on
>the technologies, while keeping a competitive edge. That is not the case
True, but it would still be someone's intellectual property
>The difference with commercial software is that I get a lot of guarantees
>that if something is wrong with the software, it won't be hard to track
>down the company. With ftp transfers, that's a much harder thing to
>guarantee. So if a commercial products breaks my security, I know who to
Yes and I would imagine that if we pushed distributed and the others, we could possibly get
secure transfers, but then that would probably make the a commercial venture because of
>Personally, I would certainly like to see the source freely available, but
>I understand why they don't. But one of the lessons I think that Linux
>teaches is this: If you have a security flaw, keeping the source code
>secret so that no one finds out about it won't work. Making the source
>available allows everybody to analyze it for flaws, and makes for a more
But in the era of "Malicious Intent" , virus's and such security problems, I'd rather they kept
it secret, BUT as they just mentioned a while ago, they intend on making it available, I just
hope that certain aspects of it are closed and not available. Besides, you really don't need to
make the source available if you provide "Hooks" in the right places :)
--Thom [ICQ #4173700] Java Version
Thom Davis confed2 at sssnet.com
The Confederate BBs Centari Computers
"StoneWal" Experts-Exchange: OS/2
Visit us at: http://pages.sssnet.com/Confed2
Visit The OS/2 BookStore: http://pages.sssnet.com/Confed2/os2books.html
Experts-Exchange OS/2 Setup Expert "Stonewal"
Authorized Dealer for Stark Summit Supernet (SSSNet)
Using Warp v4.0 to Go where "I" want to go!
GO MIAMI DOLPHINS
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.
More information about the rc5