The Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.

[DeepDayze]

It is a good thing that there is close scrutiny of all code and also is there a way for code to be certified free of malicious intent? I thought developers who submit their code to the Linux tree need to certify their code in order for it to be considered for acceptance. Linux's reputation is staked on being free of malicious code...

[rbmorse]

You're correct that all code submitted for inclusion in the kernel has to be signed off by both the submitter (no anonymous contributions) and a senior developer who "monitors" the branch to which the code applies.

Once accepted, the code goes into the release-candidate pre-releases where it is both available for anyone's inspection and (allegedly) rigorously tested under real-world conditions (i.e., by thousands of wonks working in basements and garages around the world).

The system is not perfect, as the regression list testifies, but any malicious code would have to be pretty damned obfuscated to get by...and obfuscated code is usually something that gets people's attention.

[DeepDayze]

You're correct that all code submitted for inclusion in the kernel has to be signed off by both the submitter (no anonymous contributions) and a senior developer who "monitors" the branch to which the code applies.

Once accepted, the code goes into the release-candidate pre-releases where it is both available for anyone's inspection and (allegedly) rigorously tested under real-world conditions (i.e., by thousands of wonks working in basements and garages around the world).

The system is not perfect, as the regression list testifies, but any malicious code would have to be pretty damned obfuscated to get by...and obfuscated code is usually something that gets people's attention.

So then we should not fear sabotage as any piece of code is checked rigorously for any unusual or strange behavior. Security holes are easy to spot with many eyes checking code

[gordboy]

There have been documented cases of kernel sabotage in the past. The old ext2 filesystem in 2.2.17 was found to cause "massive filesystem corruption" and some of the "developers" (rumoured to be ex or even *current* micro$oft employees) were promptly sent packing.

Then we have the ongoing saga of ALSA sound. Anyone who works with or, more to the point, on sound apps knows that ALSA is a dog's dinner of a mess. And the lead developers work for Novell ...

But admittedly, "traditional" OSS sound was pretty bad too. Many people use the "new" OSS from Forefront, as it does software mixing, thus obviating the need for a pesky desktop sound server.

And what about graphics huh ? The Big Two, ATI & nvidia have both promised micro$oft never to release a fully working linux driver. This is a matter of public record.

I think we can safely say that linux is *constantly* being undermined by corporate interests. And when both the sound and video are hobbled, then it is hard to see how linux will ever penetrate the desktop - short of micro$oft senior executives being jailed for fraud and corrupt practices, and the whole Evil Empire being flushed down the toilet ...

[rbmorse]

And what about graphics huh ? The Big Two, ATI & nvidia have both promised micro$oft never to release a fully working linux driver. This is a matter of public record.

That's about all you need for a good "restraint of free trade" action under EU rules. Citations, please. Unless you're talking about restrictions imposed to protect IP. If that's the case, that's nothing ATI/AMD or nVidia controls.

[bridgman]

And what about graphics huh ? The Big Two, ATI & nvidia have both promised micro$oft never to release a fully working linux driver. This is a matter of public record.

I would be really interested in any references to this as well.

[RealNC]

I think he's just talking out of his bum :P

[gordboy]

Confession time : I posted that last post to see who would crawl out of the woodwork.

I really didn't think anyone would show their allegiance to their corporate overlords quite so brazenly here.

Just in case anyone is in any doubt : there are *several* pending antitrust suits against AMD/nvidia both jointly and severally as defendants. And they have been repeatedly criticized for price fixing and anti-competitive practices, including "lock-in" with micro$oft.

Only corporate stooges shout "give us citations" when google is absolutely full of apposite material. The number of complaints in the California courts alone, would be enough to fill this forum ten times over. Then we have damning testimony to the EU from micro$oft themselves, which led to unprecedented fines and prohibitions from tendering.

I think it's about time that members of this forum who work for the companies concerned, remembered that misrepresenting the facts about their company policies and practices is a criminal offense in most jurisdictions.

Of course, no-one here is stupid enough to go down that road. Instead they obfuscate, deflect and parry with depressingly predictable ad hominem attacks. But the end result is still the same - they end up as pariahs, unable to even get a job selling water in a desert.

[bridgman]

It says "AMD Linux" on every post I make; I can't get much more brazen than that

I would still be interested in any information related to your previous post where you said "The Big Two, ATI & nvidia have both promised micro$oft never to release a fully working linux driver. This is a matter of public record.".

[Ex-Cyber]

Only corporate stooges shout "give us citations" when google is absolutely full of apposite material. The number of complaints in the California courts alone, would be enough to fill this forum ten times over. Then we have damning testimony to the EU from micro$oft themselves, which led to unprecedented fines and prohibitions from tendering.

I'm not sure how to describe how weak of a response this is. Hmm...

obfuscate, deflect and parry with depressingly predictable ad hominem attacks.

That works.