Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Jul 2013 21:35 UTC
Microsoft Documents released by Snowden show the extent to which Microsoft helped the NSA and other security agencies in the US. "Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new portal; The agency already had pre-encryption stage access to email on, including Hotmail; The company worked with the FBI this year to allow the NSA easier access via Prism to its cloud storage service SkyDrive, which now has more than 250 million users worldwide; [...] Skype, which was bought by Microsoft in October 2011, worked with intelligence agencies last year to allow Prism to collect video of conversations as well as audio; Material collected through Prism is routinely shared with the FBI and CIA, with one NSA document describing the program as a 'team sport'." Wow. Just wow.
Permalink for comment 567029
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Now we know what happend.
by Valhalla on Sat 13th Jul 2013 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now we know what happend."
Member since:

No one can keep up with those amounts of new code that gets incorportaed in Linux. I showed you proof in the links. For instance, the last link says "we need to review things more". Read it.

A link from 5 years ago where a developer says that they need to review code more before it enters the merge window so as to minimize the breakage that occurs during the merge window does NOT mean that code gets incorporated into Linux without review.

It's proof of absolutely nothing of the sort.

Code that breaks during the merge window is either reviewed and fixed or it doesn't make it into a mainline release at all, so your bullshit about untested code getting into mainline is just that, bullshit.

But this should not come as a surprise. You know that Linux upgrades breaks software and device drivers. You have experienced it yourself, if you have used Linux for some time.

Your links doesn't show one shred of fact to support your claim of HP spending millions of us dollars to keep up with drivers due to linux changes.

All you've done is link to well known linux hater bassbeast/hairyfeet's unsubstantiated attacks on Linux with nothing to back it up.

I've used Linux as my day-to-day OS for 6 years now, most of that time on a bleeding edge distro (Arch) and I've had to downgrade the kernel twice in those 6 years, once because of a unstable network driver during a large network rewrite, and once when I had just recently switched to Nouveau, where it became unstable against a new kernel upgrade.

I also had my Wacom Bamboo functionality fail with an upgrade of the xf86-input-wacom package which led me to downgrade said package while waiting for a fix.

That's three problems where I had to downgrade in 6 years, and these where all fixed within one to two weeks and allow me to upgrade with full funcitonality/stability.

Again this is on a bleeding edge distro, stable distros won't use the bleeding edge packages, they will wait until they've gone through lots of more testing and regression/bug fixing. So if I'd been using a stable distro I wouldn't have been bitten by any of the above.

So no, if you actually used Linux for 'some time' you'd know that the whole 'kernel upgrades continously crash drivers' is nonsense coming from people who doesn't even use Linux, just like you.

Not even proprietary drivers are a problem in practice, as while they do break between kernel upgrades, the proprietary hardware vendors like NVidia and AMD continously recompile their drivers against the new kernel versions.

Just read my links. Much code gets accepted without anyone knowing what it really does. For instance, the link with "Does this belong here?"

Stop lying, you have shown absolutely zero evidence of any code being accepted without anyone 'knowing what it really does', it's nothing but your own fabrication.

The link with 'does this belong here' means absolutely nothing, there's no context whatsoever, you'll find questions like this in any large code base where many developers collaborates, one developer new to a part of code questions a piece of code or a function and other developers who know the code responds.

You trying to pose this unsubstantiated quote by some guy named 'Lok' as some proof of 'code getting accepted without anyone knowing what it really does' only shows how desperate you are to downright lie in order to push your agenda.

But fact is that the code review process is too sloppy, just read the links to Linux devs who complain that they need to review things more.

You've shown no fact to support your claims at all, developers complaining that code needs more review before it enters certain stages doesn't mean that any unreviewed or sloppily reviewed code ever gets into the linux mainline releases. And there's ALWAYS going to be complaints about 'more code review' in ALL large projects, it proves nothing except.

So much Linux code gets accepted from anyone that no one can review all the new code. Just read my links.

I've read your links, they say nothing of the sort. Any code that gets into Linux mainline release will have had extensive review and bug/regression tests during several stages. Stop lying.

The thing is, Linux supporters believe Linux is best in every way,

I'm a Linux supporter and I certainly don't claim it is best in 'every way', as an example I prefer Haiku OS for desktop purposes.

when in fact, it is terrible.

Linux has bad stability, it has bad security, The code is bad (according to Linux kernel devs, I can show you numerous links on this), etc

More links? More quotes from a mailing list post 5 years ago where a developer is unhappy with some part of the development?

Bad stability and security? Based upon what? Compared to what?

If Linux was anywhere near as 'bad' as you try to portray it, it would have been abandoned ages ago instead of being used practically everywhere. You've offered nothing even remotely fact-like to support your claims. It's dominating supercomputers and HPC, it's vastly used in everything from mobile to fridges to servers to desktops to embedded. It did not get there by being bad at stability and or security.

That doesn't mean that it's the best in all these areas, but it sure as hell isn't 'terrible' in any of them.

So my question is to you: why are you attacking everybody and every OS? Why not leave them be?

What? Where am I attacking everybody and every OS, I'm not attacking ANY OS, you on the other hand are.

Then we would not have to defend ourself.

You are attacking Linux because you are angry at Linus for saying bad things about your favourite OS'es, this pretty much explains your mentality and how you can resort to such desperate fabrications.

I don't agree with Linus statements on OpenBSD and Solaris, but I don't use Linux because I adore Linus, I use Linux because it works for me.

Unlike you however, I don't hate Solaris just because a Solaris-fanboy like you attack Linux. That's just crazy, which sadly seems to apply to you.

But no one has time to audit everything. Just read my links "we need to review more".

Again stop lying, saying they need to review more doesn't mean the code that actually gets into linux mainline releases isn't properly reviewed. The link you posted was a 5 year old post where a developer wanted better reviewed code before it enters the merge window to minimize merge window breakage, the code in question won't make it into mainline release until it actually has been properly reviewed.

In the earlier days, less code was accepted. Today too much code is accepted, which no one has time to review thoroughly, so the review process is worse today.

You fail to understand (or more likely you simply ignore in order to perpetuate your lies) that just because code is accepted to the Linux project it doesn't mean that it ever makes it into mainline releases. And if it does, it does so after having gone through several stages, each with testing and review.

Reply Parent Score: 5