if Loonix is so secure why the FBI doesn't force them to insert backdoors in the OS?
dumb frogposter
>>53468286
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
>>53468535
autism
They have backdoors via Intel
>>53468611
Doesn't affect non-x86 architectures
>>53468535
No, anon, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
to all GNU/FSF posters:
Linux is an OS unto itself. It can already handle many important POSIX-related functions such as creating linked-device files (/dev), managing filesystems and folder hierarchy, loading a C library, and most importantly loading a.out and elf binaries.
GNU is just the "frontend". It is not the operating system but rather a modular set of utilities that actually allow the system to be used as it should be UNIX-wise without any extensible operations.
Any operations such as managing TCP/IP addresses, wireless devices, framebuffers, loading X servers and listing directories can be all done within the kernel debugger without the need of a shell or any other binary with advanced knowledge.
>>53468535
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
A lot of distributions arent American.
>>53468286
They quite possibly have, but I doubt they use them all the time. Maybe only against people they specifically target.
You don't stand a chance if NSA specifically targets you for any reason, but at least we're sure that the OS doesn't send every single keystroke to the corporate server.
>>53468286
Getting BTFO'd in one thread wasn't enough you dumb frog poster?
Jesus christ why are wintards so fucking brain dead?
>>53468535
Thank you. 4 freedoms have been deposited into your account. Try not to be so obvious next time, please. This is your last warning.
-R.S.
>>53469308
implying that i don't properly look at the gentoo code and optimize for my machine before i compile it you fucking NIGGER FAGGOT NORMAL FAG
GET OUT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>53468286
HAHAHAHA, GOOD POST!!!
>>53468286
Man I don't understand you'r 15 year old "trolling" logic...
>>53469922
>implying you could ever spot a good backdoor
Not even among 10 lines of code.
Not to mention fucking with protocol implementations or the protocols themselves.
>>53468286
They already are, though Red Hat.
https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/tso-and-linus-and-the-impotent-rage-against-systemd/
The FBI doesn't need to do it because the NSA already came in and rewrote it to be 'secure'.
>>53468286
Because the know it's impossible. The source is OPEN
>>53469922
Distro maintainers do, retarded frogposter
>>53470744
>have one version that's not backdoored
>have second version that's backdoors
>post open source of first version online
>post backdoored version binaries for download
>99.9% of people will just download the binaries assuming it's safe and secure
>>53470892
>>99.9% of people will just download the binaries assuming it's safe and secure
Good thing I'm in the 0.1% that compiles everything from source.
>>53470936
>implying the NSA doesn't inject code into your download to modify the source
>Implying your CPU doesn't inject source modifying code as the compiler runs t backdoor your OS
>implying your NSA backdoored keyboard doesn't send the right combination of keystrokes that open, type in code, and save the source, all while using your Webcam to see when you get up to refill your mountain dew and microwave another burrito.
>>53470995
>implying the NSA doesn't inject code into your download to modify the source
All my package downloads are verified using GnuPG signatures. The NSA can't crack GnuPG. (Yet)
>Implying your CPU doesn't inject source modifying code as the compiler runs t backdoor your OS
This has been thoroughly debunked academically. It's virtually impossible, similar to solving the halting problem. You can't make a machine to strategically target a family of programs and embed invisible backdoors in them - and then, on top of that, keep it hidden.
If there was any sort of code-altering backdoor in Intel CPUs, we would have found out about them. (Huh? Why does my kernel suddenly panic when the CPU executes this piece of code that it thinks looks similar to one it wants to inject its backdoor into? Why do the performance characteristics of my algorithm suddenly drop on this particular data set? etc.)
>implying your NSA backdoored keyboard doesn't send the right combination of keystrokes that open, type in code, and save the source, all while using your Webcam to see when you get up to refill your mountain dew and microwave another burrito.
I built my keyboard myself and programmed the controller.
But nice le /v/ maymays, 2/10 for effort
>>53471056
>If there was any sort of code-altering backdoor in Intel CPUs, we would have found out about them
You see, this is where your argument falls apart.
Hiding backdoors in Intel CPUs would be the obvious thing to do. The NSA isn't that dumb.
They hide them in AMD CPUs.
>>53471068
As the saying goes:
More cores, More backdoors
>>53468286
because they can't
>>53468286
Because perverts and terrorists use iPhones.
>>53470936
>Good thing I'm in the 0.1% that compiles everything from source.
Unless you inspect every line of source code for each package you build all you're doing is wasting electricity and time for a false sense of security.
