chflags

I agree with the distinction you make between targeted and non-targeted. But I think being able to easily accomplish targeted attacks on SSL/TLS is a cause for concern -- and indeed that's what I'm thinking of. My thought is that it should not be possible for users to place such trust in something that is so easily subverted. As for DNS, I see no reason why one cannot encrypt DNS packets to prevent tampering. If users ignorantly want to use third party caches (which opens up more problems than just the one you mentioned), even when it's so easy to run a local cache, then we see arguments for another "trust model", e.g., DNSSEC, etc. Same problems.

"... breaks the trust model of SSL/TLS,"

Certainly some of the encryption one can get via SSL/TLS is worth something. (But then one could use that encryption outside of TLS, too.)

And maybe some elements of the protocol are worth something.

But on the open internet is the "trust model" really worth anything?

It is so ridiculously easy to subvert. Cloudflare does it on a mass scale.

But one does not need to be Cloudflare to do it. The "incovenience" of subverting SSL/TLS is minimal.

Any website who is delegating their DNS to some third party is potentially vulnerable not to mention any user who is delegating their DNS lookups to a third party. Those are very large numbers.

Note I said open internet. I am not referring to internal networks.

Also - Question for the author: Was the archiving of dnshistory.org successful? Did they recently shut down and use Cloudflare to block ArchiveTeam?

Does RT still use mrsync? Great program.

Boots from SD card. Uses U-Boot for bootloader. Hardware support in two BSD projects as well as Linux.

Godspeed.

That's why I'd prefer a search engine that was not using AWS, or Yahoo. Too many needless dependencies.

Out of curiousity I'm starting a counter today. Will post something when this IP addr fails. Feel free to take a guess how long it will be used by DDG.

And when it does change, if ever, I have a one line shell script that uses ed to remove entries from files, so all it takes to add a new IP addr to HOSTS is typing

    ed-script-name domain-name /etc/hosts
    echo aa.bb.cc.dd domain-name >> /etc/hosts

In my opinion, the usefulness of a website is inversely proportional to the frequency with which it changes IP addresses.

For example, the IP address for HN rarely changes.

But feel free to keep looking it up in DNS every day. Just in case.

If there are problems with DNS, most users will probably not remember the IP address for HN and will not be able to read the stories.

Meanwhile, the user that stores IP addresses as a backup will have no such problems.

Why do they say "duckduckgo-owned"?

It appears they are using AWS. Who really owns the server?

   echo 50.18.192.251 duckduckgo.com >> /etc/hosts

Avoids needless DNS lookups; saves DNS logs from your footprints.

So it's not possible to log on without enabling Javascript?

I guess that's one way to coerce the user into enabling Javascript, at least temporarily.

"We started out collecting this information by accident, as part of our project to automate everything, but soon realized that it had economic value."

Is he saying the end results of the project to [insert stated project purpose here], e.g., "to automate everything", "to organize the world's information", etc., did not have enough economic value to sustain the project... and hence founders were "forced" to collect data as a means to generate value?

Here's another version: pre-Google search engines realized they could sell ad space, i.e., paid placements, e.g., to auto manufacturers.

Once the advertising industry became involved, then collecting data about the network's users, if one could do it, was a no-brainer.

"... really it's just the regular old world from before, with a bunch of microphones and keyboards and flat screens sticking out of it."

Not sure that young people who worship Silicon Valley want to believe this, and why should they?

The author always makes a good case for the potential long term consequences of the so-called "changes to the world" that many programmers are adamantly pursuing.

Maybe these programmers are not changing the world. Maybe they're just doing what others already did in the past, on a smaller scale, without the benefit of cheap electronics.

Stallman's writing is reminiscent of The Jargon File or FOLDOC. There are many "silly" terms like the ones you mention in those collections. (More on textfiles.com.) Stallman was a part of that era. Maybe he's just an original 1970's "hacker" trying to stay true to his ideals. They liked to create their own counter culture vocabulary.

Then you have Zuckerberg who puts some blurb in Facebook's first SEC filings that his website^W company will follow the "hacker" ethos. What was he doing there, using that term? He sure has a lot of corporate sponsorship for a "hacker".

Imagine Stallman and Zuckerberg in a certain American game show that ran for several decades. Hint: The game's title relates to honesty.

"Will the real 'hacker' please stand up?"

"...I'm not sure if you are trying to imply that Stallman brought us the Internet..."

No. The opposite. I'm trying to draw attention to the fact that besides free open source software, improvements in the network allow companies like Facebook to grow as big as they are.

Before clang, FreeBSD used gcc. I'm actually not a GNU/Linux user; I wish BSD did not have to use gcc, but for as long as I've been a user, release engineering has always used gcc. I would personally prefer to use something like pcc as opposed to clang.

Today, lots of companies use GNU software, when they could just as easily use BSD. And many BSD users still need gcc to compile their OS. Not how I expected things to turn out but attacking Stallman makes little sense at this point.

Instead, maybe we should be thanking him.

Companies like Facebook offer very little while taking all our personal information for their commercial use, while open source projects like BSD and GNU continue to offer a great deal, without requiring so much as an account or password, much less tracking our every move.

I'll bet Zuckerberg and countless Facebook employees have used software written by Stallman.

At the risk of being wrong, I'd even go so far as to say they need this software.

But does Stallman ever need to use software written by Zuckerberg or Facebook employees?

Personalities and errors in judgment aside, give respect and credit where it is due.

I have never needed Facebook's software. And I doubt I ever will.

From a purely utilitarian viewpoint, my gratitude goes to Stallman and the people who brought us the internet. I'm not sure what I could thank Facebook for.

If Zuckerberg had failed to be in the right place at the right time, there would always be a substitute.

But if there was no Stallman back in the 70's and 80's, would we still have gcc, gdb and so much free, open source software?