Log in

No account? Create an account
on hypocrisy - The year was 2081 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

on hypocrisy [Sep. 17th, 2004|09:32 am]
[Current Mood |annoyedannoyed]

I find it fascinating that at the same time many sites are dinging Windows for having to patch vulnerabilities in their image rendering routines for buffer overflows, I'm being prompted to download patches to Redhat which fix the same vulnerabilities in Linux rendering routines.

I find it fascinating how the arguments over the character of the various pretenders to the 2004 presidential elections have degraded into meta-arguments over the backlash of pursuing a strategy of questioning character. On one hand, past performance is not an indication of future returns. On the other, what else do we have to decide on?

Can we trust any documentation, when no document can ever present the truth? How can we exist as people, when the only reliable method is to understand things ab-initio, while we are ever incresingly forced by time constraints to base our judgements on the trust of others?

How do I establish a sound philosophical basis of trust, or is trust inevitably tied to faith?

I'm quickly coming to a nihilistic opinion of all text.

[User Picture]From: cogshiftingman
2004-09-17 08:48 am (UTC)
Don't get me started on the Windows/Linux thing. I work with a bunch of open-toe sandalled long haired individuals who hate Microsoft with a vehemence normally reserved for Hitler. They just do not seem to see the big picture: that their Linux stuff is just as full of holes as Windows, if not more so, since we can all read the source, think about it, and come up with an appropriate exploit. And they occasionally try to use OpenOffice to show Powerpoint slides, and it *never works*!

But actually I don't think that was really the gist of your post, so excuse me for that little rant :-)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: hbergeronx
2004-09-17 11:15 am (UTC)
I think the philosophy of "I have the source so I could fix it, if I were assed enough to do so" is much more appealing to the Birkenstock set than "I don't have the source so I have to wait/ask for an update from the Man, if I were assed enough to do so", even though the product of these two viewpoints is the same end result.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)