French Military Contributes To Thunderbird 3 379
fredboboss sends news about Mozilla's email client Thunderbird 3, whose release we noted last week. "Thunderbird 3 contains code from the French military, which decided the open source product was more secure than Microsoft's rival Outlook. The French government is beginning to move to other open source software, including Linux instead of Windows and OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office. Thunderbird 3 used some of the code from TrustedBird, a generalized and co-branded version of Thunderbird with security extensions built by the French military."
It means a lot when Defense systems move over (Score:4, Interesting)
At Least... (Score:5, Interesting)
If only more could see that! With every new user, especially military organizations and government agencies, there are more bug fixes, more patches and more useful features added into the open source projects they use. That in turn makes the projects more appealing, more competitive and generally better, which closes the loop by enticing more to adopt it. We just need to get the ball rolling and, most importantly, to break old notions of open source being garage-geek-type material; I think we've seen all around us that we've evolved from that point.
How About a Plain Text Mode? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doing away with all of the potential HTML, javascript, Java, Flash etc vulnerabilities by having a forced plain text only mode would sure help with security and privacy issues.
Open source software and govt's (Score:5, Interesting)
This [archive.org] is a letter written by a representative of Peru's government to a representative of Microsoft in 2002, explaining to MS exactly why the government feels that free software is necessary on their computers. Not only does it provide some insightful reasons as to why they're using FOSS, but you get a chance to laugh at the Microsoft rep's arguments.
Re:Open source software and govt's (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, if a government really can buy access to source code, you could just file this as yet another expense saved by using open software. I can't imagine Microsoft charging a government a trivial amount for Windows source code.
Re:Open source software and govt's (Score:4, Interesting)
So let me ask you this, when Microsoft or Adobe, etc give these governments the "source code" do they allow compilation of the resulting binary from the given source... with deployment of that binary as production-level binary?
The whole "shared source" concept fails when it comes to security because you can't VERIFY the source code is what you have in your binary unless you have the entire toolchain necessary to build, execute, and formally test the binaries you will deploy in your organization.
Re:Now let the Endless French Surrender jokes begi (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It means a lot when Defense systems move over (Score:4, Interesting)
MS has a reputation for adding security as an afterthought, which almost always makes for very poor quality security. The whole "secure by design" concept just isn't part of their general dev cycle. Looks like this TrustedBird is taking an already solid base and hardening it, which is not necessarily the ideal way to go, but certainly beats the alternative of trying to harden something that's very soft to start with.
Kudos to them for open sourcing it.
Re:Now let the Endless French Surrender jokes begi (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I think you'll find that Kiwis, Aussies and especially the Brits enjoy the "surrender monkey" theme just as much. All of us (including Canada of course) sent troops to France on D-Day so I think we're entitled to a little fun. Perhaps Canadians are just too polite - eh?
Re:Well, at least we know it'll run well... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's safe to say we've paid them back more than once over.
When DeGaulle told Lyndon Johnson he wanted all the American soldiers off of French soil. LBJ responded "When you say you want all American soldiers out of France, General, does that include the ones who are buried here too?"
While the French government has always been odd, the people are generally nice; they just hate the way Merkins speak that Frenchie jibber-jabber.
If you read the battle history of the French Army in WW2, on the whole their reputation as cowards is undeserved. Had there been a land bridge to GB, London would have looked much like Paris in 1941. Fortunately, things worked out as they did.
Encryption ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really here nor there, just something to mention.
Re:At Least... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Gnumeric and AbiWord, on the other hand, are actually usable."
+1 on Gnumeric. It's the best spreadsheet app I've used (and I tend to use a lot of numerical and symbolic math stuff for work).
AbiWord, on the other hand, does have some potential, but they're still missing fundamental features like the ability to actually write using CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) scripts, something just about every other app of any kind out there can handle by now.
Re:Now let the Endless French Surrender jokes begi (Score:3, Interesting)
The thinking (according to this article or whatnot) was to keep up morale after such a disastrous outcome by essentially claiming that any other nation would have managed to fight them off but that the French are weak and gave up without a fight.
It helps that this apparently was pretty much true. In the book, Collapse of the Third Republic [wikipedia.org], by William L. Shirer, the author not only discusses the military defeat in 1940, but also a number of political factors, some of which (eg, the Dreyfus affair [wikipedia.org]) preceded both world wars. My impression is that France became so politically divided (between liberal and conservative forces, much as is present in most if not all democratic countries) in the 30's that defeat of the political opposition was considered a higher priority than the defense of France.
While we know the end result, it's worth noting that there are several times when France could have acted to stop the Second World War. A key point was the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 (which was the most egregious of the violations of the Treaty of Versailles prior to Germany's invasion of Austria two years later). France was both capable, within its rights to use military force, and at low risk (due to Germany's then weak military forces) to evict Germany from there. But they chose not to. Four years later, the country was occupied by Germany.
Re:Now let the Endless French Surrender jokes begi (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I think the jokes about the French are generally either funny or anything other than counterproductive, but they don't spring from Americans being "ignorant, narrow minded, [or] bigoted." They spring from the fact that France basically has never come to terms with the reality of what happened in WWII (see "Paris se libere!" [bbc.co.uk]), the rabid anti-Americanism which de Gaulle exhibited, and the many ways in which France has done things which are not only to its allies' disadvantage but also to its own disadvantage- for no other reason than to try to stick it to the Americans (and sometimes the Brits). I think the Macmillan paraphrase from that article is relevant- "France, he said, had made peace with Germany, had forgiven Germany for the brutality of invasion and the humiliation of four years of occupation, but it could never - never - forgive the British and Americans for the liberation."
You can't really even make much of an attempt to joke about what happened to most of the countries Hitler invaded. But the French pride, arrogance, and rewriting of history have in the past made it easier for people to find jokes about the French to be palatable.
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is a bit strong for americans to say that...
But the British say the same thing, you know that small country that fought in the same war and that hitler turned his attention to after beating the french?
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:4, Interesting)
But the main issue was the effort to preserve the peace, the effort to acceed to the "reasonable demands" of the "champion of the poor" (that would be Adolf Hitler).
Just to show you how desperate (and mind-boggingly naive and stupid) the attempts to "make peace" with Nazi Germany were. Here's the story of the start of WWII, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
On 30 August the Polish Navy sent its destroyer flotilla to Britain, executing Operation Peking. On the same day, Marshal of Poland Edward Rydz-migy announced the mobilization of Polish troops. However, he was pressured into revoking the order by the French, who apparently still hoped for a diplomatic settlement, failing to realize that the Germans were fully mobilized and concentrated at the Polish border. On 31 August 1939, Hitler ordered hostilities against Poland to start at 4:45 the next morning. Because of the prior stoppage, Poland managed to mobilize only 70% of its planned forces, and many units were still forming or moving to their designated frontline positions.
Just so you know, the exact event is that the French Foreign minister convinced the Polish ministry of defence to give a demobilization order, 1 hour and 15 minutes after Hitler's attack had started at full strength (after the switch from sabotage operations, false-flag attacks and covert operations into full-scale open warfare, Hitler had already been attacking Poland for weeks covertly, something the French knew). After the war it would be shown that the French foreign ministry was well-informed about the state of German troops, and while they didn't find out about the attack order until about 7 AM, they did not feel the need to inform Poland (again this was done "to preserve the peace", according to archives).
The French believed they could acquiesce to Hitler's demands, and thus avoid a conflict. The reasons are that they really, really did not want to fight. The reasons for that included that at that time, Hitler was the hero, both of French Nazi's and of the French lefties, including socialists and communists, and even (quite large) parts of "center" parties. With the center parties Hitler was mainly seen as a preferable alternative to communism. While the "rightist" party was not convinced, even they found the "alternative" to communism a compelling part of fascist ideology.
Those center politicians saw Hitler as someone who could bring social justice without bringing the well-known disaster that communism was. This was, however only a real argument in the center parties. He was (in 1940) not openly anti-capitalism, he just insisted on "controls" on management and ownership. He was not openly anti-religious (he even attempted to ally himself with the Pope, who refused, and allied himself with the muslim "caliph", who jumped at the chance, Aymin al Husseini of Jerusalem, who would later help him create the SS and the extermination camps, providing sites, food and troops. Yes one of the dirty secrets of WWII is that the islamic religious establishment created several extermination camps, in addition to providing logistical and even military troops to others. The muslims did this, knowing full well what the camps were for (or at least, the upper echelon knew)).
Because no-one fully realized what national socialism stood for, and what Hitler was capable of to achieve his "social justice" (that's what it was about for him). Hitler was not a good speaker, but he did realize one thing : a politician should make speaches that convey little meaning and not discuss policy or make clear statements under any circumstances, because if people don't know your ideology, it allows people who were mortal enemies (religious parties and communists, for example) to both vote for you. He pionieered the "victimhood rhetoric" that is so prevalent today, accusing any and all political opponents of "hating" the poor, muslims (yes
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? I guess I missed the part were the French helped the Poles as per their treaty. Poland would have done better if they had know beforehand that France (and Britan) were not going to back them.
In fact, it wasn't until France was attacked 8 months later that they even started fighting.
Read up on the Phony War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War [wikipedia.org]
Hell, France lasted a little over two weeks longer than Poland and it did not have the soviet union to deal with (and had eight months of knowing that Germany was on the military move.)
I am sure France has many things to be proud of, but World War II should not be one of them.
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:2, Interesting)
But the British say the same thing, you know that small country that fought in the same war and that hitler turned his attention to after beating the french?
After is a term that implies actual passage of time. "During" or "before" would be better imho.
Re:Well, at least we know it'll run well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that the germans appeared all over france in full strength, that is, by both air and land and from a closer distance to "base" so to speak. The british pretty much had to deflect "just" (as if it was easy anyway) the luftwaffe to defend themselves due to tanks not being that good at swimming. Hardly a fair comparison.
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is a bit strong for americans to say that...
But the British say the same thing, you know that small country that fought in the same war and that hitler turned his attention to after beating the french?
It's easy to be brave when you have 30-240 kilometers of sea between you and your enemy.... And wasn't it the British Army who ran for their lives in Dunkerque?
Re:It's over... it's all over (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Continuing the naming tradition (Score:2, Interesting)