So they have the "source code" so they are able to make an invincible "virus"???? lul
That part was written by some microsoft fangirls, or something.
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?share
No, it was simply written by technological illiterates. The same kind of people who directed an NCIS episode with two people typing on one keyboard at the same time, or who seem to believe that "hacking" a system means trying to win a speed typing contest against a green background with fancy but useless shapes floating in the background. Or the idea of the always invincible "virus" like the one that defeated the futurisitic, hyper-advanced alien mothership in the oozing trash of a movie called Independence Day. Of course anyone with a basic grasp of programming understands the stupidity of the idea that having the source code allows you to wreck the program remotely, but I doubt the screenwriters even understood what a "source code" is aside from associating it with the concepts of *hip!* and *flashy!* and *tech-y!*.
shareI'll assume you are a programmer and actually know computers a little bit.
They had the guy that created the original, proprietary SOURCE for the CODING for the interface from the computer to the brain communications (or something like that, I forget the exacting part he played). He was uniquely qualified to alter the code to do bad things. Not sure how/why anyone is calling this "OPEN SOURCE CODE"... semantics of the wording maybe?
This guy might be the only guy on the planet that understood how that process worked and was coded. Who else would they get: the AI? Doubt it would help them destroy itself.
Sure, movies must dumb things down for the viewing audience - not sure there is any other way to do it, really. Can't waste 4 hours of a hacker sitting at a command prompt typing and trying stuff.... can't explain things the way they are to non-computer types, they'd never understand it. But, flashy screens with PASSWORD in large letters gets the point across. All movies compress reality into a fixed box for viewing pleasure... this is no different.
In INDEPENDENCE DAY, the cable guy understood the comms the aliens were using to use our satellites against us. It was the ALIENS that were dumb enough to take advantage of our archaic communications abilities, not us. We just used it back against them. Who knows WHY the Aleins did it that way, they just did. The guy had a one in a billion chance to reverse engineer the comunicated codes into a destructive virus, and he lucked out. ... same way Ethan Hunt lucks cheating death 10 times in each of his impossible missions.
It's just movies.
[deleted]
Could be both. They could have been tech illiterates advised by people with an agenda.
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?share
Make that Linux. One of the only OS'es where you could obtain the source code.
shareI don't think you understood the implication.
Attacking open source often means you are in favor of proprietary software, due to being a paid shill or just a dumb fanboy.
The old mantra of proprietary software shills is the lie that open source software is open to any and all attacks because anyone can get its source code. Anyone that accepts that as truth is simply ignorant of reality.
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?share
Not seeing where "Open Source" plays into this movie? Sure, they have the code's "SOURCE", but that doesn't mean it is "Open Source".... did I miss where they called it that?
"Source code" is not "Open Source" - two very different things.... did they claim the interface was all "Open source"??
The point is that in both cases the "source code" would be known. This movie suggests that knowing the source code of software automatically makes it vulnerable. That implies that open source code is inherently vulnerable compared to closed source.
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?share
k, seriously, I'm just trying to keep up here... this topic says ANTI OPEN SOURCE CRAP....
do you mean AGAINST THE USE of "Open Source" software?
Or because the lead programmer designed the code, they have an OPENING to the SOURCE of the coding?
It's just code, special and in limited use - not all over the net (well, now it is) they assumed the part the guy programmed was still in use (luckily, it seemed to be)
but it wasn't OPEN SOURCE code like Linux or something.... it was proprietary, and restricted to lab use.
I have the BLURAY and watched a few times already and never got any feeling or verbage about being AGAINST "OPEN SOURCE" style software.
Are you saying "OPEN SOURCE" code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
or >OPEN< "SOURCE CODE"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code
The two are distinctly different, and from this movie, I got they are discussing code they have access to, that is open enough because they have the original programmer, not "OPEN SOURCE" code that is free and public.
Well, that's your take.
I never said it was an overt attack on open source, but it's an inference from suggesting that knowing the source code equals a vulnerability. That is that software with secret source code is more secure than software with known source code, such as proprietary vs open source.
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?share
You'received all overlooking the most important part anyway. Within minutes of first turning on, he was already re-writing his own code finding and fixing problems. After 2 years with all that intelligence it would have been virtually impossible for any one person to outsmart him. But then the movie wouldn't have an ending.
shareessentially, he allowed it - per his humility and love for his wife.
share