strelka 2.0

[GenoM]

ok, this is my very last email on anything related to strelka, and indeed the last time i view any strelka thread.

I do hope it is your very last post about this topic 'cause your understanding of the matter is quite small.

It looks like there are a hard core two or three people who seem determined to defend strelka, and this defense is hardly based on evidence or any sort of ethical system.

Thank you for presenting me and other people who have POV different that yours, unethical. It's sort of amusing to read such qualifications in the argument because its a mark of the helplessness to argue normaly.

Let me summarize the defense of the strelka author. Then, just so we can look at the logic, I will place the argument in the context of another domain

1) ARgument 1: Yes, Osipov reverse engineered rybka (unethical behaviour), but look Vas stold Rybka from fruit . The latter point was later refuted by the author of fruit.

reasoning structure: Yes, I beat my wife, but look Vas beats his wife too. Oh, there is no evidence that vas beats his wife? I don't agree, he does beat his wife

Do you think its a nice analogy? Ok but the logic is different: A beats his wife but is hiding this and only few people know it. So B is making some noise to point out the problem. But then people like you are saying: Oh, the noise B is making is the Big problem, not the fact that A is beating his wife at home. Because there was no evidence for the latter and noise is so annoying!

Best regards,
Geno

[Matthias Gemuh]

Do you think its a nice analogy? Ok but the logic is different: A beats his wife but is hiding this and only few people know it. So B is making some noise to point out the problem. But then people like you are saying: Oh, the noise B is making is the Big problem, not the fact that A is beating his wife at home. Because there was no evidence for the latter and noise is so annoying!

Best regards,
Geno

Hi Evgenii,
I see that you are using Yahoo messenger.
Scan your system with Spyware Doctor 5.x.x.x !
Best,
Matthias.

[GenoM]

Do you think its a nice analogy? Ok but the logic is different: A beats his wife but is hiding this and only few people know it. So B is making some noise to point out the problem. But then people like you are saying: Oh, the noise B is making is the Big problem, not the fact that A is beating his wife at home. Because there was no evidence for the latter and noise is so annoying!

Best regards,
Geno

Hi Evgenii,
I see that you are using Yahoo messenger.
Scan your system with Spyware Doctor 5.x.x.x !
Best,
Matthias.

Hi Matthias, thanks but in my post I said Big Problem, not Big Lion

[PK]

If You suspect Your neighbour is beating his wife so that nobody sees it, then You ought to beat Your wife in public to make them pay attention to the problem. Sounds right, doesn't it?

And as far as being a Robin Hood is concerned: I see Osipov like a Robin Hood from the Monty Python Flying Circus - someone who perhaps has good intentions but no clue whatsoever who should be robbed, who should get robbed items and what they ought to get in the first place (perhaps lupin?).

Enough of the metaphores. If Osipov wanted to tell us something about the inner workings of Rybka, he should have devised a way of doing so without raising so many doubts. Not being able to reverse-engineer anything I have to rely on his words alone - and the informational chaos he deliberately created puts me off.

"We sleep on strelka, we eat strelka... look! our cat died because of strielka poisoning"

(put "lupin" instead of "strelka" and You will get a Monty Python piece)

[GenoM]

If You suspect Your neighbour is beating his wife so that nobody sees it, then You ought to beat Your wife in public to make them pay attention to the problem. Sounds right, doesn't it?

Analogy is not mine, sorry.

If Osipov wanted to tell us something about the inner workings of Rybka, he should have devised a way of doing so without raising so many doubts.

Please put here an exemplary way of how Osipov had to act.
Thank you.

[PK]

Please put here an exemplary way of how Osipov had to act.

There was nothing Osipov had to do, just his free decisions. I see it as a tradeoff between publicity and reliability. Claiming that Strelka was an original piece of software and then unveiling the truth made some noise (no doubt an intended effect), but at the same time shown that Osipov had made at least one false claim. So if he sais now that Rybka has something in common with Fruit, I may as well expect another smoke screen - "wait, it was not Fruit but XXX". In which case I prefer not to believe in the Fruit part of the story.

[GenoM]

In which case I prefer not to believe in the Fruit part of the story.

Yes, we're believers. It's our choice in what to believe.