Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: mp3 cutting and pasting
Re: mp3 cutting and pasting
From: blaou <blaou_at_gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:27:56 +1000
back on track:
The tool I suggested, mp3directcut ( http://www.mpesch3.de ),
is Freeware (doesn't cost anything),
is not OpenSource,
but is the nicest tool around for cutting, fading in/out), splitting and
pitching mp3's I have tried so far (and I have tried many, both
commercial, open-source and free). At 140 KB it's just what you can bare
to download with a modem-connection and it gives you that Wavelab-feel
For those who think that a GUI is politically uncorrect and prefer to
ignore that humans are visual persons, there's a lot of
command-line-tools out there.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:22:37 -0400
Fred Maxwell <rockbox_at_anti-spam.org> wrote:
> Long post warning!
> Johan Vromans wrote:
> > Actually, this proves that the principle works. The malicious code
> > was found and eliminated.
> Malicious code was found in many closed source projects, too, but I
> don't consider the discovery proof that closed source guarantees
> security. What concerns me is that, in both cases I mentioned, the
> malicious code went undetected for extended periods of time.
> > Most of these tools are closed software themselves.
> > Maybe you should (re)read Ken Thomson's famous article on
> > "Reflections on Trusting Trust".
> I have read it and went back to it to make sure that I was remembering
> it correctly. If you recall, he modified a C-compiler such that it
> compiled in a back-door. Ken Thomson's conclusion was: "You can't
> trust code that you did not totally create yourself," and that "no
> amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from
> using untrusted code." That seems to fly in the face of your
> assertion that having the source means that you can trust the code.
> Security is not a true/false kind of thing. One has to look at the
> risks and motivations. What is the risk for a company like ZoneLabs
> if their firewall was found to contain malicious code? What would
> their motivation be? What happens if the Sysinternals software is
> found to be malicious? Since it's designed to showcase the talents of
> Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell, two of the most respected authors
> of Windows programming books and software tools, it could ruin them.
> What would they gain from your hard disk? Your credit card number?
> They probably have enough credit cards already and aren't likely to
> risk jail by stealing other people's. Now what's the risk to some 16
> year old kid in Hungary to try to sneak some malicious software into
> Linux? If he's successful, he might have back-door access to many
> e-commerce web servers, home systems, etc. If he fails, there's a
> good chance he'll never be identified or prosecuted.
> None of the above is meant to imply that closed source is more secure
> than open source or vice-versa. Just that there are different checks
> and balances at work and that nothing is black and white.
> Fred Maxwell
Received on 2004-08-10