this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
334 points (98.8% liked)
Linux
47232 readers
782 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am starting to believe that we shouldn't rely on this type of labor product in the first place. Something as critical as OpenSSH should be (and possibly is) funded by the users and also NOT use third party libs because it's dangerous, as this incidence showed. FOSS is free not as in beer.
I‘m not sure what you‘re suggesting. Every piece of FOSS software is made by someone and the a lot of it builds on top of some upstream thing. Otherwise everyone would have to rebuild from scratch and FOSS would break down. Or am I missing your point?
Also, you cant make every 16 yr old user pay for a foss product. Companies must be made to pay for foss and downstream teams must be made to send parts of their income upstream, no matter if they make enough.
I suggest you read my comment again.
Mate, we are discussing on two different threads. Chill out. Maybe I didnt get your point so feel free to elaborate or leave it. Your choice.
I think it would be really good if all of us on the internet agreed to a rule, which is that if you mischaracterize someone or misread them, it's not that weird for them to want you to not do that. So I don't think it's fair to response to a comment correctly noting they are being mischaractized by going out of your way to try and make it about their emotions/mental state.
Whatever your reason for injecting yourself into this conversation is, youre out of line.
Yes. I simply think I already wrote what I needed to. The answer to your question is there. I guess it takes time to see my point.
You only said 2 things:
None of these make sense in my opinion
Again I'm just reading along, and as a person who cares about, you know, the principle of charity, I don't see how you can possibly think that's the most charitable interpretation of what they said. I took them to mean we should do what we can to ensure these projects have financial resources to continue, not that we should "say goodbye" to them.
And here's the crazy thing: I'm not even saying I agree. I just think it's possible to address a face value version of what they're talking about without taking unnecessary cheap shots.
But being charitable to the person you're responding to, they twice said explicitly that they didn't understand what was being said and asked for elaboration and both times got a reply that more or less suggested that they didn't understand because they're illiterate. At some point the reaction becomes understandable.
edit: different poster from the first two, but I think they were sympathizing with the other person
That's where the not that weird idea comes into play. It's not that weird to not want to be misrepresented - that's an entirely different thing from trolling, or strawmanning, or seeking out inflammatory topics on purpose. It's a natural and understandable reaction, and we shouldn't respond to it by deciding it's ok to retaliate with increasingly less fair characterizations of their statements.
They have said this:
Emphasis mine.
And again, that's not even within an country mile of being a good faith attempt at charitable interpretation, for several reasons.
You're twisting their words into some sort seemingly overnight goodbye to all software relying on third party libs. A more normal way of taking that is envisioning a more gradual progression to some future state of affairs, where to the greatest extent possible we've worked to create an ecosystem that meets our needs. An ecosystem that's build on a secure foundation of known and overseen libraries that conform to the greatest extent possible to the FOSS vision. Ideally you don't just say goodbye, you work to create ersatz replacements, which there's a rich tradition of in the FOSS world.
Your other point was even worse:
Somehow, you decided that putting words in their mouth about going out of their way to solve the problem only with worst-case-scenario bad software development practices (e.g. lets go ahead and create unique vulnerabilities and never re-use code) is a reasonable way of reading them, which is completely nuts. FOSS can and does re-use code, and should continue to do so to the extent possible. And like all other software, strive to avoid vulnerabilities with their usual procedures. That's not really an argument against anything specific to their suggestion so much as its an argument against developing any kind of software at any point in time - new games, new operating systems, re-implementations seeking efficiency and security, etc. These all face the same tradeoffs with efficient code usage and security. Nothing more or less than that is being talked about here.
I was talking about third party dependencies, which you missed. It's fair to say that was my poor writing, but my point still stands.
Good luck with that.
Commercial and closed source software is no safer, and may even be using the same foss third-party libs under the hood that you're trying to avoid. Just because foss licences generally require you to disclose you're using them, it doesn't mean that's what actually happens.
And even if, by some miracle, they have a unique codebase - how secure is that? Even if an attacker can't reach the source, they can still locate exploits and develop successful attacks against it.
At its core, all software relies upon trust. I don't know the answer to this, and we'll be here again soon enough.
I'm not saying that they should go closed source.
Your part on using foss third-party libs also makes no sense because my theoretical assumption is that they're not used.
Your argument bent my logic for the sake of making it weaker. Please counter my argument without altering it, and I indeed admit it's imperfect. But this particular lineage of comments is not constructive at all.
A side note. Proprietary closed source software totally uses opensource components. They may or may not disclose it, and they have to offer up what they used, however they are often making the disclosure a fine print item. We support a large proprietary software, we see the memos come through about what bug fixes or opensource library has an issue or vulner. The customers can aign up for this also, but I bet 99% of them don't sign up. And if they were polled on if the software if it was open/closed I'm sure they would say closed only
In what way did I bend your logic? I found your logic quite twisted to start with, and don't think I did alter it further.
Also - not constructive? But you're the one that's being negative. I'm merely trying to point out that you'll have a very hard job not relying on foss as it stands today. Where we go from here is a much bigger question, but we've all got very used to having free software and, as I said, even if we all start paying huge amounts of money for the alternative, that doesn't mean it'll be safer. In fact, I rather suspect it'll be less safe, as issues like this then have a commercial interest in not disclosing security problems. (As evidenced already in numerous commercial security exploits that were known and hidden)
Well for starters, the person above was pretty explicitly NOT advocating for reliance on third party libs, and perhaps more importantly, they were not in any way suggesting reliance on closed source software. In essence, diametrically the opposite of everything you were talking about.
I think your confusion came in their phrasing of not relying on "labor product." I took them to mean, not relying on people committing their free labor to sustain FOSS. I think you must have read that as not supporting FOSS.
I think they are right. You took the exact opposite of what they said and "corrected" them for it, which is irritating as hell. And now you're doubling down, which is worse. I would be irritated too!
Learn to read. Or learn logic. I'm just sincerely suggesting you to do those because I don't have the opinion you think I have.