![]() |
2018-08-06
, 12:19
|
Posts: 915 |
Thanked: 3,209 times |
Joined on Jan 2011
@ Germany
|
#52
|
Regarding the 'benefits of open source' discussion, I'll just point to this short article by rms. You (sulu and others) bring practical arguments into a discussion which is purely about ethics. pichlo is right here, In that there is nothing inherently more trustworthy in 'open source' than in 'closed source' software. You place your trust in people, not in code.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sulu For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2018-08-06
, 14:19
|
|
Posts: 6,450 |
Thanked: 20,983 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#53
|
...I didn't expect such a broadside from you, who I consider a reasonable discussion partner.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2018-08-07
, 07:54
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#54
|
Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) and a lot of other Linux features:
It has a full blown Linux 3.4 kernel in the core of the Windows operating system, including full support for VFS, BSD Sockets, ptrace, Bash shell, and a bonafide ELF loader.
![]() |
2018-08-07
, 18:01
|
Posts: 339 |
Thanked: 1,623 times |
Joined on Oct 2013
@ France
|
#55
|
A nitpick; WSL does not have a linux kernel, it's an API translation layer very much like WINE but the other way around; the linux library calls are translated to equivalent windoze library calls.
It is a neat thing however, and might be of use to people who for some reason are locked to windows environment and can't or don't want to use a VM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Zeta For This Useful Post: | ||
But, no, I didn't feel offended.
Of course I'm not sure that someone really checks all FLOSS code. Always.
In fact, I believe that most code is actually never checked. A good (though harmless) demonstration of such an example was [1].
But I still believe, that even the theoretical chance of checking code is a big advantage of FLOSS over CSS, because if you actually do care for checking it, you can do that (or tell someone you trust to do it). You don't even get this (admittedly largely theoretical) chance with CSS in the first place.
Now, you say you don't trust FLOSS anymore than you trust CSS, because you've checked none of them and you see no realistic way to change that.
If you put it that way, I'm totally with you, but I believe your assumption that you have no realistic way to change the situation is at least overly pessimistic.
You remember that geek from Windischeschenbach you talked about and how you don't trust him because you don't know him?
What if I tell you, this guy is me? Would you trust me? Have you trusted me, when using my ED images (I could have put any amount of nasty stuff in them)?
I mean, you don't actually know me either. We've never met. To you I'm just some random guy on the internet. But we're part of the same community, members who both have some sort of long-lasting good reputation in this community. If I do something nasty and you expose this, because you actually checked my work, then my good reputation goes right out of the window.
You know what? Let's make this more realistic, because of course I'm not that guy from Windischeschenbach, and quite frankly I'm just a small fry when it comes to contributions to this community.
Let's talk about real heavyweights like pali or freemangordon. Over the years they've invested a lot into this community and I'm sure pretty much every N900 owner uses their code. So if someone would discover, one of them knowingly introduced backdoors or things like that, they'd lose the trust of this whole community and it might even reach into their real lifes, in case they used their contributions here as a reference there.
I believe the biggest difference between FLOSS and CSS is not so much the openness of the code, but the fact that FLOSS is about communities while CSS is about vendors and customers.
In communities the currency is trust, in vendor/customer relationships it's money. So if I want trustworthy software, I'll preferably get it from somewhere, where trust is of essential value.
You could also say, that you can't trust people until they prove otherwise. The problem with this kind of proof is, it can never actually be brought. Different people act differently in different situations. So even if person 1 proves his trustworthyness in situation A, while person 2 turns out to be untrustworthy, their roles might be switched in situation B.
If you constantly stay vigilant and never drop your guard completely, you'll never actually get close to someone else, because you're always going to hold something back. No (true) friends, no lovers (beyond the "physical aspect"), nothing of that which I consider to be the true essence of life.
Trust always includes a leap of faith. If you don't perform that leap, you'll always be limited to your own self.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...cgi?bug=819703