Re: The problem with not owning the software

Le 31-12-2024, DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> a écrit :

On 12/31/2024 5:10 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

Le 31-12-2024, DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> a écrit :

On 12/21/2024 7:26 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>

The moment you require an online account to verify if you are the person
who bought the software, you don't own it.

>
>
You don't own GuhNoo-GPL software either.  The only sofware you actually
own is stuff you write for yourself, or that you get copyright to.
>
You don't own public domain stuff, either.

 
It means nothing to own an immaterial stuff in a general sense. Nobody
owns any software, music or book. Some own the right on it, it's not the
same. Or some own a digital copy of it. It's still not the same.

>
It means a LOT to own digital and intellectual property:

Yes, that's what I said. Owning rights on something isn't the same as
owning something in a broad undefined way.

Now, you can own the exclusive privilege to manage what's on your own
computer (in a large sense, a smartphone is a computer, too). With FOSS,
you can be the master. With Windows and Mac, you can hope they won't do
anything bad, but you have no certainty.

>
Linux users THINK they can be the master,

I don't think, it's too difficult. But I know I'm the master on my
computer.

but since virtually nobody audits FOSS code it's easy for a bad actor
to mess with Linux systems.

When you find a piece of code on Internet, agreed, nobody audits it and
so if you don't do it by yourself, you can't know what it does. Agreed,
nobody is auditing the all full code. But, there are three other points
you are missing.

First, popular FOSS code is followed by a lot of people. A lot of them
look at small parts on it. And when someone send a patch, you don't need
to audit the all FOSS code to know what it does, you just need to look
at the patch. Which is done for big projects, like Linux.

Second, which derive from the precedent, is that when someone send a
patch, he puts his name on it. And his reputation. It has been shown
that when a code is made public, it's nicer than when it's hidden for
this reason. And so, when someone send a bad code he puts his reputation
and when it's discovered, it will be more difficult for him in the
future.

Third, in FOSS everyone does what he want. Unlike in a company in which
a programmer has to do what the company tells him to do. So, if he
disagree with the code delivered by his company, he can only quit his
company. In FOSS, he can fork it and brag about it, which has already
happened in the past. To say it differently, to do quiet bad thing is
easier for a company than for a FOSS project. In FOSS, it has to be done
by a malevolent isolated guy which has to be discret about it. Not only
in the public, but even in the project community.

Fourth, you can look at what your computer's doing. And when I started
to discover Linux at the same time I was discovering Windows, almost
thirty years ago, that was a really big important discovery. With Linux,
I was able to understand what it did. Compared to DOS/Windows 3.11/NT,
where I was only able to know what I can do with it. It was really a big
hit.

And it means something: years ago, I discovered by myself that by
default, Firefox send information to Mozilla. So, when I saw that, I
looked at every option possible to deactivate this crap. I didn't need
to monitor all Firefox code to know what it did, I just needed to look
at what happened on my computer.

For instance, until I told him about it, the pathetic and smug Feeb
didn't know his precious Cooledit spyware program phoned home upon
install to tell the developer about the computer it was being installed on.

OK, the killer argument. So, let's have a little bit fun with your
almost magical sentence which proves exactly the opposite of what it was
mean to prove.

In this sentence, you seem to claim that LP/NV/DG/FR/whatever is the
master of the IT universe and what he can't do can't be done. But, here,
I have to tell you a secret: he's not. And it looks I have to explain
you why you should have avoid this argument.

My first argument was about popular code. And he can only use obscure
unknown software. So what he's using is not audited by anyone. And as
he's unable to audit anything, and as he's unable to monitor his own
computer, there is no way in which he could known what happens on his
computer. And as his repeated claims about security are always the same:
it's useless because there is nobody bad in his asylum, he can't even
use tools to help him compensate his lack of abilities.

So, let's rephrase it: he's doing everything humanly possible to have
viruses running on his computer. The only fact that he's having a
running computer is a wonder in itself. And it's the ultimate proof that
FOSS is working: he's protected by it against his willing.

Open or closed source, it's all based on trust.

Of course there is always trust at the beginning. But trust don't avoid
control. Which is more easily done in a FOSS environment than in an
obscure close environment.

But day to day, I don't even think about it.

I'm not paranoid, I don't spend my time thinking about it. But being a
little bit careful is easy enough to have confidence. When I upgrade my
computer, I look at what's upgraded, and when a change in version is
important, I look at what it brings. And being interested in what's
happening on my own computer brings me confidence on what it does.

Look at what Amazon did, when people believed they managed the kindle
and the books they bought. Before, there was no proof. After, there is
proof, but it's too late:
<https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html>
You can say that they removed illegal stuff refunding the customers, but
the fact remains: people discovered Amazon, not they, manage the kindle
they had in their hands and can interfere.

>
ALL this is a battle between good and evil:

Ah, OK, now I understand why some people are so willing to bring
wokeness inside/outside of technology.

Good: content creators and Windows users
Evil: pirates and Linux people

Which means
Good: masters and slaves
Bad: freedom fighters
Understood.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io