linux-kernel - Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47388F5A.20206@smsglobal.net>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:37:30 +0800
From:	"Rogelio M. Serrano Jr." <rogelio@...global.net>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@....fi>
Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?

Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
>
>> But the good thing about open source software is that when you believe 
>> your ideas are better than what current distributions do you can 
>> implement your ideas and create your own distribution. 
>>     
>
> Haha, the typical FOSS advocate's fallacy. Quote:
>
> “You have the binary, you can crack it.” Does that sound familiar? No? How
> about? “It's free software, you can fix or implement what you want.” These
>   

I pretty much do that nowadays. But i dont expect non programmers to do
likewise. At least i dont need a couple million bucks to preserve my
programming skills.

Its actually good for programmers. In the third world where i live its
makes a world of difference.

The availability of source does not mean that everybody must use source.
I think everybody also agrees that its better then binary only distribution.

> two statements are fundamentally the same: they expect that you have the
> time and skill to modify the software to your needs. That it is easier when
> the source is out in the open – and it doesn't even have to be “free” or
>   
I dont understand. You are supposed to go to jail for looking at closed
source, right? And licenses are very expensive. I could not afford them
when i started out but now i would rather spend the money on other
things like FPGA's.

> “open source” – is just a detail. Nevertheless, the uncritical free softwaree to deal with
> and open source advocates often resort to this argument when their software
> is found flawed. It is true, the herd of the bazaar indeed has the power to
> modify software to its liking – to the shoddy least common denominator
> product that herd desires are for. It is even possible for the unique one to
>   

really? i work very hard at it. and it seems to get better steadily.

> set up a shop within the bazaar, providing minor improvements to a few of
> the bazaar's shoddy products. But to build a cathedral providing treatments
> to all the ills of the bazaar – that demands more effort than the herd can
> appreciate. There is no practical choice but to use the shoddy products of
> the bazaar. In the present state of affairs, for those not of the herd, the
> only choice – the only practical freedom – in free software, is the choice
> not to use it.
>
>   [1]: http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2006/03/17/T20_15_31/
>
>   
You seem to be saying that Open source will never be good enough. And
that the megafreeze problem is a necessary consequence. Thats fine with
me. Its not going to make me stop using open source and linux because
there is a good solution to the megafreeze problem. You might as well
start ignoring Linux and the BSD's since Microsoft is already offering
an alternative. At least you dont have to deal with that problem there.

-- 
Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner.


View attachment "rogelio.vcf" of type "text/x-vcard" (333 bytes)

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (253 bytes)