How did you start hating opensource?
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
From the FSF's website:
...- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as > you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By > > doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access > to the source code is a precondition for this.
How about we apply this to other products...
- The freedom to drive a vehicle as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)
- The freedom to study how the vehicle works, and change it so it does your driving as > you wish (freedom 1). Access to the core design/engineering plans is a precondition to this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies of the vehicle so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By >> doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the core design/engineering plans is a precondition to this.
Not permitted by law for regulatory reasons.
You can study a vehicle all you want, but releasing engineering documents to do so is not required.
You can not redistribute a rebranded Toyota...
I'm not sure about if you can redistribute a modified copy of an existing vehicle... I'm betting there are patents on large portions that would come into issue. I guess if you modify out those parts??? And rebrand of course??? Of course you'd have to fall under regulations.OK... so I guess the car industry is unethical by default.
But hey, we all knew that. Lets try another industry... and industry all about freedoms.
Literature.
- The freedom to read a book as you wish, for any purpose(freedom 0)
- The freedom to study how the book was written, and change it so it reads the way you (freedom 1). Access to the original manuscripts and outline is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copes so you can help you neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By >> doing this you can... blah blah blah
Well you can read a book all you want, as you wish.
You can study it as well, but you're not necessarily allowed access to everything that went into writing it. But that shouldn't really be necessary.
But no, you can't restribute copies... you can lend your personal copy, but that's it.
And modifying the original and redistributing has to fit under fair-use... which is very limiting.So... most all literature is unethical.
Fuck... what else is unethical?
Pretty much every god damn product out there!?
Sorry I want to get paid so I can feed myself... but alas, I guess eating is unethical.
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it's really ever the case that the only library you can find to do some important thing is GPL-licenced with an unavailable author, don't blame the GPL for the resulting difficulty. Blame the inherent susceptibility of the closed-source commercial software ecosystem to market failure.
Nice. So it's closed-source's fault when open-source projects fail.
Nope. It's closed source software's failure when it can't succeed without a GPL-licensed library.
Simple as that.
I'm going to reiterate here, because I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly enough: if you go into business and you need open source libraries to succeed and it turns out one of those libraries is licensed under GPL and it's unacceptable to you to use it then it's your failure and you shouldn't blame GPL. It's you who failed to do proper research, it's you who failed to deliver.
I really don't get it. What it all comes down to is: There's stuff created by someone and you can't afford it: why get so resentful? @mott555, if the author of that PNG library said "ok, you can use it for five hundred million billion dollars" would it be acceptable to you? Or forget such stupid price, just imagine the pricing is so steep your company can't accept it. If you simply couldn't afford this stuff with money instead of ideals?
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
We can call it "unethical", if you like that word better.
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
Who said it was? Being an asshole is universal across all industries and types of software. Plus, as evidenced in the Raymond Chen vs SO thread, we also don't look kindly upon people who can't write their own damn business logic. Scorn and mockery are not specific to open-source.
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it's really ever the case that the only library you can find to do some important thing is GPL-licenced with an unavailable author, don't blame the GPL for the resulting difficulty. Blame the inherent susceptibility of the closed-source commercial software ecosystem to market failure.
Nice. So it's closed-source's fault when open-source projects fail.
Nope. It's closed source software's failure when it can't succeed without a GPL-licensed library.
Simple as that.
I'm going to reiterate here, because I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly enough: if you go into business and you need open source libraries to succeed and it turns out one of those libraries is licensed under GPL and it's unacceptable to you to use it then it's your failure and you shouldn't blame GPL. It's you who failed to do proper research, it's you who failed to deliver.
I really don't get it. What it all comes down to is: There's stuff created by someone and you can't afford it: why get so resentful? @mott555, if the author of that PNG library said "ok, you can use it for five hundred million billion dollars" would it be acceptable to you? Or forget such stupid price, just imagine the pricing is so steep your company can't accept it. If you simply couldn't afford this stuff with money instead of ideals?
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
I find it assholish to turn down thousands of dollars to get a closed-source compatible license for an otherwise "free" library because of vague ill-defined principles regarding "freedom" and "software controlling users" or whatever. In the end, the users got screwed because of GPL "freedom", even though the GPL proclaims to offer "freedom" to those very users.
-
@ChrisH said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
We can call it "unethical", if you like that word better.
Fuck you, I'm asking a serious question.
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Fuck you, I'm asking a serious question.
Okay. Then what @mott555 said about dumb-ass principles.
-
@Yamikuronue said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
Who said it was?
I'm sure @mott555 did at one point.
-
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it's really ever the case that the only library you can find to do some important thing is GPL-licenced with an unavailable author, don't blame the GPL for the resulting difficulty. Blame the inherent susceptibility of the closed-source commercial software ecosystem to market failure.
Nice. So it's closed-source's fault when open-source projects fail.
Nope. It's closed source software's failure when it can't succeed without a GPL-licensed library.
Simple as that.
I'm going to reiterate here, because I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly enough: if you go into business and you need open source libraries to succeed and it turns out one of those libraries is licensed under GPL and it's unacceptable to you to use it then it's your failure and you shouldn't blame GPL. It's you who failed to do proper research, it's you who failed to deliver.
I really don't get it. What it all comes down to is: There's stuff created by someone and you can't afford it: why get so resentful? @mott555, if the author of that PNG library said "ok, you can use it for five hundred million billion dollars" would it be acceptable to you? Or forget such stupid price, just imagine the pricing is so steep your company can't accept it. If you simply couldn't afford this stuff with money instead of ideals?
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
I find it assholish to turn down thousands of dollars to get a closed-source compatible license for an otherwise "free" library because of vague ill-defined principles regarding "freedom" and "software controlling users" or whatever. In the end, the users got screwed because of GPL "freedom", even though the GPL proclaims to offer "freedom" to those very users.
OK, I see your point. Not necessarily agree, but I get it.
Just to be clear: the assholish part is your users got screwed, not the fact that they turned down thousands of dollars?
-
@kt_ I just scrolled up through this entire thread and read every one of his posts. I can't find such an assertion anywhere.
Are you perhaps falling into the fallacy that calling Person A an asshole while saying nothing about Person B means you must think Person B is totally fine?
-
@lordofduct said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Fuck... what else is unethical?
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html
Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build, and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a 3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four freedoms.
-
@lordofduct said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
- The freedom to redistribute copies of the vehicle so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
You can not redistribute a rebranded Toyota...
Hey, chop shops do it all the time!
Oh, it's illegal? Oops...
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If it's really ever the case that the only library you can find to do some important thing is GPL-licenced with an unavailable author, don't blame the GPL for the resulting difficulty. Blame the inherent susceptibility of the closed-source commercial software ecosystem to market failure.
Nice. So it's closed-source's fault when open-source projects fail.
Nope. It's closed source software's failure when it can't succeed without a GPL-licensed library.
Simple as that.
I'm going to reiterate here, because I'm not sure I expressed myself clearly enough: if you go into business and you need open source libraries to succeed and it turns out one of those libraries is licensed under GPL and it's unacceptable to you to use it then it's your failure and you shouldn't blame GPL. It's you who failed to do proper research, it's you who failed to deliver.
I really don't get it. What it all comes down to is: There's stuff created by someone and you can't afford it: why get so resentful? @mott555, if the author of that PNG library said "ok, you can use it for five hundred million billion dollars" would it be acceptable to you? Or forget such stupid price, just imagine the pricing is so steep your company can't accept it. If you simply couldn't afford this stuff with money instead of ideals?
Why is one type of pricing ok, while the other is "assholish"?
I find it assholish to turn down thousands of dollars to get a closed-source compatible license for an otherwise "free" library because of vague ill-defined principles regarding "freedom" and "software controlling users" or whatever. In the end, the users got screwed because of GPL "freedom", even though the GPL proclaims to offer "freedom" to those very users.
OK, I see your point. Not necessarily agree, but I get it.
Just to be clear: the assholish part is your users got screwed, not the fact that they turned down thousands of dollars?
Yes. 70-year-old county assessors don't know about software or licensing. They just wanted to have software that helped them do their jobs, which we couldn't provide due to a GPL license and the time/budget constraints on our own internal development.
The really silly part is this was Silverlight. Aside from Netflix, Silverlight was pretty much 100% targeted towards closed-source business applications. Licensing anything Silverlight-based as GPL precludes your library from being used in like 99.99% of all Silverlight applications.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@lordofduct said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Fuck... what else is unethical?
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html
Of course. I should have guessed Lord Greybeard and his Circle of Ivory Tower Jerks have this covered.
Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build, and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a 3D printer.
So... pretty much everything in the real world is unethical. Gotcha.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Of course considering you're using the name "wharrgarbl" I'm sure this is just a lazy troll. Still.
[enhancement] "Admin Approval for IPs" registration mode by BenLubar · Pull Request #4882 · NodeBB/NodeBB
add "Admin Approval for IPs", which works like Normal for new users and Admin Approval for sockpuppet accounts
-
@kt_ Because it comes down to "Freedom as we tell you".
-
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@groo said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Me: Okay, I found a library that does most of what we need. Problem is, it's the only one out there for our platform, and it's GPL.
That's your problem, the library's author doesn't owe anything to you.
I agree, but that doesn't mean they need to be an asshole. And it was free money for them.
@Yamikuronue, I think I meant this post.
-
@kt_ Because I am a member of the Developer Super Master Race; therefore my freedom to profit from your work trumps my pleb customers' freedom to tinker with it. Duh.
-
@flabdablet said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ Because I am a member of the Developer Super Master Race; therefore my freedom to profit from your work trumps my pleb customers' freedom to tinker with it. Duh.
Yeah, I can't shake the feeling it goes a bit this way. @mott555 keeps saying that they weren't able to provide a feature because resource constraints and GPL. But to me it seems like he acts like he's entitled to any work done by anyone, as long as he's able to afford it with money and that someone creating something and turning down him and his users is an evil person.
I mean, the whole argument is: we could've done X but Y people refused to let us use their work so we couldn't and so they acted in an assholish manner. On the other hand, if the reason for them turning him down where of another nature (money, obviously) it would be OK and he wouldn't feel offended then.
So if a company created a library but doesn't open source it due to economical reasons and uses it only for internal projects it's all ok, but if someone open sources their work and just refuses him to use it, it's suddenly inherently bad.
I understand that there's a huge difference between world views of both parties. I understand that such a refusal is strange to him. But what bugs me is the holier than thou stance that simply comes from the bewilderment that someone was able to refuse his company's money.
-
@flabdablet actually, on a second thought it's really funny. @mott555 cant accept the fact that someone turned down money,it's like a movie gag: poor man says to the rich guy "although you're so rich, you can't afford any of my work. I appreciate the kind of money you're not even aware it exists." Or something like that. xD
-
@kt_ it does go against freedom if you refuse to allow your software to be used in something that, due to legal or other issues, can't use GPL. If everybody can't modify your work, why not at least let them benefit from it, maybe with links to the open source part so people who are interested can still look at the source code for your part of it
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
But what bugs me is the holier than thou stance that simply comes from the bewilderment that someone was able to refuse his company's money.
That has nothing to do with it.
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
The end-result is, whatever the GPL is attempting to do, who gives a fuck as long as it's harming actual users of actual software? It's clearly a bad idea at that point.
The medical profession has an oath that starts, "First- do no harm". It'd be great is maybe the open source people thought about that.
-
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ it does go against freedom if you refuse to allow your software to be used in something that, due to legal or other issues, can't use GPL. If everybody can't modify your work, why not at least let them benefit from it, maybe with links to the open source part so people who are interested can still look at the source code for your part of it
It goes against what kind of freedom? How defined? It might be it's the greatest trick played by RMS on RMS. It uses this old definition of ownership that goes against his socialist views (or maybe I'm just conflating?): that a work of someone belongs to them and they can do whatever they want with it. They can even refuse some people the right to use, while giving a lot of other people that right for reasons that might seem counterintuitive or simply mad.
Ayn Rand would be proud. :D
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
But what bugs me is the holier than thou stance that simply comes from the bewilderment that someone was able to refuse his company's money.
That has nothing to do with it.
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
The end-result is, whatever the GPL is attempting to do, who gives a fuck as long as it's harming actual users of actual software? It's clearly a bad idea at that point.
The medical profession has an oath that starts, "First- do no harm". It'd be great is maybe the open source people thought about that.
I don't think so. I think that it all comes down to the fact, that the kind of users who'd willingly use this kind of software is not the kind of users its (software's) creator want to use it (the software, still).
It's freakishly funny, if you think about it. :D
-
@kt_ under what definition of freedom is it more free for people to not have access to a feature at all than have access to use it but not modify the code?
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
not the kind of users its (software's) creator want to use it
WOOOO FREEDOM!
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
Some unfree software got one feature less, cry me a river. If you cared about your users you would respect their freedoms.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If you cared about your users you would respect their freedoms.
If your cadre cared about its users, they wouldn't be stuck using broken trash like Git.
-
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
not the kind of users its (software's) creator want to use it
WOOOO FREEDOM!
Yup, sure it is. The most basic one: of the greats to deny everyone he pleases to profit from the creation.
I'd say that what's infuriating and stupid is when people who do not think this way decide to use GPL, because it's the only license they know of or because it's so popular. Then it's sad, because you can't use it because of someone's stupidity. But when there is a work you can't use because its author don't want you to, don't cry "oh noes, they're stupid" because it's you who appears stupid. Cause what's more stupid than anger spawn by inability to cope with reality?
Filed under: vide Windows 10 auto update thread
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
Some unfree software got one feature less, cry me a river. If you cared about your users you would respect their freedoms.
A large portion of our users for that particular product did not pay a dime for it. For many users our product was free. But not open-source.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
Some unfree software got one feature less, cry me a river. If you cared about your users you would respect their freedoms.
Heh, this sounds stupid too.
-
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@lordofduct said in How did you start hating opensource?:
Fuck... what else is unethical?
From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html
Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build, and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a 3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four freedoms.
You're either a troll, or you're sarcastically playing devil's advocate.
-
@mott555 said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@wharrgarbl said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
Some unfree software got one feature less, cry me a river. If you cared about your users you would respect their freedoms.
A large portion of our users for that particular product did not pay a dime for it. For many users our product was free. But not open-source.
Well, I just want to clarify right here: I'm kinda in the middle here. I don't think that anyone's entitled to using a library just because it would be useful (i.e. GPL library i need but I can't use might be disappointing but not infuriating), but not letting someone use it because they don't open source their code and it's somehow "unethical" makes me laugh, too! :D
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
and it's somehow "unethical"
"that guy's an asshole" != "it is unethical to do what he's doing".
I think what's missing here is the sense of social camaraderie between fellow developers. If you're willing to work out an agreement with someone else that benefits you both, you're a team player; if you're not, and stick to your vague principles about "freedom" while implying the other guy is morally deficit for even asking, you're kind of an asshole. Both options are ethical depending on your system of ethics, but one of them has that little extra bit of "screw you" to it.
Declining to work with the other guy for good reasons but sympathizing with his plight anyway would be similarly ethical but less assholish.
-
@Yamikuronue said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
and it's somehow "unethical"
"that guy's an asshole" != "it is unethical to do what he's doing".
I think what's missing here is the sense of social camaraderie between fellow developers. If you're willing to work out an agreement with someone else that benefits you both, you're a team player; if you're not, and stick to your vague principles about "freedom" while implying the other guy is morally deficit for even asking, you're kind of an asshole. Both options are ethical depending on your system of ethics, but one of them has that little extra bit of "screw you" to it.
Declining to work with the other guy for good reasons but sympathizing with his plight anyway would be similarly ethical but less assholish.
I think you misread my post. I actually said that choosing GPL with the belief it prevents people do something "unethical" makes me laugh. ;)
-
@kt_ ah. It wasn't very clear.
Also you referenced ayn rand without a
so I automatically assume your judgement is questionable ;)
-
@Yamikuronue said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ ah. It wasn't very clear.
Sure, sorry for that. I know I do this sometimes. It's just hard to re-read and fix before posting on mobile.
-
@Yamikuronue said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ ah. It wasn't very clear.
Also you referenced ayn rand without a
so I automatically assume your judgement is questionable ;) In this thread I did it to mock, because I don't think RMS appreciates Ayn Rand, but I actually do agree with some of the points she made, so you might still want to assume my judgement is questionable, if that rocks your boat. ;)
-
@lordofduct said in How did you start hating opensource?:
just because you quote someone using unethical in a similar context as you doesn't mean that you (or them) are using the word correctly.
No, using the word to troll is almost certainly correct for this forum.
-
@kt_ said in How did you start hating opensource?:
So if a company created a library but doesn't open source it due to economical reasons and uses it only for internal projects it's all ok, but if someone open sources their work and just refuses him to use it, it's suddenly inherently bad.
@flabdablet nailed it when he called it a market failure. If there were enough demand for such a non-GPL beast, someone would be willing to supply it.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here
And somehow this is the fault of the supplier whose price the product's builders couldn't or wouldn't pay?
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
If your cadre cared about its users, they wouldn't be stuck using broken trash like Git.
But we uses Git because we likes it. The great and powerful Lord Torvalds does cares for us, yes he does! Makes us version control go all fast and precious! Yessssss!
-
@boomzilla said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@flabdablet nailed it
I used the old shoe, if anyone cares
-
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@kt_ under what definition of freedom is it more free for people to not have access to a feature at all than have access to use it but not modify the code?
TDEMSYR.
Seriously, this is so dumb. It's not the author of the GPL stuff who is not giving someone else's users "access to a feature."
I think I have to conclude that this is a pure troll now, because you can't really be making this argument seriously, can you?
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c54c67c4-dfd9-47ea-af95-f57706577f15
-
@boomzilla: That was a good call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQ_Ja02gTY#t=9s
-
@boomzilla Wait, you guys didn't see the first post and think, 'oh look, its @fbmac4728346'?
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
The bewilderment is that he users of the product are the ones who suffered here. Because his company couldn't acquire the library, the feature was canned, the users get a worse product. The money is completely incidental to the WTF.
The end-result is, whatever the GPL is attempting to do, who gives a fuck as long as it's harming actual users of actual software? It's clearly a bad idea at that point."We couldn't deliver the features you wanted because some assholes wouldn't let us use their code" is never a valid excuse. This is not harm caused by the GPL.
-
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
It's the same as the people who claim open source security software is better because they can inspect the source code for backdoors.
I think that's thoroughly been proven wrong in the last few years.
Yes, Heartbleed, Shellshock and POODLE.
Closed-source is much more secure.
January 2016 : 7 Remote Code Execution
February 2016 : 7 Remote Code Execution
March 2016 : 9 Remote Code Execution
April 2016 : 9 Remote Code Execution
May 2016 : 11 Remote Code Execution
June 2016 : 8 Remote Code Execution
-
@TimeBandit said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@blakeyrat said in How did you start hating opensource?:
@Jaloopa said in How did you start hating opensource?:
It's the same as the people who claim open source security software is better because they can inspect the source code for backdoors.
I think that's thoroughly been proven wrong in the last few years.
Yes, Heartbleed, Shellshock and POODLE.
Closed-source is much more secure.
January 2016 : 7 Remote Code Execution
February 2016 : 7 Remote Code Execution
March 2016 : 9 Remote Code Execution
April 2016 : 9 Remote Code Execution
May 2016 : 11 Remote Code Execution
June 2016 : 8 Remote Code ExecutionIt's good this are once per month, this way Windows 10 can auto update.
-
@TimeBandit And you're saying that in all of those months, no linux software has had security patches?
The problem with Heartbleed and the rest wasn't that they were possible: it's that they were massively widespread and assumed to be impossible. Because Linux people are delusional and think their software is secure. Hint: No software is secure.
