>Freetard >Thinks all the code they run is vetted because it's open source >Never actually checks the code >Uses a C compiler they didn't program themselves >Uses an assembly compiler they didn't program themselves. >Uses a CPU they didn't build themselves
How do you know you're truly safe when there's so much happening in your PC without your review and express approval?
If i need to choose between transparency and trusting blindly a company i'd choose transparency of course.
Bentley Gutierrez
"Unity"
Justin Brown
When the fuck did I claim closed-source was better? Are you 8 year old? Putting one thing in question does not mean defending its opposite.
Christian Perez
What's the argument then?
John Torres
Sigh.
>How do you know you're truly safe when there's so much happening in your PC without your review and express approval?
Hudson Nguyen
You're welcome to propose an alternative to
William Rogers
Stating a problem does not mean I'm obligated to present a solution.
Jaxon Jenkins
Then there's nothing to talk about. No one has the time to personally comb every bit of code that they run. We are for the most part trusting groups of academics who write the code and other academics who look through the code to tell us that it's safe.
Jonathan Collins
Take the blue pill faggot.
Isaiah Hall
WELL THEN
ENJOY
YOUR
BOTNET
Noah Jackson
You've yet to provide evidence of any.
Evan Myers
Safety and security are illusions, to be sure.
However the benefit of being able to look at the source code of anything at any time is incredibly valuable to a programmer who sees some feature and thinks "I wonder how they did that" or sees some bug and thinks "I wonder if I can fix that.".
Closed source stunts growth and progress for no reason.
>muh intellectual property
can't take it with you when you're dead.
Join us now and share the software you'll be free hackers.
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my shitpost: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
Benjamin Ramirez
By any chance are you a TempleOS user?
David Ross
You mean a DE that you don't have to use?
Jacob Flores
Ok then choose one: -The source is completely closed so you need to trust blindly in your provider. -The source can be seen by anyone and if your provider does something stupid and someone notices everyone will know.
Windows fanatics often uses the "nothing to hide" argument and the "you're a tinfoil" argument to defent MS's practices, but in any case, who here is the one who should prove that doesn't have anything to hide? we the users/customers or them, the providers of the software we run on our machines?
>he hasnt build his computer from materials in his backyard and plugged in his self made electrical network where he connects to a self made internet equivalent
Logan Kelly
Great jpg there OP, can't we go back to the days when botnet was a network of compromised windows clients, the main purpose of which was to attack a server, which was commonly running linux, begging the question, "why is it easier to take over a hundred thousand windows machines than a single linux machine?".
Eli Hall
Winbaby summer child faggot.
Lincoln Brown
This
Isaac Baker
Impossible.
Jacob Ortiz
But what if the copper in your homemade wires is the botnet?
Oliver Robinson
Is that all in assembly? I don't know how the kernel is developed.
Luke Mitchell
Well I'd like to see you think of a way to make copper a botnet!
Seriously, this might be funny.
Jackson Carter
You can hide nanosensors in the material that relay your fapping habits back to NSA hackers
Angel Watson
In the you forget about the Sup Forums.
Mason Myers
Not saying this cannot happen, however just compare: -on both cases the maintainers of the project are the ones who are in charge of -if the source is closed you depend completely on those maintainers and you need to blindly trust them because there's no way for an interested third party to check the code, you're practically voiding that possibility. -If the source is open you have the maintainers plus potentially any other interested person, you don't have any of the disadvantages of depending only on the main developers and you get all the benefits of being open to be improved and audited by other people.
Look for example at hearthbleed, what happened after the incident? At first it was maintained by just a few people, after that companies that use it started investing on the development of openssl, why? because they can, unlike with the closed source.
Now on the other side there's flash which is closed source. For example google's youtube service used to depend on flash but even with all the discovered vulnerability and having the money they cannot do anything, because adobe was the only owner. Like google, tons of other companies and websites used to depend on that technology but none of them could do anything except trust adobe blindly and without guarantees. At the end what happened with flash? at this moment is even discouraged to use it for anything and all those companies migrated to something where they can participate and whose compatibility doesn't depends only on the original provider.
any thoughts?
Dominic Taylor
Meanwhile DRM is closed source, by adobe still, and mandatory as per the HTML5 standard.
Luis Ward
It still doesn't negate what i said though, in this case is only that module which some services decides to use but now elemental things like playing video doesn't depends on a closed technology which is a big step forward. The problem is still there and my argument is still valid: those services that decides to use that closed source DRM must trust in the company that provides that technology. I'm not against closed source software, i'm just pointing that the source being open has clear advantages for companies and users and that there's hardly any argument with enough weight to negate it's advantages even if post like want's to make it look like it.