2 ms·

Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen. Heartbleed disagrees. Less likely? Arguable. "Can't happen"? Unequivocally false. And besides su

Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen. Heartbleed disagrees. Less likely? Arguable. "Can't happen"? Unequivocally false. And besides such security benefits are gained by having the source visible, not necessarily "free".

cyphar 11y ago
Did you read what I said? I never mentioned security. More secure software is not the goal of free software. The goal is for users to have freedom when using their computers. And it is a simple fact that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of by the software developer and free software doesn't (you can always pay a developer to fix the code without needing to ask the original developer -- this is unique to the free software world). So, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned security, I'm talking about freedom.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  >And it is a simple fact that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of by the software developer and free software doesn't Two (non security, as you mentioned, even though it's brought up continually by apologists) examples off the top of my head: * FileZilla, a GPLed FTP client, had malware added to its installer by Sourceforge at the request of its developers. * Ubuntu, an operating system composed entirely of free software, started sending search data in its UI to third parties without prior notice. If you think it's impossible for the developer to take advantage of you because their software is "free", you simply aren't being imaginative enough.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    In both of those cases, people either created forks or otherwise fixed the software. I recall several scripts people wrote to undo the Ubuntu mishap -- and I'm fairly sure someone made a fork of Ubuntu just to make a point. The point is not that a developer can't do something bad, the developer can't put you in a position where you can't do anything about it. That's what I mean by "take advantage". It's not really taking advantage of a person if they can fix it at any point. Aside: I don't think that security is a good argument for free software, because it's certainly possible to have secure proprietary software (in theory at least). But even if the software is secure, you can't prove that's the case or fix bugs by yourself or release the fixes to everyone.

cyphar 11y ago

Did you read what I said? I never mentioned security. More secure software is not the goal of free software. The goal is for users to have freedom when using their computers. And it is a simple fact that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of by the software developer and free software doesn't (you can always pay a developer to fix the code without needing to ask the original developer -- this is unique to the free software world). So, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned security, I'm talking about freedom.

Karunamon 11y ago
>And it is a simple fact that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of by the software developer and free software doesn't Two (non security, as you mentioned, even though it's brought up continually by apologists) examples off the top of my head: * FileZilla, a GPLed FTP client, had malware added to its installer by Sourceforge at the request of its developers. * Ubuntu, an operating system composed entirely of free software, started sending search data in its UI to third parties without prior notice. If you think it's impossible for the developer to take advantage of you because their software is "free", you simply aren't being imaginative enough.
- cyphar 11y ago
  In both of those cases, people either created forks or otherwise fixed the software. I recall several scripts people wrote to undo the Ubuntu mishap -- and I'm fairly sure someone made a fork of Ubuntu just to make a point. The point is not that a developer can't do something bad, the developer can't put you in a position where you can't do anything about it. That's what I mean by "take advantage". It's not really taking advantage of a person if they can fix it at any point. Aside: I don't think that security is a good argument for free software, because it's certainly possible to have secure proprietary software (in theory at least). But even if the software is secure, you can't prove that's the case or fix bugs by yourself or release the fixes to everyone.