3 ms·
You're just trading your trust in a company to a trust in an organization of loosely affiliated individuals. I don't know C, so Linux being open source makes ze
by freehunter 10y ago
You're just trading your trust in a company to a trust in an organization of loosely affiliated individuals. I don't know C, so Linux being open source makes zero difference to me. I couldn't change it if I wanted to. I couldn't inspect it even if I wanted to. I couldn't run it for whatever purpose I want, only for whatever purpose people who know better than me have allowed for. And I can share the software, but the people I share it with will likely have the same limitations as me.
I'm still dependent on Intel providing the drivers for their wifi chips. I'm still dependent on AMD/Nvidia providing drivers for their video cards. I'm still dependent on a lot of non-libre software that I need in order to do my job.
All of your points are important from a theoretical standpoint, but that's based on the idea that the end user actually knows how to do any of that. And those skills are very, very uncommon.
- whyileft 10y agoYou are forgetting that there isn't an incentive for any of the makers of my software to trick or coerce me into doing things I don't want to do. With the profit motive removed free software has less of an incentive to hurt me.
- freehunter 10y agoI didn't forget it, it just wasn't mentioned in the comment I replied to. But if you think open-source gets rid of that issue, I'd like you to look up "Ubuntu Amazon search ads", maybe "systemd vs init", also "pulse audio" just to name a few. Yep, it's possible to get rid of all of these things, but again, only if the user knows how. Which again, isn't a common skill.