7 ms·

This is why free software is necessary. Proprietary software makes you rely on a company to fix everything. It's like driving a car without being able to repla

This is why free software is necessary. Proprietary software makes you rely on a company to fix everything. It's like driving a car without being able to replace a flat tire.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Robin_Message 10y ago
Maybe the law should say 'security patches or open source'?
- chopin 10y ago
  The law should simply put liability on the software, if it is not open source.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  Why do you want the law involved? What we have is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.
pjmlp 10y ago
The CVE database or Open SSL, are good examples how much safer open source actually is.
- pksadiq 10y ago
  > ... are good examples how much safer open source actually is. Sorry, open source never equals free software (most of the time). Though what you said may be true for both. And some day, we will surely know why free software is better than open source. It's only a matter of time. But by the time, it will be late, and out of control.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Free software can be closed source, which is why companies love MIT style licenses.
    - cryptarch 10y ago
      I thought MIT wasn't free software as defined by the FSF? Open source would be the term for that. Free requires end users to receive source, open just allows you to use the source if you have a copy.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        Free software is software that doesn't cost any money, hence it is free.
        lucb1e 10y ago
        Although it is often the case that free software (or libre software, or whatever you want to call it) is available at no cost, the term "free software" generally does not refer to the price but to the given freedoms.
        Karellen 10y ago
        You're confusing free software[0] with freeware[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
      - nailer 10y ago
        Free software is defined by the FSFs list of freedoms and MIT licence certainly provides those freedoms.
        cryptarch 10y ago
        Fair enough, I got hung up on the lack of guarantees to distribute code alongside compiled applications. Would you say compiled MIT programs are still "free software" when they don't come with the source code?
whazor 10y ago
Assuming these hospitals keep updating and do not get stuck at Ubuntu 10.04.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  Anyone can seek help on the open market to support Ubuntu 10.04 forever if they like. You can't go to another company if you don't like the price Microsoft sets for support for Windows XP.
  - pawadu 10y ago
    This comment makes my blood boil. Please ask yourself: 1. why would anybody want to keep 10.04 alive? 2. do you think the type of people who stubbornly continue to use 10.04 would know/care enough about security to seek an alternative source for security patches? edit: should maybe add why this pisses me off: just logged into a production server running 12.04, default install apache and updates _turned off_. the owner looked confused (and slightly bored) when I explained the problem to him.
    - kagamine 10y ago
      I think you missed the point being made by the person you replied to. The only 10.04 install you should encounter exists due to ignorance and not due to upgrade cost as with a non-open OS. XP/Vista/7/8/10 don't get upgraded due to them being proprietary and having a single point of support (concerning OS level exploits). So, 1. because there is a community outside of a major corp who are active, so it isn't a burden on Canonical. 2. yes? see 1. Should any IT professional not have upgraded from 10.04? No. It's free to upgrade, unlike Win which, remember, isn't a single upgrade, licensing is per user.
      - pawadu 10y ago
        You too are missing the point. The same people who didn't upgrade from 10.04 would probably also not take advantage of the Microsofts offer to upgrade to win10 free of charge, because <reasons>. I am so happy that win10 patches are mandatory despite all the whining. In fact, I want them to take it one step further and adopt the ChromeOS update model.
DominikD 10y ago
It wasn't about fixing, it was about upgrading/updating. It takes people and money to upgrade large infrastructures - closed source or open source, doesn't matter. Thinking that irresponsible (or budged-constrained) organizations will somehow have a completely different mindset and or set of priorities when they switch from Windows to open source software is naive.
- unholythree 10y ago
  No it is about fixing, a design flaw allowed this to happen. SMB1 (hopefully) wasn't built thinking EternalBlue would be a fun feature. No one expects perfect software; but this clearly happened because Microsoft's software was broken, the NSA found where, and horded and then lost control of that knowledge. edited: I understand what you mean about people not patching and leaving themselves vulnerable. A lot of pain could have been prevented at that level.
  - philliphaydon 10y ago
    So let's assume this was in Ubuntu, lets say, version Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS (5 years of support), and the NHS decided that it didn't want to upgrade beyond 10.04.4 because some of their stuff broken... Long term support ended in May 2013 for desktop. But Ubuntu patched the bug in March 2017 for all current supported versions of Ubuntu. Then the NHS got his with the bug. How does free / non-microsoft software protect against a shitty decision to not update / upgrade?
    - thomastjeffery 10y ago
      > How does free / non-microsoft software protect against a shitty decision to not update / upgrade? By not bundling upgrades with what is essentially malware, and making them as inconvenient as possible. If I am running Ubuntu 10.04.4, and I hear about serious malware that relies on a security hole that is patched upstream, I have the opportunity to patch it myself, and keep running Ubuntu 10.04.4 as long as I want. That being said, it's disingenuous to compare unpatched Windows 10 with unpatched Ubuntu 10.04. It is totally unreasonable to think you are secure using an unsupported OS, but it is a lot more reasonable to think you are secure running Windows 10 just a couple months out of date.

This is why free software is necessary. Proprietary software makes you rely on a company to fix everything. It's like driving a car without being able to replace a flat tire.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Robin_Message 10y ago

Maybe the law should say 'security patches or open source'?

chopin 10y ago
The law should simply put liability on the software, if it is not open source.
thomastjeffery 10y ago
Why do you want the law involved? What we have is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.

pjmlp 10y ago

The CVE database or Open SSL, are good examples how much safer open source actually is.

pksadiq 10y ago
> ... are good examples how much safer open source actually is. Sorry, open source never equals free software (most of the time). Though what you said may be true for both. And some day, we will surely know why free software is better than open source. It's only a matter of time. But by the time, it will be late, and out of control.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Free software can be closed source, which is why companies love MIT style licenses.
  - cryptarch 10y ago
    I thought MIT wasn't free software as defined by the FSF? Open source would be the term for that. Free requires end users to receive source, open just allows you to use the source if you have a copy.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Free software is software that doesn't cost any money, hence it is free.
      - lucb1e 10y ago
        Although it is often the case that free software (or libre software, or whatever you want to call it) is available at no cost, the term "free software" generally does not refer to the price but to the given freedoms.
      - Karellen 10y ago
        You're confusing free software[0] with freeware[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
    - nailer 10y ago
      Free software is defined by the FSFs list of freedoms and MIT licence certainly provides those freedoms.
      - cryptarch 10y ago
        Fair enough, I got hung up on the lack of guarantees to distribute code alongside compiled applications. Would you say compiled MIT programs are still "free software" when they don't come with the source code?

whazor 10y ago

Assuming these hospitals keep updating and do not get stuck at Ubuntu 10.04.

EvanAnderson 10y ago
Anyone can seek help on the open market to support Ubuntu 10.04 forever if they like. You can't go to another company if you don't like the price Microsoft sets for support for Windows XP.
- pawadu 10y ago
  This comment makes my blood boil. Please ask yourself: 1. why would anybody want to keep 10.04 alive? 2. do you think the type of people who stubbornly continue to use 10.04 would know/care enough about security to seek an alternative source for security patches? edit: should maybe add why this pisses me off: just logged into a production server running 12.04, default install apache and updates _turned off_. the owner looked confused (and slightly bored) when I explained the problem to him.
  - kagamine 10y ago
    I think you missed the point being made by the person you replied to. The only 10.04 install you should encounter exists due to ignorance and not due to upgrade cost as with a non-open OS. XP/Vista/7/8/10 don't get upgraded due to them being proprietary and having a single point of support (concerning OS level exploits). So, 1. because there is a community outside of a major corp who are active, so it isn't a burden on Canonical. 2. yes? see 1. Should any IT professional not have upgraded from 10.04? No. It's free to upgrade, unlike Win which, remember, isn't a single upgrade, licensing is per user.
    - pawadu 10y ago
      You too are missing the point. The same people who didn't upgrade from 10.04 would probably also not take advantage of the Microsofts offer to upgrade to win10 free of charge, because <reasons>. I am so happy that win10 patches are mandatory despite all the whining. In fact, I want them to take it one step further and adopt the ChromeOS update model.

DominikD 10y ago

It wasn't about fixing, it was about upgrading/updating. It takes people and money to upgrade large infrastructures - closed source or open source, doesn't matter. Thinking that irresponsible (or budged-constrained) organizations will somehow have a completely different mindset and or set of priorities when they switch from Windows to open source software is naive.

unholythree 10y ago
No it is about fixing, a design flaw allowed this to happen. SMB1 (hopefully) wasn't built thinking EternalBlue would be a fun feature. No one expects perfect software; but this clearly happened because Microsoft's software was broken, the NSA found where, and horded and then lost control of that knowledge. edited: I understand what you mean about people not patching and leaving themselves vulnerable. A lot of pain could have been prevented at that level.
- philliphaydon 10y ago
  So let's assume this was in Ubuntu, lets say, version Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS (5 years of support), and the NHS decided that it didn't want to upgrade beyond 10.04.4 because some of their stuff broken... Long term support ended in May 2013 for desktop. But Ubuntu patched the bug in March 2017 for all current supported versions of Ubuntu. Then the NHS got his with the bug. How does free / non-microsoft software protect against a shitty decision to not update / upgrade?
  - thomastjeffery 10y ago
    > How does free / non-microsoft software protect against a shitty decision to not update / upgrade? By not bundling upgrades with what is essentially malware, and making them as inconvenient as possible. If I am running Ubuntu 10.04.4, and I hear about serious malware that relies on a security hole that is patched upstream, I have the opportunity to patch it myself, and keep running Ubuntu 10.04.4 as long as I want. That being said, it's disingenuous to compare unpatched Windows 10 with unpatched Ubuntu 10.04. It is totally unreasonable to think you are secure using an unsupported OS, but it is a lot more reasonable to think you are secure running Windows 10 just a couple months out of date.