5 ms·

Squid is vastly under-equipped to deal with the security hygiene needed for a project this important. That's the tragedy of the open source world : mission cri

by luch 7y ago

Squid is vastly under-equipped to deal with the security hygiene needed for a project this important. That's the tragedy of the open source world : mission critical for everyone, but no actor willing to maintain it properly. It's Heartbleed all over again.

jacobush 7y ago
Upvoted, but not sure it's a tragedy. Much like that quote about democracy, it's a bad system, except the others are worse. Would be nice to have something better tho.
- ijpsud 7y ago
  > the others are worse I think we need more experimentation with solutions to the (open-source) public goods problem before we can say that the others are worse. Ditto with experimentation on variants of democracy. Significantly harder to experiment with that than with open source funding though.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Open source is pretty successful if you include the plethora of knowledge it provides to new developers. It is difficult to quantify and it is symptomatic that there is litte prestige in commiting to any open source project. I don't really get the democracy comment.
  - wolco 7y ago
    I would think experimenting with variants of democracy would be a more frequent event. Consider the small scale class president or family voting for a movie.
3pt14159 7y ago
I keep thinking we need some sort of new license for open source that limits which entities can use the software based on their net worth or the networth of their shareholders. That way large companies like Google can automatically fund these long tail of projects without burdening casual hackers or startups with unnecessary costs.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I keep thinking we need some sort of new license for open source that limits which entities can use the software based on their net worth or the networth of their shareholders. That might be a new license, but it is by definition not open source. And, no, companies like Google won't “automatically” buy commercial software with that style of license; from their perspective it's worse than regular commercial software since it has all the downsides of traditional commercial software plus gives a competitive advantage to upstart competitors. EDIT: How about instead a “new” license that, if you feel the software isn't maintained adequately for the needs of your organization, allows you to hire whoever you want to maintain it to your requirements, instead of impotently raging that other people aren't supporting it?
  - coding123 7y ago
    This is totally incorrect about the licensing models of open source.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      I can only guess what you might think is wrong, but if you think it is the description of the proposed license as not-open-source, I would direct you to paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Open Source Definition. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Hey, try not insulting people that are trying to have a reasonable conversation. > EDIT: How about instead a “new” license that, if you feel the software isn't maintained adequately for the needs of your organization, allows you to hire whoever you want to maintain it to your requirements, instead of impotently raging that other people aren't supporting it? It makes sense for the people that are getting the most profit from a piece of software to be the ones paying for basic maintenance/cleanup/improvements. If you want customizations or new features, that's when it makes the most sense to 100% self-fund. > it has all the downsides of traditional commercial software plus gives a competitive advantage to upstart competitors On average, I'd expect it to still be a lot cheaper than commercial closed-source software. And what exactly do you mean by competitive advantage here?

by luch 7y ago

jacobush 7y ago

Upvoted, but not sure it's a tragedy. Much like that quote about democracy, it's a bad system, except the others are worse. Would be nice to have something better tho.

ijpsud 7y ago
> the others are worse I think we need more experimentation with solutions to the (open-source) public goods problem before we can say that the others are worse. Ditto with experimentation on variants of democracy. Significantly harder to experiment with that than with open source funding though.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Open source is pretty successful if you include the plethora of knowledge it provides to new developers. It is difficult to quantify and it is symptomatic that there is litte prestige in commiting to any open source project. I don't really get the democracy comment.
- wolco 7y ago
  I would think experimenting with variants of democracy would be a more frequent event. Consider the small scale class president or family voting for a movie.

3pt14159 7y ago

I keep thinking we need some sort of new license for open source that limits which entities can use the software based on their net worth or the networth of their shareholders. That way large companies like Google can automatically fund these long tail of projects without burdening casual hackers or startups with unnecessary costs.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> I keep thinking we need some sort of new license for open source that limits which entities can use the software based on their net worth or the networth of their shareholders. That might be a new license, but it is by definition not open source. And, no, companies like Google won't “automatically” buy commercial software with that style of license; from their perspective it's worse than regular commercial software since it has all the downsides of traditional commercial software plus gives a competitive advantage to upstart competitors. EDIT: How about instead a “new” license that, if you feel the software isn't maintained adequately for the needs of your organization, allows you to hire whoever you want to maintain it to your requirements, instead of impotently raging that other people aren't supporting it?
- coding123 7y ago
  This is totally incorrect about the licensing models of open source.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    I can only guess what you might think is wrong, but if you think it is the description of the proposed license as not-open-source, I would direct you to paragraphs 5 & 6 of the Open Source Definition. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Hey, try not insulting people that are trying to have a reasonable conversation. > EDIT: How about instead a “new” license that, if you feel the software isn't maintained adequately for the needs of your organization, allows you to hire whoever you want to maintain it to your requirements, instead of impotently raging that other people aren't supporting it? It makes sense for the people that are getting the most profit from a piece of software to be the ones paying for basic maintenance/cleanup/improvements. If you want customizations or new features, that's when it makes the most sense to 100% self-fund. > it has all the downsides of traditional commercial software plus gives a competitive advantage to upstart competitors On average, I'd expect it to still be a lot cheaper than commercial closed-source software. And what exactly do you mean by competitive advantage here?