4 ms·
As with many good things, it comes at a price. Windows, back in the day, was both buggy and full of security holes. It was also $99, and enabled an inexpensiv
by AnimalMuppet 3y ago
As with many good things, it comes at a price.
Windows, back in the day, was both buggy and full of security holes. It was also $99, and enabled an inexpensive computer to do near-workstation feats. If it cost, say, three times as much, that would have changed the market dynamic quite a bit. Fewer of us would have been able to afford computers with Windows, and few of us wanted bare-metal computers.
Well, you say, that's just fine, we could have put Linux on it, and the world would have been a better place. Well, could you have put Linux on it? Can Linux survive in this regulatory environment? Can it survive as open as it is, as modifiable as it is, as free as it is? What about the rest of free software, that doesn't necessarily have a large company behind it?
The second-order effects of this could completely change the software landscape. We may not like the results.
- phoehne 3y agoYou'll have a blessed version of Linux from IBM/RedHat that specifically meets USC x.y.z requirements for use in a, b, and c industries. You'll have a supported version of Postgres, etc. etc. They'll be a version or two behind and everything else we might have to add riders on the licenses like 'not for use in the following industries' or 'for demonstration and education purposes only.' Given that everything's getting either a WiFi or bluetooth chip in it, could we see coffee makers that are not approved for use in a commercial, health-care, industrial, or business setting?
- red-iron-pine 3y agoI mean Redhat is already FIPS compliant, and there are things like CMMC.
- pipo234 3y agoAll for curation of components, as part of developing reliable, secure, resilient software. I just don't think you gain a lot of reliability, security or resilience by mandating a concrete&steel OS foundation. For sure, a shoddy, insecure, duck-tape application on some homebrew Linux can be ported RedHat just fine. There is nothing preventing insecure use of "Military Grade" AES256 encryption. You just can't certify your way to resilient software.
- phoehne 3y agoNo, but this will largely target producers of software. So they'll have to show they've done their due diligence by probably producing documentation about procedures they followed, designs, conformance to the designs, procedures for on-boarding dependencies, etc. etc. That's no their real shield, however. That's the insurance policy they buy from Lloyd's, who will require that they check all the boxes. They way I won't get sued, as a developer, will probably be to work for a big company that can afford all that or add clauses to my license stating it's either 'for demonstration purposes only' or 'no licensed for use under ...'. Kind of how a lot of financial information is doled out with the disclaimer it's [sic] only for entertainment purposes.
- c0pium 3y agoYou’re ignoring the safer futures that were choked off by allowing developers to totally ignore safety and security. People are smart, they would have figured out really solid mechanisms that gave you great software that’s actually safe. Look at any of the fields that deserve to use the word engineering for examples.