6 ms·

This is good. I love Free Software (all my personal projects are released under GPL) but I'm appalled by the terrible quality of software in general (under Fre

This is good. I love Free Software (all my personal projects are released under GPL) but I'm appalled by the terrible quality of software in general (under Free, Open, or other licenses.) Not a day goes by when some bug or breach or crash makes the news, eh? Speaking broadly (and setting aside art) software is either toys or industrial machinery. If you're writing toys (or art) this legislation won't bother you. If you are writing industrial machinery then it behooves you to do it well, and this legislation seems like a very good step in that direction. I mourn for my hobby, but it's worth it to be sidelined in favor of software produced by responsible parties.

orangecat 3y ago
I mourn for my hobby, but it's worth it to be sidelined in favor of software produced by responsible parties. In other words, this will create even more barriers to entry that will further entrench giant companies who have the necessary armies of lawyers and security engineers.
- lijok 3y ago
  It will not. In fact, it might even create jobs and a better ecosystem for developers to work in. Good OSS will become commercial software, which will be upheld to a significantly higher standard.
  - cobertos 3y ago
    No, jobs created will be with the entrenched companies, who will grow their monopoly over the software labor market and make the software ecosystem _worse_. Tackling legislation and compliance requires scale or money (to outsource the compliance work). This WILL add barriers to entry for new companies.
    - lijok 3y ago
      Do you think that perhaps an increased need for compliance officers would create more compliance jobs, thereby creating jobs and reducing the scale and money required to tackle legislation and compliance?
      - cobertos 3y ago
        Existing business will have to pay for those compliance officers, salaried or through outsourced work. It WILL require more scale. There is no reduction here. In absolute terms, less time will be spent writing software and more time will be spent on compliance (which maybe a good thing for traditional, corporate software!). But, it's not something your average open source developer is falling all over themselves to have anything to do with.
      - PixyMisa 3y ago
        Well, it never has in the entire history of humanity, but sure, whatever.
        lijok 3y ago
        So compliance officers don't exist, or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Two-person startups don't have a full-time compliance officer, so who do these economies of scale benefit?
        lijok 3y ago
        That's interesting. Every startup I've ever worked at, the chief compliance officer & mlro was one of the first 2-3 employees to get hired (as far as I can recall).
        cinntaile 3y ago
        Wouldn't it be better if they could instead hire someone that adds actual value as one of their early employees rather than someone they need to fulfill some bureaucratic requirement?
        3y ago
  - cinntaile 3y ago
    Regulatory capture is a well-studied phenomenon.
- carapace 3y ago
  Well, I think that soon most software will be written by machine, in something like Idris or Lean, and merely guided by humans via a linguistic interface. With any luck, within a decade or two, the idea of buggy insecure software will be as anachronistic as baking one's own bread.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
First, I have no idea what you are talking about. Bad open source software has never hurt me, best I can tell. Your claims seem farcical & ladden with over importance. Second, the level of entitlement in display here is revolting. Why do you think you are owed perfection? Why do you imagine that software developers possibly could foresee every possible issue that might arise? How could they project & comprehend every way their library might be misused by another? There's nothing less hackery than those so polarly demanding hard fast answers to alleviate & end the hackerly search for meaning. We must thrive with uncertainty, must learn progress & advance, with eagerness & inquiry; to demand that we have only certain assured things is a sad folly of weak spirits. The ask is impossible; no creatures nor artifice on this earth are so perfect. Thise who are close to the machine know that the fathomless depths of computing rapidly go beyond what any mind might imagine, and it is absurd & pompous, an insistence of those who don't get it at all, to demand everything be perfectly concieved & known. We are still learning so many mysteries of the universe. Demanding that no more mysteries ever be created, demanding only certainty from here on our; that is so far askance from the bravery of what has risen up thise species & what continues to improve it. We flourish by struggle, by going forwards, and letting progress be forever snubbed by fear is the enemy.
- carapace 3y ago
  Your opening paragraph seems so "farcical & ladden with over importance" that I didn't bother to read the rest of your reply. Good day.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  > Bad open source software has never hurt me, best I can tell. You may not think so but here is a likely scenario: Some startup uses an open source library in their app. You install the app. It gathers some information about you. Due to weaknesses in the library, a data breach occurs. Your information is part of that.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Beggars can't be choosers.
coolhand2120 3y ago
I’m guessing you don’t really write anything meaningful if you are able to just call it a hobby and dismiss it. There are among us people like myself who dedicate large percentages of their lives to working on FOSS. I want nothing to do with government regulations and I suspect neither do my millions of users. How would the governments, who have shown they not only know nothing about cybersecurity, but actively work to undermine it all the time, help me with the security of my projects? Nobody can say, because like all else the government does. It is simply theatre to make well meaning busy bodies think the government cares. Meanwhile corrupt politicians in the government will surely further poison the law by figuring out how to enrich themselves by giving preferable treatment to the worst offenders (as usual). I don’t know why people don’t put in their heuristics hat more often when analyzing these things.
- carapace 3y ago
  So government is broken and therefore shipping broken software to "millions of users" is okay?
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Anyone else who makes any kind of product available for public use is held to some standards of responsibility and liability for any harm that it causes. Why should software be any different?

orangecat 3y ago

I mourn for my hobby, but it's worth it to be sidelined in favor of software produced by responsible parties. In other words, this will create even more barriers to entry that will further entrench giant companies who have the necessary armies of lawyers and security engineers.

lijok 3y ago
It will not. In fact, it might even create jobs and a better ecosystem for developers to work in. Good OSS will become commercial software, which will be upheld to a significantly higher standard.
- cobertos 3y ago
  No, jobs created will be with the entrenched companies, who will grow their monopoly over the software labor market and make the software ecosystem _worse_. Tackling legislation and compliance requires scale or money (to outsource the compliance work). This WILL add barriers to entry for new companies.
  - lijok 3y ago
    Do you think that perhaps an increased need for compliance officers would create more compliance jobs, thereby creating jobs and reducing the scale and money required to tackle legislation and compliance?
    - cobertos 3y ago
      Existing business will have to pay for those compliance officers, salaried or through outsourced work. It WILL require more scale. There is no reduction here. In absolute terms, less time will be spent writing software and more time will be spent on compliance (which maybe a good thing for traditional, corporate software!). But, it's not something your average open source developer is falling all over themselves to have anything to do with.
    - PixyMisa 3y ago
      Well, it never has in the entire history of humanity, but sure, whatever.
      - lijok 3y ago
        So compliance officers don't exist, or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Two-person startups don't have a full-time compliance officer, so who do these economies of scale benefit?
        lijok 3y ago
        That's interesting. Every startup I've ever worked at, the chief compliance officer & mlro was one of the first 2-3 employees to get hired (as far as I can recall).
        cinntaile 3y ago
        Wouldn't it be better if they could instead hire someone that adds actual value as one of their early employees rather than someone they need to fulfill some bureaucratic requirement?
        3y ago
- cinntaile 3y ago
  Regulatory capture is a well-studied phenomenon.
carapace 3y ago
Well, I think that soon most software will be written by machine, in something like Idris or Lean, and merely guided by humans via a linguistic interface. With any luck, within a decade or two, the idea of buggy insecure software will be as anachronistic as baking one's own bread.

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

First, I have no idea what you are talking about. Bad open source software has never hurt me, best I can tell. Your claims seem farcical & ladden with over importance. Second, the level of entitlement in display here is revolting. Why do you think you are owed perfection? Why do you imagine that software developers possibly could foresee every possible issue that might arise? How could they project & comprehend every way their library might be misused by another? There's nothing less hackery than those so polarly demanding hard fast answers to alleviate & end the hackerly search for meaning. We must thrive with uncertainty, must learn progress & advance, with eagerness & inquiry; to demand that we have only certain assured things is a sad folly of weak spirits. The ask is impossible; no creatures nor artifice on this earth are so perfect. Thise who are close to the machine know that the fathomless depths of computing rapidly go beyond what any mind might imagine, and it is absurd & pompous, an insistence of those who don't get it at all, to demand everything be perfectly concieved & known. We are still learning so many mysteries of the universe. Demanding that no more mysteries ever be created, demanding only certainty from here on our; that is so far askance from the bravery of what has risen up thise species & what continues to improve it. We flourish by struggle, by going forwards, and letting progress be forever snubbed by fear is the enemy.

carapace 3y ago
Your opening paragraph seems so "farcical & ladden with over importance" that I didn't bother to read the rest of your reply. Good day.
SoftTalker 3y ago
> Bad open source software has never hurt me, best I can tell. You may not think so but here is a likely scenario: Some startup uses an open source library in their app. You install the app. It gathers some information about you. Due to weaknesses in the library, a data breach occurs. Your information is part of that.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Beggars can't be choosers.

coolhand2120 3y ago

I’m guessing you don’t really write anything meaningful if you are able to just call it a hobby and dismiss it. There are among us people like myself who dedicate large percentages of their lives to working on FOSS. I want nothing to do with government regulations and I suspect neither do my millions of users. How would the governments, who have shown they not only know nothing about cybersecurity, but actively work to undermine it all the time, help me with the security of my projects? Nobody can say, because like all else the government does. It is simply theatre to make well meaning busy bodies think the government cares. Meanwhile corrupt politicians in the government will surely further poison the law by figuring out how to enrich themselves by giving preferable treatment to the worst offenders (as usual). I don’t know why people don’t put in their heuristics hat more often when analyzing these things.

carapace 3y ago
So government is broken and therefore shipping broken software to "millions of users" is okay?
SoftTalker 3y ago
Anyone else who makes any kind of product available for public use is held to some standards of responsibility and liability for any harm that it causes. Why should software be any different?